Pakistan Case LawLatest 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. Akhtar Sultana vs Major Muzaffar Khan Malik (deceased) through his2021 PLD Supreme Court 715, 2021 P SC 1278, 2021 SCP 158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment maintaining concurrent findings regarding the inheritance of property. The core legal questions concerned the validity of a disputed Power of Attorney, the admissibility of foreign documents to rebut the statutory presumption of death, and the court's power to grant relief not explicitly prayed for. The Supreme Court held that the Petitioner failed to prove the execution or loss of the original Power of Attorney, rendering secondary evidence inadmissible. Furthermore, the Court ruled that foreign documents were inadmissible for failing to comply with the certification requirements of Article 89(5) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Consequently, the statutory presumption of death under Article 124 was not rebutted, and the Respondents' suit was not time-barred. The Court affirmed that under Order VII, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, courts may grant effective relief based on the substance of the pleadings, even if not specifically prayed for. The principle established is that a Power of Attorney must be strictly construed, and secondary evidence of public documents requires strict adherence to statutory certification.
Questions settled- Can a court grant relief not specifically prayed for in the plaint?
- Does a registered Power of Attorney remain a public document if its execution is disputed?
- What are the requirements for the admissibility of foreign public documents under the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
- Does the presumption of death under Article 124 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 establish the specific date of death?
- Can an objection regarding the mode of proof be raised at any stage of the proceedings?
- Mst. Akhtar Sultana vs Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal2021 PLD Supreme Court 715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the dismissal of a revision petition concerning the inheritance of property. The core legal questions involved the validity of a power of attorney, the resulting sale and gift transactions, and the application of the statutory presumption of death regarding the property owner, Bashir Khan Malik. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the power of attorney was invalid as it lacked express authority to alienate property and was not properly proved. The Court held that when the execution of a registered document is disputed, it loses its status as a "public document" and must be proved as a private document. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that foreign documents are inadmissible without the specific certification required by Article 89(5) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Finally, the Court clarified that while Article 124 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 creates a presumption of death for a missing person, it does not establish the date of death, which must be proved by positive evidence. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a general power of attorney automatically confer the power to alienate or dispose of the principal's property?
- When a registered document's execution is disputed, does it retain its status as a "public document" for evidentiary purposes?
- What are the mandatory requirements for the admissibility of foreign public documents under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
- Does the statutory presumption of death under Article 124 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 establish the specific date of death of a missing person?
- Mst. Abida Khanum and another vs Sarfaraz and others2021 PLJ Quetta 217, 2021 PLD Balochistan 28 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Abida Begum vs Late Fazlur Rehman and 5 others2021 MLD 1158 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
- Mst Rani Khaskheli vs Province of Sindh & Ors2021 SHC 368 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
- Mst Iqbal Khatoon Abro vs E.D.O Education Larkana and others2021 SHC 1278 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
- MSD Capital Equities (Pvt.) Limited vs The Commissioner (SMD), SECP, Islamabad2021 CLD 920 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2020-02-28Read full judgment →
- Ms.Najeeba & another vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 18 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
- MS. X vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors2021 SCInd 28 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
- Ms. Unaiza Ahmed and another vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2021 LHC 425, 2021 PLD Lahore 387 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-08Read full judgment →
- Ms. Shazia Akbar Ghalzai, etc vs Additional District Judge etc2021 MLD 817, 2021 PLJ Islamabad 110, 2021 IHC 62 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-02Read full judgment →
- Ms. Shahida Begum vs Province of Sindh and 04 others2021 SHC 376 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Headmistress (BPS-17), invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to challenge a notification regarding her transfer and posting, alleging political victimization, harassment, and violation of an existing transfer ban. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a constitutional petition challenging the transfer and posting of a civil servant, given the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction. The court held that matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants, including transfer and posting, fall within the exclusive domain of the Sindh Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 3(2) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973. Consequently, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate such service matters through a writ petition. The petition was dismissed in limine, establishing that service disputes regarding transfers must be agitated before the appropriate service tribunal rather than via constitutional petitions.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to challenge the transfer and posting of a civil servant?
- Do matters relating to transfer and posting fall within the expression 'terms and conditions' of service under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does Section 3(2) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973 give exclusive jurisdiction to the Sindh Service Tribunal in respect of service matters of civil servants?
- Ms. Sara Bibi vs Muhammad Saleem and others2021 PLD Islamabad 236 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two connected Regular First Appeals (R.F.A. Nos.78/2013 and 26/2016) impugning a consolidated judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, Islamabad, which had decreed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell coupled with permanent injunction and a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed. The core legal questions pertained to whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance despite failing to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness, failing to deposit the balance consideration, altering the essential terms of the agreement, and whether subsequent purchasers pendente lite were bound by the doctrine of lis pendens. The Islamabad High Court held that specific performance is an equitable and discretionary remedy, and the plaintiff's failure to deposit the balance sale consideration, coupled with a variance from the original pleadings and inequitable conduct, disentitled him to a decree for specific performance. The Court further held that transfers made during the pendency of a suit are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, rendering them subservient to the final decree. The appeals were allowed, the trial court's decree was set aside, and the suit for specific performance was dismissed with a direction to refund the earnest money.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell is entitled to discretionary relief despite failing to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time?
- Does a material variance between the plaintiff's pleadings and evidence regarding the terms of an agreement disentitle them to specific performance?
- How does the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 affect a property transferred during the pendency of a suit, regardless of the transferee's lack of notice?
- Whether time can be considered of the essence in commercial real estate transactions where property values rise rapidly?
- Ms. Rubina Mir vs The State2021 SHC 992 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-01Read full judgment →
- Ms. Asma Hameed vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 968 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
- Ms Shahnaz Butt vs Islamabad Bar Association through its President, etc2021 [M] C L R 195, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 135, 2021 PLD Islamabad 169, PLJ · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-16Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Zeenia Sam vs Abdul Karim Niazi and others2021 MLD 1983 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-29Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Wieb Rosemarie Dakhan and another vs Shahnawaz Dakhan2021 PLJ Karachi 197 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Tanveer Rafique vs Govt. of the Punjab, etc2021 LHC 4545 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition addresses a grievance regarding bureaucratic delay and the wrongful denial of promotional benefits to a retired Headmistress. The petitioner, having been appointed in 1960 and promoted to BPS-18 in 1992 prior to her retirement in 1996, sought monetary benefits and antedated promotion in light of a judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Departmental Promotion Committee rejected her claim, treating her as a retired civil servant barred by subsequent statutory amendments. The core legal question was whether a civil servant who timely initiated and pursued a claim for promotion while in service could be barred by post-retirement amendments and departmental inaction. The Lahore High Court held that the Departmental Promotion Committee misdirected itself in law and fact by treating a timely-filed claim based on a binding Supreme Court judgment as a fresh, retrospective promotion sought after retirement. The Court laid down that statutory bars against promotions of retired civil servants cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat claims pending due to departmental delay, and that administrative decisions vitiated by material errors of fact and law are open to judicial review.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant who applied for promotional benefits prior to retirement can be denied relief based on statutory bars introduced subsequent to the initiation of the claim?
- Can a Departmental Promotion Committee treat a timely claim for promotional benefits, lodged pursuant to a Supreme Court judgment, as a retrospective promotion sought after retirement?
- Does a mistake of fact by an administrative decision-maker provide a valid ground for interference under judicial review?
- Whether an amendment to the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 regarding the promotion of retired civil servants has retrospective effect?
- Mrs. Samina Mehr-Un-Nisa Mazari vs Public At Large and others2021 CLD 1217, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 913, 2022 PSC 477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed an insolvency petition under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 to be declared insolvent, arraying her institutional creditors, which included corporate banks, as respondents. The trial court, lower appellate court, and the High Court dismissed the petition, interpreting Section 8 of the Act as a bar against any insolvency petition involving corporations or companies. The core legal question was whether Section 8 of the Act bars an insolvency petition filed by a debtor seeking her own insolvency by arraying corporate banks as creditors. The Supreme Court held that Section 8 only bars insolvency petitions presented against a corporation, association, or company, and does not prohibit an individual debtor from filing a petition to be adjudged insolvent merely because corporate creditors are arrayed as respondents. The orders of the lower courts were set aside and the petition was remanded for a decision on merits. The key principle laid down is that Section 8 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 does not restrict an individual debtor from seeking personal insolvency against institutional or corporate creditors.
Questions settled- Whether Section 8 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 bars an insolvency petition filed by a debtor seeking her own insolvency by arraying corporate banks as creditors?
- Does Section 8 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 exempt corporations and companies from being arrayed as respondents in an individual debtor's insolvency petition?
- Can an individual debtor file an insolvency petition to be adjudged insolvent when the creditors are corporate entities?
- Mrs. Sakina Suleman, through Attorney vs Muhammad Arif Janjua, through Attorney2021 CLC 1520 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-24Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Parveen Mehmood vs Thai Airways International2021 SHC 748 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-02Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Nusrat Rasheed and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M_0 Education and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 777, 2021 [M] C L R 532 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Islamabad High Court addresses a cluster of constitutional petitions filed by teachers serving on deputation in the Federal Directorate of Education (F.D.E.) challenging their repatriation orders to their respective parent departments. The core legal questions involve whether deputationists have a vested right to permanent absorption or to continue indefinitely under the wedlock policy, whether an initial selection process is mandatory for deputation, and whether their lien with parent departments terminates upon the issuance of No Objection Certificates for absorption. Dismissing the petitions, the court held that deputation is a temporary administrative arrangement, that a deputationist has no vested right to remain on deputation or demand absorption, and that the wedlock policy or a provisional rule exemption does not override recruitment rules or prevent repatriation. Furthermore, the court ruled that a deputationist's lien remains intact until formal permanent confirmation in the borrowing department, and unauthorized deputation beyond the maximum permissible period creates a wasteful burden on the exchequer.
Questions settled- Does a government servant on deputation acquire a vested right to permanent absorption in the borrowing department upon the issuance of a No Objection Certificate by the parent department?
- Whether a deputationist can claim an indefinite extension of their deputation tenure under the wedlock policy or the proviso to Rule 20A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973?
- Does the lien of a deputationist with their parent department terminate upon the mere initiation of absorption proceedings or is formal confirmation required?
- Can a borrowing department appoint or absorb a deputationist against a post that, under the relevant recruitment rules, is specifically reserved for initial appointment or promotion?
- Mrs. Nusrat Rasheed and another vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Education and 2 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 777 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These writ petitions challenged the repatriation orders issued by the Federal Directorate of Education (FDE) to various deputationist teachers, who sought permanent absorption into the FDE based on the 'wedlock policy' and previously issued No Objection Certificates (NOCs). The core legal question was whether these deputationists acquired a vested right to absorption after serving beyond the maximum five-year deputation period. The Court held that deputationists have no vested right to remain on deputation indefinitely or to be absorbed into the borrowing department. The Court emphasized that deputation is a temporary administrative arrangement, and the wedlock policy cannot override statutory recruitment rules or the necessity of a transparent selection process. The holding established that repatriation is lawful when the borrowing department no longer requires the services or when the maximum deputation period has expired. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a deputationist's lien with their parent department remains intact until they are formally confirmed in the borrowing department, and appointments on deputation to posts reserved for promotion or initial appointment are illegal.
Questions settled- Does a deputationist acquire a vested right to be absorbed into the borrowing department after serving beyond the maximum deputation period?
- Can the 'wedlock policy' be invoked to prevent the repatriation of a deputationist to their parent department?
- Is a selection process mandatory for an appointment on deputation?
- Does a deputationist's lien with their parent department terminate upon the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for absorption?
- Mrs. Farzana Zaidi through her sister and Guardian ad-litim/next friend2021 YLR 330 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Faryal Talpur vs Arslan Taj, Mpa through Provincial Assembly of Sindh2021 PLJ Islamabad 291 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mrs. Farnaz Ahmed through Special Attorney vs Faysal Bank Limited and others2021 CLD 578 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Anjum Ara vs Shabbir A. Halai2021 YLR 1476 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-20Read full judgment →
- Mra Securities Limited vs Commissioner (SMD), SECP, Islamabad2021 CLD 187 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2020-01-01Read full judgment →
- Mr. Saad Ullah; Branch Manager HBL, Jhawarian, Tehsil Shahpur, District2021 ATIR 7 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
- Mr. Muhammad Junaid Farooq vs (1) Government of Sindh (2) Chairman &SCP 2017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These proceedings arose from an application submitted by a practicing lawyer under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, challenging the eligibility and qualifications of the Chairman and Members of the Sindh Public Service Commission, and alleging widespread corruption and mismanagement. The core legal questions pertained to whether the appointed Chairman and Members met the statutory eligibility criteria laid down in the Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 1989, and whether unguided governmental discretion in such appointments requires structuring through rules. The Supreme Court held that while certain members met the statutory requirements, the appointment of Muhammad Hanif Pathan was unlawful as he did not belong to the private sector and lacked the requisite eminence. The Court ruled that the Government must frame rules under Section 10 of the Act to establish a transparent, objective selection mechanism for public service commission appointments. The key principle laid down is that appointments to constitutional bodies like the Public Service Commission must be strictly scrutinized against objective statutory criteria, and unbridled executive discretion must be structured through clear rules to ensure utmost integrity, competence, and transparency.
Questions settled- Whether an appointee from a public sector organization qualifies as a member from the private sector under Section 3(4) of the Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 1989?
- Does the unguided discretion of the Government in appointing the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission require structuring through rules framed under Section 10 of the Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 1989?
- Can the Supreme Court examine the eligibility and qualifications of members of a provincial public service commission under its original jurisdiction pursuant to Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
- Mr. Asadullah & 06 others vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2021 SHC 416 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-07Read full judgment →
- Mr. Abdullah Hanif Prop: Jumani Traders; Karachi vs Commissioner Inland2021 ATIR 21 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mozammil Iqbal vs Deputy Director (HR) Punjab Emergency Service etc2021 LHC 5214, 2022 PLJ Lahore 601 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed against the orders of the Punjab Emergency Service removing the petitioner from service and dismissing his departmental appeal. The petitioner, a regularized Medical Technician, was removed under Rule 4(5) of the Punjab Emergency Service Leave Efficiency & Disciplinary Rules 2007 on allegations of earning three unsatisfactory performance evaluation reports in two consecutive years, alongside allegations of misconduct and negligence spanning several years. The petitioner contended that he was removed without a regular inquiry. The High Court observed that the show-cause notice and removal order went beyond the scope of simple unsatisfactory performance reports and leveled serious allegations of misconduct. Under Rule 7 of the 2007 Rules, allegations of misconduct must be proceeded with under the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006, which mandates a regular inquiry unless specifically dispensed with by the competent authority through recorded reasons. Consequently, the Court set aside the removal orders and reinstated the petitioner without back benefits, allowing the department to initiate de-novo proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a major penalty of removal from service for misconduct be imposed on a regular employee without conducting a regular inquiry?
- Does Rule 4(5) of the Punjab Emergency Service Leave Efficiency & Disciplinary Rules 2007 dispense with the requirement of a regular inquiry under the PEEDA Act 2006?
- Whether the competent authority must record cogent reasons to dispense with a regular inquiry under Section 5(1)(a) of the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006?
- Is a reinstated employee automatically entitled to back benefits if their reinstatement is based on procedural defects rather than the merits of the case?
- Mozammal Abbas vs The State and others2021 P SC (Crl.) 518, 2021 SCMR 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 sought pre-arrest bail for the petitioner in a criminal case involving murder charges. The petitioner failed to appear before the Supreme Court on multiple scheduled dates despite the rejection of his pre-arrest bail by the lower courts. The Court took judicial notice of the widespread failure of law enforcement to apprehend accused persons whose pre-arrest bail applications had been dismissed by the High Court and Sessions Courts, noting that hundreds of such individuals remained at large. The Court expressed concern over the apparent laxity or external pressure influencing police performance in executing lawful arrests. Emphasizing that the police must operate independently to maintain law and order and protect the community, the Court directed the Additional Inspector General of Police to ensure the apprehension of all such absconding accused and submit a progress report. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petitioner's bail petition for non-prosecution due to his persistent absence.
Questions settled- Does the persistent absence of a petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail warrant dismissal of the petition for non-prosecution?
- What is the constitutional obligation of the police regarding the arrest of accused persons whose pre-arrest bail applications have been rejected by courts?
- Can the Supreme Court take judicial notice of the failure of law enforcement agencies to apprehend accused persons whose bail has been refused?
- Moviebox Magastores International Limited vs Presiding Officer, Intellectual2021 PLJ Lahore 122 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Moulvi Mehrab vs The State2021 SHC 1026 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant, charged with committing unnatural lust upon a seven-year-old boy, sought post-arrest bail after being refused by the trial court. The applicant argued innocence, claiming false implication due to a religious dispute, a six-hour delay in the FIR, and a negative DNA report. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, arguing the DNA report was inconclusive and the offense was heinous. The Court observed that the applicant was specifically named in the FIR, and medical examination corroborated the victim's pain and swelling in the anal region. The Court held that it would be premature to accept the plea of false implication, noting that no one would typically involve an innocent person in such a sensitive case at the cost of the victim's honor. The Court further ruled that the inconclusive DNA report did not support the applicant's case, and the six-hour delay in the FIR was not fatal. Finding reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty, the Court dismissed the bail application and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Questions settled- Does an inconclusive DNA report entitle an accused to bail on the grounds of further enquiry?
- Is a six-hour delay in the registration of an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case in matters involving sexual offenses against minors?
- Can an accused be granted bail when there are reasonable grounds to believe they are guilty of the charged offense?
- Moulana Aziz-ul-Haque Shouqi vs Government of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 188 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
- Moula Bux and 5 others vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Board of Revenue Hyderabad and 6 others2021 MLD 1591 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-25Read full judgment →
- Moula Bux alias Mouli vs The State2021 YLR 1911 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(c) and Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to 25 years and 7 years rigorous imprisonment respectively for the murder and burning of a seven-year-old girl. The core legal questions involved the legality and sustainability of the trial court judgment due to grave procedural and substantive irregularities, including failure to answer or frame a point for determination regarding a charge under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, and failure to record reasons under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for awarding a lesser sentence instead of the normal penalty of death. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court's judgment suffered from fatal incurable irregularities and mechanical application of sentencing without fulfilling mandatory statutory requirements. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court for a fresh judgment after hearing the parties. The key principle laid down is that when a court awards a lesser sentence than death for an offence punishable with death, it must mandatorily record reasons justifying the deviation pursuant to Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a trial court to record reasons under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for awarding a lesser sentence than death vitiate the judgment?
- Is a trial court mandated to answer and frame points for determination regarding every charge framed against an accused, including under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- What is the appellate court's recourse when a trial court delivers a defective judgment containing fatal incurable procedural and substantive irregularities?
- Moula Bux alias Mouli vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 883 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mosa Khan vs The State2021 PHC 314 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-24Read full judgment →
- Moran Khan Gabole vs Ali Nawaz Gabole & Others2021 SHC 1244 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-10Read full judgment →
- Mohsin vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 69 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was accused of robbery and causing injuries in FIR No. 471/2018. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the apparent conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence, alongside the evidentiary value of the alleged recoveries. The Court observed that the medical report indicated the injuries sustained by the victims were five to seven days old, which contradicted the prosecution's claim regarding the time of the occurrence. Relying on the principle that a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony warrants the benefit of doubt for the accused even at the bail stage, the Court held that the case required further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court noted that the recovery of the weapon was not corroborated by forensic matching, and the recovery of cash lacked specificity. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's continued incarceration served no useful purpose as he had already joined the investigation.
Questions settled- Does a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage?
- Is further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warranted when medical reports contradict the prosecution's timeline of an occurrence?
- Does the lack of forensic matching for a recovered weapon weaken the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
- Mohsin Raza vs The State2021 MLD 1800 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Mohsin Raza, in a murder case registered under FIR No. 45 of 2020 at Police Station Cantt: Quetta. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail given the discrepancies between the medical evidence and the complainant's version, and the existence of prior enmity between the parties. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting that the post-mortem report did not align with the FIR's allegations of strangulation, as the deceased was a cardiac patient and the cause of death remained to be determined by chemical analysis. Furthermore, the Court observed that the existence of prior civil litigation between the parties raised the possibility of false implication. The key principle laid down is that where reasonable doubt arises regarding an accused's participation in a crime, the benefit of that doubt must be extended to the accused at the bail stage, as there is no legal compulsion to incarcerate an accused merely due to their nomination in an FIR.
Questions settled- Does the mere nomination of an accused in an FIR constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Should the benefit of doubt regarding the medical evidence be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the cause of death remains to be determined by forensic reports?
- Does the existence of prior civil litigation between the parties warrant a consideration of false implication in a criminal case?
- Mohsin Furqan vs National Bank of Pakistan and another2021 SHC 222 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
- Mohsin Ahmad vs Nasreen Irfan and 05 others2021 SHC 1068 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-01Read full judgment →
- Mohsin Ahmad and others vs Nasreen Irfan and others2021 MLD 1877 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-01Read full judgment →
- Mohib Ali vs The State2021 LHC 6729, 2024 YLR 2642, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 365 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the rape and murder of a minor girl. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Sections 302(b), 364-A, and 376(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence—specifically, the testimony of witnesses who claimed to have seen the appellant with the deceased—and a judicial confession. Upon review, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the witnesses had made material, dishonest improvements to their statements during trial to align with the prosecution's narrative, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the court scrutinized the judicial confession, finding it legally flawed due to the magistrate's failure to follow mandatory procedural safeguards, including the failure to ensure the confession was voluntary and the improper handling of the accused while in police custody. Emphasizing that heinousness of an offense does not override the requirement for credible evidence, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether a judicial confession recorded in violation of the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed by the High Court Rules and Orders and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is admissible as a basis for conviction?
- Does the heinous nature of an offense justify a departure from the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt?
- Are witness statements containing material improvements made during trial to strengthen the prosecution's case reliable for conviction?
- What is the legal consequence when a magistrate fails to ensure an accused is removed from police influence before recording a confession?
- Mohan Bheel vs Shahnawaz & Another2021 SHC 256 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Yahya & others vs Govt: of KPK through Secretary Forest &2021 PHC 146, 2022 MLD 21 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-02Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Wajid Murshid and another vs Silk Bank Limited2021 LHC 977 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Umer Khalid vs Government of Punjab etc2021 LHC 2096 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Siddique vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 960 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Salman Khan Baloch vs Syed Mustafa Kamal & others2021 CLC 1564, 2021 SHC 484 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Saleem Khan vs Mohammad Ibrar Ismail and 5 others2021 YLR 1128 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Riaz vs The State, etc2021 IHC 210 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, filed by an accused charged under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997, following the recovery of 1210 grams of heroin. The core legal questions addressed were whether the quantity recovered qualified as a "borderline" case, whether a nine-day delay in transmitting samples for chemical analysis warranted bail, and whether prior criminal involvement without conviction precluded relief. The Court held that the petition should be allowed. It determined that the quantity of 1210 grams fell within the "borderline" criteria, and the failure to transmit samples within the mandatory 72-hour period rendered the case one of "further inquiry." Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the principle that bail should not be withheld as a punishment, and that prior involvement in other cases, absent conviction, does not automatically disentitle an accused from bail. Consequently, the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that this was a tentative assessment for bail purposes only.
Questions settled- Does a delay in transmitting narcotic samples for chemical analysis beyond 72 hours entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Is the recovery of 1210 grams of heroin considered a 'borderline' case for the purpose of granting bail under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997?
- Does the mere involvement of an accused in other criminal cases without conviction disentitle them to the concession of bail?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment for an accused?
- Mohammad Nawab and another vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 759 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gonar Farm Chilas, District Diamer. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail on merits given their direct nomination in a promptly lodged FIR with specific roles of effective firing, and whether the rule of consistency applies when a co-accused has been discharged by the police. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the petitioners are directly implicated in a capital offense falling within the prohibitory clause, that the case of the discharged co-accused is distinguishable, and that the rule of consistency is not absolute and cannot be invoked when an accused is not entitled to bail on merits. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency has a limited scope, is not absolute or inflexible, and cannot be claimed solely to secure bail when the accused is not otherwise entitled to it on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an accused directly nominated in a promptly lodged FIR with a specific role of effective firing is entitled to post-arrest bail for an offense under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the discharge of a co-accused by the police automatically entitle other co-accused persons to bail under the rule of consistency?
- What is the scope and applicability of the principle of consistency in the grant or refusal of bail?
- Mohammad Mashkoor Khan vs The State & another2021 IHC 14 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the alleged dishonest issuance of cheques. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given that the offense under Section 489-F PPC carries a maximum sentence of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court allowed the bail petition, holding that the offense does not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 CrPC, and that the prosecution failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying continued incarceration. The Court affirmed that in non-bailable offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Furthermore, it reiterated that Section 489-F PPC is not a mechanism for debt recovery, which is a matter for civil proceedings under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that courts must avoid presuming dishonest intent at the pre-trial stage to protect the right to a fair trial.
Questions settled- Does the offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized as a mechanism for the recovery of money?
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offenses that do not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mohammad Iqbal vs Mohammad Hussain and 3 others2021 CLC 1282 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-29Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ibrahim Ahmed Saeed son of Saeed Khan, caste Sudhan, r/o2021 SC AJK 74 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Hassan Zaman vs Mst. Bilquees2021 SHC 806 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-29Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Haneef vs Barkat and 2 others2021 YLR 732 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, which acquitted the respondents of charges under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents based on evidentiary contradictions, lack of ownership proof, and absence of specific details regarding the disputed land was justified. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court rightly extended the benefit of the doubt to the respondents. The court reiterated that an acquittal judgment carries a presumption of double innocence and warrants no interference unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse.
Questions settled- Whether an acquittal judgment can be interfered with when it is supported by evidence and suffers from no illegality?
- Does the failure to provide exact dates, times, and boundaries in an illegal dispossession complaint render the case doubtful?
- Whether the presumption of double innocence attached to an acquittal can be set aside lightly?
- Mohammad Fahim vs Mohammad Faiz and 8 others2021 YLR 1608 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-16Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Asif Javed vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Education Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and others2021 SHC 197 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Anwar Ramay and 2 others vs National Bank Of Pakistan2021 CLC 981 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-23Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Akram Bhatti vs Additional District Judge, Attock and 3 others2021 CLC 1405 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent dismissal of an ejectment application filed by the petitioner against respondent No.3 under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, on grounds of default and expiry of tenancy. The lower forums dismissed the application on the assumption that because the property was held to be joint property among siblings following prior civil litigation, the petitioner alone could not maintain an ejectment action. The core legal question was whether a co-owner of a joint property can independently maintain an ejectment petition against a tenant without joining other co-owners. The Lahore High Court held that a co-owner falls within the statutory definition of a landlord and is fully competent to maintain ejectment proceedings and seek eviction of a tenant from joint property without needing the consent or joinder of other co-owners. The court established that a tenant cannot exploit disputes among co-sharers to resist eviction, and filing an ejectment petition based on an oral month-to-month tenancy suffices as notice of termination upon expiry of the tenancy.
Questions settled- Can a co-owner maintain an ejectment application against a tenant of joint property without joining other co-owners?
- Does a tenant have the right to deny the title or rent-collection authority of one co-owner due to internal disputes among co-sharers?
- Does the filing of an ejectment petition serve as sufficient notice for the termination of an oral month-to-month tenancy upon its expiry?
- Is a co-owner competent to seek the eviction of a tenant on the grounds of default and expiry of tenancy under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009?
- Moazzam Ali and 2 others vs Liaqat Ali and 7 others2022 YLR 833 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09Read full judgment →
- Moambar vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary2021 PHC 168, 2022 CLC 1605 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-24Read full judgment →
- Mithal Khan vs The State2021 SHC 130 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Mithal Khan, in relation to a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 109, 337-F(vi), 337-F(i), and 337-H(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that he was not named in the initial F.I.R. and was implicated only through a subsequent statement recorded by the complainant 45 days after the incident. The Court held that the applicant had successfully made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the absence of the applicant's name in the F.I.R., the lack of a specific role assigned to him, and the significant delay in his implication through an additional statement created sufficient grounds for bail. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is implicated solely through a delayed additional statement without specific attribution of a role, the case warrants further inquiry.
Questions settled- Does the implication of an accused person in a further statement recorded 45 days after the F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when they are not named in the initial F.I.R. and no specific role is assigned to them?
- Miss Mahnum Hussain and other vs British Council Pakistan and others2021 CLC 1583, 2021 LHC 7013 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-21Read full judgment →
- Misri vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Boards and Universities and 04 others2021 SHC 1082 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-23Read full judgment →
- Misri Ladhani Ex-Chairperson Balochistan Revenue Authority vs Government Of Balochistan, through Chief Secretary and 3 others2021 PLC 127 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Chairperson of the Balochistan Revenue Authority (BRA) and the subsequent posting of a government officer as Chairperson. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner's services were governed by civil servant rules, whether the competent authority lawfully removed him after disciplinary proceedings under the Balochistan Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Act (BEEDA), 2011, and whether the appointment/posting of the replacement respondent complied with the Balochistan Revenue Authority Act, 2015. The Balochistan High Court held that since the petitioner accepted terms making civil service rules applicable and misused his authority by self-fixing higher salaries, his dismissal through competent authorities was valid. However, the court held that posting a government official as Chairperson without following the mandatory statutory appointment procedure under the 2015 Act was illegal. The court laid down the principle that an authority competent to approve an appointment is equally competent to approve removal, and statutory appointment procedures cannot be bypassed by a simple transfer or posting.
Questions settled- Whether an authority competent to approve an appointment is equally competent to approve the removal of a person from service?
- Can a government official be posted as Chairperson of a statutory authority without following the prescribed statutory appointment procedure?
- Whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated under civil servant efficiency and discipline rules against the head of a statutory body when specific terms incorporate such rules?
- Does an inquiry officer have the authority to dispense with a full-fledged inquiry when allegations are proven through undisputed and unrebutted record?
- Mishal vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2021 IHC 174 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-15Read full judgment →
- Misbah ud Din Zaigham & others vs Federal Investigation Agency & others2021 CLD 906, 2021 LHC 941 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This litigation concerns the legality of notices issued by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) under Section 20(7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, alleging "willful default" under Section 2(g). The court distinguishes between offences under Section 2(g)(ii) and (iii), which are independent and do not require prior civil liability determination, and Section 2(g)(i), which requires a prior determination of civil liability. The core legal question addressed is whether the "determination of civil liability" required for Section 2(g)(i) is satisfied by a trial court decree alone, or if it necessitates the exhaustion of the appellate process. The court held that because an appeal is a continuation of the original suit and a fundamental right, the civil liability is not "established" until the appellate process is concluded. Consequently, criminal proceedings for willful default under Section 2(g)(i) cannot be initiated while an appeal against the civil decree is pending. The principle established is that constitutional rights to due process and dignity require that criminal liability for willful default must await the finality of civil liability through the appellate stage.
Questions settled- Does the offence of willful default under Section 2(g)(i) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 require a prior determination of civil liability?
- Does the determination of civil liability for the purpose of initiating criminal proceedings for willful default include the exhaustion of the appellate process?
- Are offences under Section 2(g)(ii) and (iii) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 independent of the civil liability of default?
- Can criminal proceedings for willful default be initiated while an appeal against a civil decree is pending?
- Misbah Musarrat Jaura vs The State and others2021 P Cr. L J 1648 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged criminal proceedings initiated under Section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against the petitioner following the acquittal of the accused in a prior case. The core legal question was whether proceedings for giving false information could be initiated against a complainant solely based on an acquittal, and whether such action requires a prior show-cause notice. The Court quashed the proceedings, holding that an acquittal under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not equate to the original information being false. The Court established the principle that information provided with a bona fide belief cannot be deemed false merely because it was not proven in court. Furthermore, the police are mandatorily required to issue a show-cause notice to the complainant before initiating proceedings under Section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to provide an opportunity for explanation. The failure to issue such notice, coupled with an unexplained delay of over a year, indicated mala fide intent and rendered the proceedings an abuse of process.
Questions settled- Does an acquittal of an accused under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically render the complainant's original information false under Section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is it mandatory for the police to issue a show-cause notice to a complainant before initiating proceedings under Section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can proceedings under Section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be initiated against a complainant if the information was lodged with a bona fide belief?
- Misbah and another vs Senior Superintendent Of Police, District2022 PLJ AJ&K 38, 2022 PCr. LJ 484 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-12-02Read full judgment →
- Misal Khan and another vs Amjad Khan and another2021 YLR 2153 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellants under sections 324 and 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a shooting incident. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, the impact of an unproved motive, the effect of withholding a key eye-witness, and the validity of forensic evidence and weapon recovery. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that when the prosecution sets up a motive and fails to establish it, the prosecution must suffer the consequences. Furthermore, the unexplained withholding of the primary eye-witness necessitated an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Additionally, the court found the recovery of the weapon unreliable due to the lack of independent witnesses as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and an unexplained one-month delay in submitting forensic samples. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a motive, once set up, entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- What is the legal consequence of the prosecution withholding the best available evidence, such as a key eye-witness?
- Can a forensic report be relied upon when there is an unexplained delay in transmitting the recovered weapon and empties to the laboratory?
- Is a recovery valid when conducted in disregard of the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mirza Shafaat Ali Baig vs Wg. Cdr. (Rtd.) Khurshid Anwar and another2020 YLR 886 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-20Read full judgment →
- Mirza Nadeem Hafeez and another vs K.M.A. Import And Export Company2021 PLD Islamabad 49 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
- Mirza Fakhar Zaman vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1416 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common order disposes of multiple petitions seeking pre-arrest and post-arrest bail arising from an FIR concerning financial crimes involving fake import accounts, money laundering, and illegal foreign exchange remittances. The core legal questions pertain to whether the petitioners demonstrated sufficient grounds for pre-arrest bail, and whether post-arrest bail should be granted based on the rule of consistency and prolonged incarceration without trial conclusion. The court held that the pre-arrest bail petitions must be dismissed as the petitioners were directly implicated in large-scale money laundering and failed to show mala fide, whereas the post-arrest bail petitions should be allowed. The key principles laid down include that pre-arrest bail requires demonstrable mala fide or absence of active complicity in heinous white-collar crimes, while prolonged incarceration coupled with the rule of consistency warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Are accused persons prima facie involved in large-scale money laundering and illegal foreign exchange remittances through fake accounts entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused facing identical allegations have already been granted bail?
- Does prolonged incarceration without the framing of a charge or progress in trial constitute a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Mirza Arshad Mehmood vs The State etc2021 YLR 1839, 2021 LHC 473 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner's criminal appeal against conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was dismissed for non-prosecution along with the issuance of perpetual non-bailable warrants of arrest. The core legal question was whether an appellate court can dismiss a criminal appeal against conviction solely due to the non-prosecution or absence of the appellant. The Lahore High Court held that an appellate court cannot dismiss a criminal appeal against conviction for non-prosecution, and it must instead decide the matter on merits by perusing the record, even if the appellant is a fugitive from law and loses the right of audience. The key principle laid down is that the absence of an appellant or their counsel does not relieve the appellate court from the statutory duty of examining the record and rendering a decision on the merits of the case.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court dismiss a criminal appeal against conviction due to non-prosecution?
- Does the absence of an appellant or their counsel relieve the court from deciding a criminal appeal on merits?
- What is the legal remedy for an appellant whose criminal appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution upon surrender before the appellate court?
- Mirza Anwar Mehmood Baig vs Civil Aviation Authority and another2021 SHC 396 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-07Read full judgment →
- Mirwise vs Mohib-Ur-Rehman, Si/Sho Police Station Saddar, Loralai and2021 P Cr. L J 1032 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal quashment petition challenged the orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application for the transfer of his trial to a juvenile court and for the determination of his age via a medical board. The core legal question was how to determine the age of an accused person claiming to be a juvenile when there is a contradiction between educational certificates and NADRA records. The Balochistan High Court held that NADRA records alone are not conclusive proof of age and that when a controversy exists, the court must conduct a proper inquiry, which includes medical examination where necessary. The court established that under the relevant law, holding an inquiry into the age of an accused person claiming to be a juvenile is a mandatory requirement unless there are strong reasons to dispense with it.
Questions settled- Is NADRA record conclusive proof of an accused person's date of birth in determining juvenile status?
- What is the procedure for the determination of the age of an accused person claiming to be a juvenile?
- Whether holding an inquiry for the determination of age under the Juvenile Justice System Act is mandatory for the court?
- Can a court rely solely on documentary evidence when there is a contradiction regarding the age of an accused person?
- Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue & Others2021 SHC 96 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mirbad Khan (Late) through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Umer and others2021 PHC 86 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
- Miraj Bibi and other vs Akbar Khan2021 PLD Peshawar 159, 2021 PHC 78 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-03Read full judgment →
- Miraj Ali vs Municipal Committee, Gojra, etc2021 [M] C L R 700 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-18Read full judgment →
- Mir Nawaz Mir and 2 others vs Federation Of Pakistan though Secretary2021 YLR 224 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-09-02Read full judgment →
- Mir Nawaz and others vs Federal Government Employees Housing2021 IHC 314 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra Court Appeal challenged a single-judge decision dismissing a writ petition filed by contingent employees of the Federal Government Employees Housing Authority (FGEHA) seeking regularization of their services. The core legal question was whether the High Court has constitutional jurisdiction to entertain a petition for regularization by employees governed by non-statutory rules. The Court held that the appellants were appointed on a contingent basis, and their employment relationship was governed by the principle of 'master and servant,' as the FGEHA service regulations were non-statutory. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appellants had no vested right to regularization, and their grievances were not amenable to the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The principle laid down is that in the absence of a violation of statutory rules, employees governed by non-statutory terms cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction for employment disputes, as their remedy lies before a court of competent jurisdiction for damages, not for reinstatement or regularization. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
Questions settled- Does a contingent employee have a vested right to claim regularization of service?
- Is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 available to employees governed by non-statutory rules?
- Does the principle of 'master and servant' apply to employees of a government-owned organization lacking statutory service rules?
- Can a High Court entertain a writ petition for regularization of services in the absence of a violation of statutory provisions?
- Mir Munawar Ali Talpur vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 974 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad Raza Talpur vs Civil Judge Hyd & anothers2021 SHC 132 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad Ali and others vs Government Of Balochistan, through Chief Secretary and 7 others2021 MLD 1979 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
- Mir Khan and another vs The State2021 SHC 1024 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the applicants seeking pre-arrest bail after it was refused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Badin. The applicants were accused of forming an unlawful assembly and causing minor injuries and insults to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case involving offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, coupled with a delayed FIR and a counter version of the incident. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the interim bail already granted. The Court reasoned that the two-month delay in lodging the FIR, the existence of a counter version requiring trial determination, and the fact that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause collectively established grounds for further inquiry and mala fides, aligning with settled principles regarding pre-arrest bail for non-prohibitory offences.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a delayed FIR combined with a counter version of the incident constitute grounds for further inquiry warranting the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the accused have joined the trial and mala fides on the part of the complainant party are apparent?
- Mir Hassan vs The Province of Sindh & 03 others2021 SHC 394 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-06Read full judgment →
- Mir Dost alias Kiraro and others vs The State2021 YLR 1109 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences imposed by the trial court for triple murder committed on the pretext of "Karo Kari" (honor killing). The appellants sought acquittal based on a compromise deed reached with the legal heirs of the victims. The core legal question was whether this compromise could be accepted to set aside the convictions. The Balochistan High Court held that the compromise was legally deficient, particularly regarding minor legal heirs, as the required Badl-e-Sulh (compensation) had not been deposited, violating the requirements of Section 310, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, the Court ruled that in cases involving honor killings, courts are not mere "post offices" and must exercise judicial discretion to determine the fitness of a compromise rather than accepting it mechanically. Emphasizing that honor killings are gruesome and repulsive, the Court refused to sanction the compromise, dismissed the application for acquittal, and directed the appeal to proceed on its merits. The judgment reaffirms that judicial scrutiny is mandatory for compounding offenses under Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Can a court mechanically accept a compromise in a murder case without exercising judicial discretion?
- Is a compromise valid where the right of Qisas vests in a minor but no Badl-e-Sulh has been deposited?
- Does the court have the authority to refuse a compromise in a case of honor killing?
- Can the right of Qisas be waived on behalf of a minor legal heir?
- Ministry Of Kashmir Affairs And Gilgit Baltistan, Government Of Pakistan2021 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 43 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Ministry Of Finance through Secretary and others vs Syed Afroz Akhtar Rizvi2021 SCMR 1546, 2021 PSC 1570, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a Federal Service Tribunal judgment which directed that a respondent's contractual service (1992–2008) be counted toward his pensionary benefits following his regularization and subsequent retirement in 2016. The core legal question was whether contractual service can be aggregated with regular service to meet the ten-year 'qualifying service' threshold for pension eligibility under the Civil Service Regulations (CSR). The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, holding that eligibility for pension is strictly contingent upon completing the mandatory qualifying period as a regular employee. The Court clarified that while Article 371-A of the CSR allows contractual service exceeding five years to be factored into the calculation of the pension's quantum, it cannot be used to bridge a deficiency in the qualifying service period required for initial eligibility. Since the respondent served only eight years post-regularization, he failed to meet the ten-year threshold. The Court reaffirmed that contractual and regular service periods cannot be aggregated to determine pension entitlement.
- Mihir Cope, etc vs The State of Jharkhand2021 P SC (Crl.) 704 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for murder and other offences arising from a land-related dispute. The core legal question concerns whether the appellants were rightly convicted under Sections 302, 307, 325, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, given the inconsistencies between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that while the prosecution established the appellants' presence, the eyewitness accounts were inconsistent regarding the specific roles of the appellants in the fatal assaults. Furthermore, the medical evidence regarding the nature and number of injuries did not align with the alleged strikes by the appellants. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions for murder and attempted murder, finding the prosecution failed to prove common intention or specific fatal acts beyond reasonable doubt. The Court instead convicted the appellants under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 for voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons, sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The judgment emphasizes that conviction requires specific, credible evidence that aligns with medical findings, rejecting generalized testimony.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when eyewitness testimony regarding the specific acts of the accused is inconsistent with medical evidence?
- Whether common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 can be inferred in the absence of specific evidence proving the role of each accused in the fatal assault?
- Is it permissible to convict an accused under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 when the evidence fails to establish the more serious charges of murder and attempted murder?
- Midhat Hamid and 2 others vs Shaikh Ahmed Hussain and 2 others2021 PLJ Karachi 184 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-25Read full judgment →