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.

• Messrs Jiangsu Dajin Heavy Industry Co. Ltd. through local duly authorized2021 CLC 1931 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Jeeand Coal Company through Managing Partner and others vs Appellate Authority_Secretary, Mines And. Minerals Development Department Quetta and others2021 PLJ Quetta 7 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Izhar Construction (Pvt.) Limited vs Commissioner (Appeals) Pra, Lahore2021 PTD (Trib.) 270 · Appellate Tribunal Punjab Revenue Authority · 2020-01-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Industrial Development Bank Of Pakistan vs Messrs Blossom Towel2022 CLD 143, 2022 [M] CLR 914, 2022 PCTLR 1054 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-10-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Indus Pencil Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs The Commissioner Inland2022 PTD (Trib.) 599, 2022 PCTLR 989 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Imporiant Trader, Lahore vs Auditor, Directorate General Of Pca, Karachi and 3 others2021 PTD (Trib.) 673 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-12-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ihsan & Sons, Karachi vs The Principal Appraiser (R&D) MCC, Appraisement (East) Custom House, Karachi and 2 others2021 PTD (Trib.) 1162 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-10-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ihsan & Sons, Karachi vs The Principal Appraiser (R&D) MCC, (Appraisement-East), Custom House, Karachi and 2 others2021 PTD (Trib.) 1401 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-10-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hussaini Textile Industries and others vs United Bank Limited and another2021 CLD 671 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hussain Mills Limited, Karachi vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-III, Ltu, Karachi2021 PTD (Trib.) 35 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-12-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Honda Atlas Cars (Pakistan) Limited vs Appellate Tribunal, Customs, Excise And Sales Tax and another2021 PTD 1806 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hilal Dyes (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad vs The Commissioner Inland2021 PTD (Trib.) 1249 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-08-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs HBL Stock Fund through Trustee and others vs AdditionalPTCL 2021 CL.67, 2020 PT D 1742 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Hamdaan Enterprises through Proprietor and another vs Collector2021 PTD 1273 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hadi Khan Silk Mills and another vs Government Of Pakistan, through Federal Secretary Finance and 7 others2021 PTD 1842, 2022 PCTLR 627 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs H.S. Enterprises and others vs The Collector Of Customs2021 PTD (Trib.) 449 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-10-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gujranwala Food Industry (Pvt.) Ltd vs Commissioner (Appeals) Pra, Lahore2021 PTD (Trib.) 1003 · Appellate Tribunal Punjab Revenue Authority · 2019-10-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Guinault Sa Pa Orleans Sologne through Authorized Representative2021 YLR 692 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs G.F.S (Global Financial Solution) Builder And Developer through Partner and another vs Province Of Sindh and 11 others2021 MLD 119 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fun Infortainment (Pvt.) Limited/Neo TV through Executive Director2021 CLC 2169 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Frigz Foods Sialkot Cantt vs Commissioner (Appeals) Pra, Lahore2021 PTD (Trib.) 443 · Appellate Tribunal Punjab Revenue Authority · 2020-01-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Focus Entertainment through Authorized Partner vs Messrs2021 CLD 885 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fizza Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Representative vs Messrs Essem Hotels Limited through C.E.O.and others2021 CLD 570 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Federal Bank For Cooperatives, Islamabad vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Companies Zone, Islamabad2021 PTD 1203 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-05
  tax referenceminimum taxspecial law vs general lawstatutory interpretationimplied repealtax exemptionnon-obstante clauseFederal Bank for Cooperatives
  Summary & questions settled

  This tax reference concerns the tax liability of the Federal Bank for Cooperatives under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether Section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which imposes a minimum tax, overrides the specific tax exemption granted to the Bank under Section 38 of the Federal Bank for Cooperatives Act, 1977. The Islamabad High Court held that the Federal Bank for Cooperatives Act, 1977, constitutes a special law designed as a standalone regulatory framework for the Bank, and its specific tax exemption clause prevails over the minimum tax provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Court ruled that the Appellate Tribunal erred in its interpretation. The key principle laid down is that when two special laws conflict, the doctrine of implied repeal is not to be mechanically applied. Instead, courts must discern legislative intent through the purpose and policy of the statutes. Absent explicit legislative language overriding the specific exemption, the earlier special provision remains effective against subsequent general tax provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, override the tax exemption provided under Section 38 of the Federal Bank for Cooperatives Act, 1977?
  • Can the doctrine of implied repeal be mechanically applied to resolve conflicts between two special statutes?
  • How should courts interpret conflicting provisions between two special laws where both contain non-obstante clauses?
  • Does the absence of a provision pari materia to Section 54 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, in the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, indicate a lack of legislative intent to override prior special exemptions?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fazal Cloth Mills Limited vs Messrs Fazal Weaving Mills Limited2021 CLD 182 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-21
  Scheme of Arrangementmerger and amalgamationCompanies Act 2017wholly owned subsidiarypre-merger exemptionshareholder approvalsecured creditors NOC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter before the Lahore High Court involved a petition filed under Sections 279 to 282 of the Companies Act, 2017, seeking sanction of a Scheme of Arrangement for the merger and amalgamation of Messrs Fazal Weaving Mills Limited (Transferor Company) into Messrs Fazal Cloth Mills Limited (Transferee Company). The main issue before the Court was whether the statutory requirements under the Companies Act, 2017 and relevant regulatory guidelines were duly satisfied to sanction the proposed merger scheme. Observing the report of the Chairpersons of the Extraordinary General Meeting, the Court noted that 100% of shareholders unanimously approved the Scheme, and all NOCs from secured creditors were duly obtained. Addressing regulatory concerns, the Court noted that pre-merger notification to the Competition Commission of Pakistan was exempted under Regulation 5(1)(ii) of the Competition (Merger Control) Regulations, 2016 as the Transferor Company was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Transferee Company. Relying on settled precedent, the Court held that shareholders are the best judges of their commercial interests and sanctioned the Scheme as prayed.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-merger approval from the Competition Commission of Pakistan required when a holding company merges with its wholly owned subsidiary under Regulation 5(1)(ii) of the Competition (Merger Control) Regulations, 2016?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court withhold sanction to a Scheme of Arrangement that has been unanimously approved by shareholders?
  • Does the unanimous approval of shareholders at an extraordinary general meeting fulfill the requirement of Section 279(2) of the Companies Act, 2017 for sanctioning a Scheme of Arrangement?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fast Tracks through Sole Proprietor vs Federal Investigation Agency2021 CLC 1160 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-27
  Writ jurisdictionNatural justiceAudi alteram partemPublic procurementArbitrary exercise of powerContractual disputeAdministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the cancellation of a purchase order by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) after the petitioner had successfully supplied generators. The core legal question concerned whether the respondent could unilaterally cancel the contract and withhold payment without providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and whether such action was arbitrary. The Court held that the impugned cancellation was illegal, noting that the goods had been duly received, verified, and entered into the respondents' stock register. The Court emphasized that the principle of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, must be read into all statutes, even where not expressly provided, whenever administrative proceedings affect a person's rights or property. Finding the respondents' actions characterized by mala fide, lack of transparency, and arbitrary exercise of power, the Court set aside the cancellation letter and directed the respondents to release the payment for the supplied goods. This judgment reinforces that administrative authorities cannot bypass fair hearing requirements in contractual matters involving public procurement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of natural justice apply to administrative decisions even when a statute does not explicitly require a hearing?
  • Can an administrative authority unilaterally cancel a purchase order after the goods have been delivered and accepted?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an arbitrary administrative action in a contractual matter involving public procurement?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Farmaceutics International through Proprietor vs Government Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Health Services, Regulation and Coordination and 5 others2021 MLD 1267 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-01-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Exceed Private Limited vs Jamil Ahmed Khan and others2021 CLC 31 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-08-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Emirates Supply Chain Services (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2022 PTD 404 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ejaz Brothers Steel Furnace, Gujranwala vs The Commissioner2021 PTD (Trib.) 202 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-10-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs DJN Corporation, Karachi vs The Directorate General Of Intelligence2021 PTD (Trib.) 418 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Din Capital Limited vs Executive Director, Securities Market Division, Public Offering and Regulated Persons Department, SECP2021 PCTLR 252 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-04-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dewan Sugar Mills Ltd. and others vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 PTD 1007 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dancom Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan Telecommunication2021 PLJ Islamabad 370, 2021 MLD 1642, 2022 [M] CLR 745, 2022 PCTLR 824 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Civil Aviation Authority through Authorized Representative vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue and another2021 PTD 1867 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Choco Traders, Karachi vs The Principal Appraiser (R&D), MCC Of Appraisement-East, Custom House, Karachi and 3 others2021 PTD (Trib.) 1908 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2020-03-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Chhipa Corporation through Partner vs Sui Southern Gas Company2021 PLD Sindh 373 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Cherat Cement Co. Ltd., Nowshera and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and others2021 PLD Supreme Court 327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  review petitionGIDC Act 2015res judicataconstitutionality of statutejudgment in remFederal Consolidated FundPublic Accountsame bench rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of civil review petitions seeking review of the Supreme Court's prior judgment dated 13.08.2020, which upheld the constitutional validity of the Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2015 (GIDC Act, 2015). The petitioners argued multiple grounds including the misapplication of the doctrine of res judicata, non-utilization of collected funds, improper classification of rates, and procedural issues regarding the constitution of the review bench. By a majority of 2:1, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions. The majority held that where a statute is declared intra vires by the apex court, that determination operates in rem and applies uniformly, overriding conflicting lower court decisions on constitutionality and rendering the doctrine of res judicata inapplicable to preserve such conflicts. The court clarified that statutory benefits under Section 8(2) of the Act remain enforceable according to law and extended the time/installments for recovering accrued arrears. In dissent, Shah, J. maintained that review benches must preserve original numeric strength and composition, and voted to recall the direction to recover arrears, apply res judicata to decree-holders, and direct placement of funds in the Public Account.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of res judicata apply to prevent the uniform application of a statute across similarly placed entities when the apex court has declared the statute intra vires the Constitution?
  • Does an unchallenged judgment of a High Court declaring a law unconstitutional remain binding on the parties thereto after the Supreme Court subsequently declares the same law constitutionally valid in separate proceedings?
  • What is the scope and requirement of 'same bench' under Order XXVI Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for hearing review petitions?
  • Whether Cess collected for a specific statutory purpose under a fee-levying enactment forms part of the Federal Consolidated Fund or the Public Account under Article 78 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad vs The Commissioner2021 PTD (Trib.) 1959 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-08-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bronx International, Karachi vs The Deputy Director, Directorate2021 PTD (Trib.) 51 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-11-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Brecast Industries (Pvt.) Limited through Director/Chief Executive2021 CLD 557 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bismillah Agro Industries (Pvt.) Limited through Directors and 22021 CLD 874 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2020-05-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Baz Muhammad & Sons through Chief Executive vs Government Of Balochistan, through Secretary Communication and Works Department, Quetta and 3 others2021 MLD 1344 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-04-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Az Business Linkers vs The Collector, Model Customs Collectorate2021 PTD 853 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Auto Corporation, Karachi vs The Assistant Collector, Group-VII, MCC Of Appraisement-West, Customs House, Karachi and another2022 PTD (Trib.) 64 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Attock Refinery Limited and others vs The Collector Of Sales Tax2021 PTD (Trib.) 1680 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-01
  sales tax referenceshow-cause noticeomission of statutory provisiondefault surchargeSales Tax Act 1990Appellate Tribunal powersprinciples of fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This Sales Tax Reference was filed under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 before the Islamabad High Court against an order of the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad. The primary legal question before the Court was whether a show-cause notice is legally sustainable if it fails to explicitly specify the governing provision, specifically Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The High Court answered in the affirmative, sustaining the validity of the show-cause notice. The Court laid down the principle that the jurisprudence on show-cause notices is governed by principles of fairness; mere omission or misstatement of a statutory provision within a show-cause notice does not invalidate it if the notice clearly communicates the allegations, consequences, and provides a fair opportunity to respond without causing prejudice. Additionally, the Court observed that under Section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, default surcharge is automatic and mandatory upon tax default, whether willful or inadvertent, and the Appellate Tribunal lacks authority to create a window period waiving such surcharge.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of the statutory provision under which a show-cause notice is issued render the notice invalid if the factual allegations and legal consequences are clearly conveyed?
  • Is the application of default surcharge under Section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 automatic in cases of tax non-payment, regardless of whether the default was inadvertent or deliberate?
  • Does the Appellate Tribunal have statutory authority to grant a taxpayer a time window to pay principal tax liability without attracting a default surcharge?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Attock Gen Ltd. Refinery, P.O. Morgah, Rawalpindi through ChiefPTCL 2021 CL. 600, 2021 PTD 1088 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-08-06
  income tax referencepre-commencement expenditureset-off of lossesincome from other sourcestax auditbusiness lossIncome Tax Ordinance 2001
  Summary & questions settled

  This income tax reference arose from an order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which disallowed the applicant's claim to set off pre-commencement business expenses against interest income. The applicant, a company that had not yet commenced business operations, sought to deduct administrative and management expenses as business losses against its interest income. The core legal questions were whether such pre-commencement expenses could be set off against income from other sources and whether the selection of the applicant's tax matter for audit under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was lawful. The Court held that pre-commencement expenditure, as defined in Section 25 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, does not encompass administrative and management expenses. Furthermore, since the company had not commenced business, it could not claim business losses. The Court affirmed that interest income is classified as "Income from other sources" under Section 39, and the applicant failed to establish a legal basis for the claimed set-off. Additionally, the audit selection was deemed lawful. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling against the applicant.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-commencement business expenses be set off against interest income classified as income from other sources?
  • Does the definition of pre-commencement expenditure under the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 include administrative and management expenses?
  • Is the selection of a taxpayer for audit under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 lawful if conducted prior to the 2010 amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ansari Sugar Mills Limited, through Senior Manager and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue and 3 others2021 PTD 1568 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Amtex Ltd. Faisalabad vs The Cir, Rto, Faisalabad2021 PTD (Trib.) 1501 · Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal · 2020-02-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Amk Steel (Pvt.) Ltd., Sheikhupura vs The Collector of Customs2022 PTD (Trib.) 1700 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2022-06-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Amir Jan Oil Mill through Proprietor and another vs National Bank Of Pakistan through Manager2021 CLD 25 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al-Hamd Steel Furnace through attorney vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 PTD 1858 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Al-Ameen Denim Mills (Pvt.) Ltd vs The Commissioner Inland2021 PTD (Trib.) 125 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Akd Analytics (Private) Limited vs Commissioner (Securities Market2021 CLD 336 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2020-02-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ahmed Trading Company, Gujranwala vs The Deputy Director, Director General Of I&I FBR and 3 others2022 PTD (Trib.) 484 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2020-09-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ahmed Enterprises and others vs The Collector Of Customs2021 PT D (Trib.) 1259 · Customs Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Messrs Adamjee Insurance Company Limited through Deputy General2021 PTD 281 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Abdul Hadi Marbles Mines through 2nd Partner vs The Secretary, Mines And Mineral Department, Government Of Baochistan, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 3 others2021 CLC 522 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Abdul Aziz Savul & Co., Karachi vs The Director, Directorate General2022 PTD (Trib.) 639 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2020-01-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Abaseen Ore through Azmat Khan vs Director General (Licensing2021 PLJ Quetta 196, 2021 PLD Balochistan 9 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Aam Developers (Private) Limited vs Federal Board Of Revenue and others2021 PTD 1060 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs A.Q. Customs Agency through Proprietor and others vs Federation2022 PTD 406, PTCL 2022 CL.498 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs a&B Petrol Urunleri Pazarlama through Authorized Attorney vs MV2021 CLD 1049, 2022 PLD Balochistan 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-01-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shahposh Garments, Gujranwala vs The Cir Zone-II, Rto, Gujranwala2022 PTD (Trib.) 187 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2021-06-22Read full judgment →
• Messra Sparco Construction Company vs Province Of Punjab and others2021 CLC 515 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-03Read full judgment →
• Messer Faizan And Brothers vs Assistant Commissioner, SRB, Hyderabad2022 PT D (Trib.) 85 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-09-30Read full judgment →
• Merck Sharp & Dhome Corp vs Hilton Pharma (Private) Limited and anothe2021 LHC 6620, 2022 PLD Lahore 84 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-02Read full judgment →
• Merajuddin vs K.P.T and Ors2021 SHC 205 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Meraj Din and another vs Muhammad Sharif and another2017 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-05
  pre-emptionlimitation periodregistered sale deeddate of execution versus date of registrationphysical possessionnotice of sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal addressed whether the period of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit under Article 10 of the Limitation Act, 1908 commences from the date of execution of the sale deed or from the date of its registration. The respondents purchased the property via a sale deed executed on 8.5.1975 and registered on 26.5.1975. The appellants filed a pre-emption suit on 25.5.1976. The trial court and appellate court decreed the suit, but the High Court dismissed it as time-barred, relying on Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 to reckon limitation from the date of execution. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Article 10 of the Limitation Act bifurcates into physical possession and registration, and where physical possession is not established, limitation starts from the date the instrument of sale is registered. The Court laid down that Section 47 of the Registration Act governs inter partes title transfer and does not curtail or advance a pre-emptor's statutory limitation period, which commences from registration to ensure proper notice of the sale.

  Questions settled

  • Does the period of limitation for a pre-emption suit under Article 10 of the Limitation Act, 1908 begin from the date of execution of the sale deed or the date of its registration?
  • Does Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 operate to curtail the limitation period available to a pre-emptor who is not a party to the sale transaction?
  • Is a mere recital of delivery of possession in a sale deed sufficient proof of physical possession for the purpose of computing limitation in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• MEPCO vs Akaash Jibraeel etc2021 PLJ Lahore 498, 2021 YLR 1821, 2021 LHC 205 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mena Energy DMCC vs Hascol Petroleum Limited2021 SHC 1060, 2022 PLD Sindh 388 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-12
  foreign judgmentexecution of decreeconsent decreemerits of the casereciprocating territoryforeign exchange regulationattachment of assets
  Summary & questions settled

  This execution application was filed under Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to enforce a foreign money decree passed by the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, against a Pakistani company. The judgment debtor objected, arguing the decree was not on the merits of the case under Section 13(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 because it was a consent decree, and that it was unenforceable without State Bank of Pakistan approval under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947. The Court held that the foreign judgment, arising from a contested litigation where liability was previously determined and consent was given to settle the quantum, constituted a judgment on the merits. The Court clarified that a consent decree is not inherently excluded from execution under Section 13(b). Furthermore, the Court ruled that the requirement for regulatory approval for remittance does not bar the execution of a money decree itself, as the decree is enforceable through the attachment of local assets. The Court affirmed the conclusiveness of the foreign judgment and allowed the execution, ordering the attachment of the judgment debtor's assets.

  Questions settled

  • Does a foreign consent decree constitute a judgment given on the merits of the case under Section 13(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a foreign money decree be executed in Pakistan if the underlying settlement agreement requires regulatory approval for remittance of funds abroad?
  • Is a consent decree inherently inexecutable, or can it be enforced through execution proceedings?
  • Does the requirement for State Bank of Pakistan approval for foreign remittances bar the attachment of local assets in execution of a foreign money decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Member (Administration), Federal Board of Revenue etc vs Mian Khan2021 PLJ SC 265, 2021 SCP 154, 2021 PSC 1426, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-26
  compulsory retirementreduction in rankCCTV footageforensic examinationregular inquirydepartmental proceedingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which set aside the major penalties of compulsory retirement and reduction in rank imposed on the respondent, a Customs Havaldar. The respondent had been departmentally proceeded against without a regular inquiry on allegations of receiving a bribe from passengers, based solely on CCTV footage. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the petitioner department dispensed with a regular inquiry and relied entirely on the CCTV footage without obtaining a forensic science laboratory report to verify its authenticity. Applying established precedent, the Court held that in the absence of a forensic examination, audit, or test, it is unsafe to rely on audio or video recordings as evidence due to the ease of tampering and editing. Furthermore, the passengers who allegedly paid the bribe were not associated with the proceedings. Finding no question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can unverified CCTV footage, without a forensic science laboratory report, serve as the sole legal basis to impose a major penalty in departmental proceedings?
  • Is the dispensation of a regular inquiry justified when the primary evidence consists of electronic media that has not undergone forensic audit or verification?
  • Can an audio or video recording be safely relied upon as evidence in a court of law without a forensic examination to rule out editing, doctoring, or tampering?
  Read full judgment →
• Member (Administration), Federal Board Of Revenue and others vs Mian2021 SCMR 1077 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-20
  service appealCCTV footageforensic examinationregular inquirycompulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingspublic servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by the Federal Board of Revenue to assail the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which set aside the penalties of compulsory retirement and subsequent reduction in rank imposed on the respondent, a Customs official. The core legal question was whether a departmental penalty of compulsory retirement could be validly imposed based solely on CCTV footage without conducting a regular inquiry or obtaining a forensic report verifying the authenticity of the footage. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a forensic examination by a laboratory, unverified CCTV footage cannot be considered a legal basis for establishing guilt or dispensing with a regular inquiry, especially when modern technology permits tampering. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that unverified electronic evidence such as CCTV footage requires forensic corroboration before it can be relied upon in disciplinary proceedings against a public servant.

  Questions settled

  • Can unverified CCTV footage serve as a sole legal basis for imposing a major penalty in departmental proceedings without a regular inquiry?
  • Is a forensic report necessary to establish the authenticity of video or CCTV evidence used against a public servant in disciplinary matters?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere under Article 212(3) of the Constitution with a well-reasoned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal when no question of law of public importance is raised?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehtab Ahmed Siddiqui and Others vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 SHC 946 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-11
  quo warrantopublic sector companiescorporate governanceappointment on deputationstatutory qualificationwrit jurisdictionpublic office
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointments of private respondents to senior management positions, including Chief Financial Officer and Head of Internal Audit, within the House Building Finance Company (HBFC). The core legal question was whether these appointments violated the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance Rules 2013) and established recruitment procedures. The Court held that the appointments were illegal, void, and without legal effect, as they were made in direct contravention of the mandatory qualification criteria and selection processes prescribed by the Rules. The Court emphasized that public sector appointments must be conducted through transparent, objective procedures, including public advertisement, to ensure the selection of qualified candidates. It further ruled that internal company manuals or unauthorized deputation practices cannot override statutory governance rules. Consequently, the Court set aside the appointments and directed the initiation of a fresh, lawful selection process within sixty days. The judgment reinforces the principle that the High Court possesses inquisitorial jurisdiction in quo warranto proceedings to ensure public offices are held by individuals meeting the requisite statutory qualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of senior management in a public sector company without public advertisement violates the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance Rules 2013)?
  • Can a public sector company bypass statutory qualification requirements for senior posts through internal manual amendments or deputation?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto to determine the legality of appointments in a public sector company?
  • Is an appointment to a public office valid if it fails to meet the objective selection criteria prescribed by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Rabbani S/o Abdul Shakoor vs Ghulam Haider Baloch and2021 SHC 1224 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Qaisar vs The State and anotherPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 159, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 459, 2021 SCMR 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-17
  dishonoured chequehabitual offendercriminal convictionsentence reductiondocumentary evidencefinancial obligation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, where the petitioner was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment for issuing a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction was sustainable given the reliance on photocopies of the impugned cheque and bank slip, and whether the petitioner was entitled to a reduction in sentence. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, noting that the bank manager had confirmed the issuance and presentation of the cheque, and the Investigating Officer had verified the documents. The Court rejected the petitioner's plea for leniency, emphasizing that the petitioner was a habitual offender with five other pending cases of an identical nature. The holding established that where the issuance of a cheque for a financial obligation is undisputed and verified by banking officials, the conviction is sound, and a history of habitual offending precludes the exercise of judicial discretion to reduce a lawfully awarded sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 be sustained when based on verified photocopies of a dishonoured cheque?
  • Does a history of habitual offending in similar financial crimes preclude the reduction of a sentence?
  • Is the testimony of a bank manager sufficient to establish the dishonour of a cheque in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Idrees vs Khalid Hussain etc2021 LHC 7480 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1673 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-08
  qatl-i-amdbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecriminal appealmurder referencestatement of accusedrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for murder and related offenses under a private complaint. The appellant was sentenced to death for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant contradictions in the testimony of eye-witnesses regarding the specific roles of the accused, the failure to produce a material witness to establish the motive, and the unreliability of the recovery of the weapon. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant. It further clarified that even where an accused admits to the act of killing in a statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, such a statement must be accepted or rejected in its entirety, and the accused is entitled to acquittal if the prosecution's own evidence is insufficient to prove the charge. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the death sentence was not confirmed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted based on a statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the prosecution fails to prove its case?
  • Must a statement of an accused recorded under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during recovery proceedings render the recovery unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehik Kumari alias Nanki Kumari and another vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Home Department and others2021 P Cr. L J 794 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-09
  custody of minorreligious conversionconstitutional petitionright to libertyinter-faith marriagepubertyshelter home
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns competing constitutional petitions regarding the custody of a minor girl, Mehik Kumari (also known as Aleezah), who, despite being Hindu by birth, embraced Islam and married Ali Raza Solangi. Following criminal litigation and her placement in a shelter home by a trial court, the central legal question was whether the girl, having converted to Islam, could be granted custody to her Hindu mother. The Court, after recording the girl's statement in open court, observed that she had attained the age of puberty and expressed a clear desire to reside with her mother. The Court held that there is no prohibition under Islamic law or the law of the land preventing a Muslim woman from residing with her non-Muslim parents. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that constitutional guarantees of life and liberty protect an individual's right to choose their residence. Consequently, the Court ordered the girl's release from the shelter home into her mother's custody, subject to a personal recognizance bond, while leaving disputed questions of fact regarding the marriage and conversion for determination by the appropriate competent forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does Islamic law or the law of Pakistan prohibit a Muslim woman from residing with her non-Muslim parents?
  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the validity of a marriage or conversion in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the act of a Muslim girl residing with her non-Muslim parents ipso facto render her Nikah fasid (void)?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali son of Ghulam Qadir vs The State2021 SHC 254 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtmedical and ocular inconsistencydelay in FIRacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and causing injuries. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt despite an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries. The Sindh High Court held that the two-day delay in filing the FIR reflected consultation and deliberation, and the discrepancies between the medical evidence and the statements of eyewitnesses rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants and ordering their immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the first information report create room for deliberation and consultation?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when material contradictions exist between ocular and medical evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of a conflict regarding the number of injuries sustained as per medical reports versus witness testimonies?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali Rind vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 898 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali Khan, Managing Director Spinghar Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Charbagh, District Swat vs State Bank of Pakistan through its Governor & others2021 PCTLR 1398 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali Khan, Managing Director Spinghar Silk Mills Pvt. Limited2021 CLD 1377 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-13Read full judgment →
• Meer Nawaz alias Meero vs The State2021 LHC 5278 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-22
  DNA evidencechain of custodychance witnessesforensic sciencecapital punishmentcriminal appealacquittalrapemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the rape and murder of a woman and her fetus. The prosecution’s case relied on ocular testimony and DNA forensic reports. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of chance witnesses and the evidentiary value of DNA reports when the chain of custody for forensic samples is compromised. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular witnesses were unreliable and their presence at the scene was not satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, the court found that the prosecution failed to maintain a secure and intact chain of custody for the forensic samples, as evidenced by conflicting records and missing items in the transfer process. Consequently, the court held that DNA evidence, while admissible, cannot sustain a conviction when the integrity of the samples is doubtful. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, establishing the principle that forensic evidence requires strict adherence to chain-of-custody protocols to be admissible and reliable, and that a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to warrant acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on DNA evidence if the chain of custody for the forensic samples is broken or doubtful?
  • Is the testimony of chance witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction without satisfactory explanation of their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the failure to maintain proper protocols in the collection and transmission of forensic samples render DNA reports unreliable?
  • Can a court rely on forensic evidence as the sole basis for conviction in the absence of reliable primary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Meer Kalhoro vs J.M II Sehwan & others2021 SHC 92 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• Meer Hassan Leghari vs The State2021 MLD 1176 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-14
  post-arrest bailmurderspecific roletrial delaybail dismissaltentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications filed by applicants Meer Hassan and Mumtaz Ali, who were charged with murder and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the concession of bail despite being nominated in the FIR with specific roles of firing at the deceased, having previously had their bail applications dismissed on merits, and being responsible for delays in the trial. The Court held that the applicants were not entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision is that where applicants are assigned specific roles of causing fatal firearm injuries, have previously had bail dismissed on merits without challenging that order, and have actively contributed to trial delays through the non-appearance of their counsel, they do not meet the criteria for bail. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a co-accused granted bail due to a lack of active role attribution cannot be used as a precedent for applicants with specific, active roles in the commission of the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of bail to a co-accused with no active role assigned entitle other accused persons with specific roles to bail?
  • Can an accused who is responsible for trial delays through the non-appearance of counsel claim the right to bail on the ground of statutory delay?
  • Is it permissible for an accused to file repeated bail applications without presenting any fresh grounds after an earlier dismissal on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Meena Munawar Khan vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 PTD 407 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-08-17
  import of vintage carscustoms duty exemptionImport Policy Ordertax exemptionvehicle releaseconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction for the release of an imported used Classic Porsche 912 (Model 1966) detained at the Islamabad Dry Port. The core legal question was whether customs authorities could refuse to release a vintage vehicle imported pursuant to an exemption notification (SRO 833(1)/2018 dated 03.07.2018) on the ground that the Import Policy Order restricts the import of vehicles older than three years. The Islamabad High Court allowed the petition, holding that the Federal Government possesses statutory powers to grant exemptions and relaxations under relevant fiscal and trade laws, overriding conflicting general restrictions in the Import Policy Order. The court laid down the principle that statutory tax and duty exemptions issued by the Federal Government for vintage vehicles must be given full effect, and customs authorities cannot withhold release based on procedural gaps or general import restrictions when the specific exemption criteria are met.

  Questions settled

  • Can customs authorities refuse to release a vintage vehicle imported under an exemption notification on the ground that the Import Policy Order restricts vehicles older than three years?
  • Does the Federal Government have the power to relax prohibitions and restrictions under the Import Policy Order through a specific exemption notification?
  • Whether the provisions of Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 override general restrictions contained in the Import Policy Order regarding the import of used vehicles?
  Read full judgment →
• Medical Colleges for Deceptive Marketing Practices: In the matter of vs N/A2021 P C T L R 607 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Medi.Quips (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Authorized Representative vs Government2021 PCTLR 1477, 2021 CLC 1939, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 145 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited, Islamabad through authorized attorneys vs Rizwan Ali2021 IHC 286 · Islamabad High Court
  writ jurisdictionaudi alteram partemworkman definitionindustrial relationswrongful dismissalconcurrent findingsnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged concurrent orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which had reinstated the respondent, a former bank employee, following his dismissal for alleged misconduct. The petitioner bank contended that the respondent was not a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and that the grievance petition was time-barred. The core legal questions concerned the respondent's status as a workman and whether the bank’s dismissal process, which lacked a formal charge sheet or show-cause notice, violated the principle of audi alteram partem. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondent was not a workman or that the NIRC’s findings were erroneous. Emphasizing that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is supervisory rather than appellate, the Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact absent jurisdictional error or misreading of evidence. The Court affirmed that the failure to issue a charge sheet or show-cause notice constituted a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the bank was ordered to reinstate the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to issue a charge sheet or show-cause notice before dismissal violate the principle of audi alteram partem?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by a tribunal in the exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding findings of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs M/s Mushtaq& Company & 02 others2021 LHC 6989, 2022 CLD 261, 2022 PCTLR 417 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited through Manager vs Sharif Corporation, Multan through Partners and 3 others2021 CLD 361 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-13Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited through Manager vs Azhar Hussain and another2021 CLD 679 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-23Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 449 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-19
  double jeopardyautrefois acquitmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidencewithdrawal of complaintcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a police officer. The appellant contended that the trial was void, citing Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, based on the prior withdrawal of a private complaint. The Court held that the principle of double jeopardy does not apply where a previous complaint was withdrawn without a trial on merits; thus, the trial was legally valid. However, on the merits, the Court found the prosecution’s case deficient. The motive remained unproven, the ocular testimony was deemed unreliable due to unexplained delays and contradictions, and the forensic evidence regarding the recovered weapon was inconclusive. Emphasizing that suspicion cannot substitute proof, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, receiving the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a private complaint without a trial on merits constitute an acquittal for the purposes of double jeopardy?
  • Is a trial court authorized to permit the withdrawal of a private complaint in a case triable by a Court of Sessions under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive and the ocular account is inconsistent with medical evidence?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused person constitute conclusive proof of guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Abbas vs State and another2021 YLR 2282, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1124 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-11
  narcotic substancesforensic reportevidentiary valuebenefit of doubtcriminal appealstandard of proofprocedural compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court CNS, Sargodha, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, for the possession of 1050 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether a forensic report failing to detail the full protocols and specific tests applied to the seized narcotics is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt because the Punjab Forensic Science Agency report (Ex.PE) lacked the requisite details of the protocols and tests performed. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court determined that non-compliance with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, renders such reports inconclusive, unreliable, and untrustworthy. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the evidentiary presumption attached to a Government Analyst's report under Section 36(2) of the Act is contingent upon the report meeting statutory standards of transparency and scientific detail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a forensic report failing to specify the full protocols and tests applied to a narcotic sample meet the evidentiary requirements under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is non-compliance with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 sufficient grounds to invalidate a forensic report and acquit the accused?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained if the Government Analyst's report is found to be inconclusive or unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Matloob Ahmed Shafiqui & 06 others vs The President, Zarai Taraqiati Bank2021 SHC 208 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mateen Khan vs The State, etc2021 KLR Criminal Cases 41 · Lahore High Court
  last seen evidencebenefit of doubtidentification paradekidnapping for ransomcriminal appealtainted evidenceanti-terrorismcapital sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants by the Anti-Terrorism Court for kidnapping for ransom and murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt given the reliance on "last seen" evidence, identification parades, and alleged recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt, noting significant evidentiary gaps. Specifically, the court found that the "last seen" witnesses provided statements with an unexplained four-day delay, rendering them unreliable. Furthermore, the identification parade was deemed tainted, and the court reiterated that one tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another. The court emphasized that medical evidence, while confirming the nature of injuries, does not connect an accused to the crime. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and declined to confirm the death sentence. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the benefit of the doubt is a right of the accused, not a matter of grace, and that "last seen" evidence is the weakest form of proof requiring strong corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in recording a witness statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the testimony unreliable?
  • Can one tainted piece of evidence be used to corroborate another piece of tainted evidence?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to connect an accused to the commission of a crime?
  • What is the evidentiary value of 'last seen' evidence in the absence of corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Masveer Ahmed alias Aziz Armed vs Azhar Ali and anotherPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-09-17
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailtrial delayjudicial discretioncriminal procedureexpeditious trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal sought the cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No. 1 by the Peshawar High Court in a case involving offences under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the bail grant, arguing that the High Court's reasoning was unsustainable given the specific evidence, including the recovery of different sets of bullet casings. The Respondent No. 1 contended that he had been on bail for over three years without abusing the concession, that the trial had been significantly delayed without fault on his part, and that the petition was motivated by a desire to pressure him into a compromise regarding a separate criminal matter. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion. The Court held that where an accused has remained on bail for a significant period without misusing the concession or being responsible for trial delays, cancellation of bail is not warranted. The petition was dismissed, with a directive to the Trial Court to ensure the expeditious disposal of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Is the cancellation of bail justified when an accused has remained on bail for a significant period without misusing the concession?
  • Should an appellate court interfere with the discretion exercised by a High Court in granting bail when there is no evidence of misuse of the concession?
  • Does the lack of progress in a trial, where the delay is not attributable to the accused, constitute a ground for refusing the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Masveer Ahmed alias Aziz Ahmed vs Azhar Ali and another2021 SC MR 1476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-09-17
  cancellation of bailpost-arrest bailtrial delayjudicial discretioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner seeking the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Peshawar High Court in a criminal case registered under sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's discretion in granting bail to the respondent should be interfered with, given the petitioner's contention that the respondent's involvement was substantiated by evidence recovered from the crime scene. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order, holding that the respondent had remained on bail for over three and a half years without any allegation of misuse of the concession or responsibility for trial delays. The Court emphasized that the cancellation of bail is an extraordinary measure and is not warranted where the accused has not abused the concession of bail and where the trial has been significantly delayed without fault on the part of the accused. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with a directive to the Trial Court to ensure expeditious disposal of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the discretion exercised by a High Court in granting bail when the accused has remained on bail for a significant period without abusing the concession?
  • Does the absence of trial delay attributable to the accused justify the refusal to cancel bail?
  • Is the cancellation of bail appropriate when there is no evidence that the accused has misused the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Master Motors Corporation (Pvt.) Limited through Attorney/Authorized2021 CLD 838 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-22Read full judgment →