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.

• Master Fazalullah and another vs Mummy and others2022 YLR 941 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-08-30Read full judgment →
• Masood ur Rahman Abbasi vs The State, etc2021 IHC 292, 2022 PCr. LJ 439 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-16
  post-arrest bailcyber crimedefamationfair trialjudicial independenceperception of biasfreedom of speech
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by Masood ur Rahman Abbasi against the State, arising from FIR No. 44 dated 30.06.2021 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Circle, FIA, Islamabad, under sections 500, 505, 506, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sections 10, 11, and 20 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the offences alleged prima facie lacked applicability, the complainant lacked locus standi, and the case involved criticism of the highest judicial officer, which raises concerns regarding due process, fair trial, and judicial impartiality. The Islamabad High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry and that the registration of the offence appeared to be an abuse of the law, emphasizing that to ensure a fair trial and avoid any perception of bias when an offence involves a judicial officer, the concession of bail should be extended. The petition was accordingly allowed, admitting the petitioner to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the offences mentioned in the FIR are prima facie not attracted and the case falls within the scope of further inquiry?
  • Does a criminal case involving allegations or criticism against a judicial officer necessitate the extension of bail to ensure a fair trial and uphold the perception of judicial impartiality?
  • Does a private citizen have the locus standi to file a complaint for person-specific offences allegedly committed against a constitutional office holder without personal injury or defamation suffered by the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Masood Raza Ghazi vs Mst. Anwar Begum2021 PLJ Lahore 510 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-26Read full judgment →
• Masood Khan etc vs Federation of Pakistan etc2021 [M] C L R 1411, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 1540, 2021 LHC 1512, KLR 2022 Civil Cases · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-07
  pro forma promotioncivil servicesuperannuationdepartmental promotion committeelegitimate expectancyjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by former Supervisors of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) seeking to set aside an impugned order denying their promotion and requesting a direction for promotion to Office Superintendent from the date of vacancy. The petitioners argued that during their fifteen years of service, no Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting was convened despite their eligibility and seniority, and they subsequently retired. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution and argued that promotion is not a vested right, especially after retirement. The Lahore High Court held that while the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over terms and conditions of service (eligibility), the question of fitness is subjective. It further held that where a civil servant's right to be considered for promotion is frustrated during service due to departmental slackness or failure to convene a DPC, the civil servant is entitled to be considered for pro forma promotion even after superannuation. The petition was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the respondents directed to reconsider the petitioners for pro forma promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over questions of eligibility for promotion as opposed to questions of fitness?
  • Can a civil servant be granted pro forma promotion after retirement if they were eligible during service but the department failed to convene a DPC?
  • Is administrative delay or failure by a department to amend recruitment rules a valid ground to deny promotion to an eligible civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Masood Jillani etc vs State and another2022 P Cr.L J 26, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1737 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-27
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausedocumentary evidencefurther inquiryconcession of bailfraudulent allotmentpre-trial incarceration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail petitions filed by petitioners accused of fraudulent allotment of plots at the Capital Development Authority (CDA). The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail, given the nature of the offences and the status of the investigation. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, accepting their petitions. The court reasoned that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the investigation was already complete, with evidence being primarily documentary and in the prosecution's possession. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of risk regarding abscondance or tampering with evidence. The key principle laid down is that in non-bailable offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, applicable only in extraordinary circumstances such as risk of abscondance, tampering with evidence, repetition of the offence, or previous conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a rule or an exception?
  • Can bail be denied solely on the grounds of the heinous nature of an offence?
  • Is a confession made to a police officer admissible as evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the fact that a case depends entirely on documentary evidence already in the possession of the prosecution support the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Masood Alam Niazi vs Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Production and another2021 IHC 304 · Islamabad High Court
  writ petition maintainabilitymaster and servant principleservice rulesconstitutional jurisdictionUtility Stores Corporationnon-statutory rulesreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions were filed by employees of the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (USCP) seeking reinstatement and back benefits following their acquittal in criminal proceedings. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition filed by an employee of the USCP regarding terms and conditions of service is maintainable. The court held that the petitions were not maintainable. The ratio of the decision is that the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Service Rules, 1981, were not framed by the Federal Government in exercise of statutory powers but by the Board of Directors of the USCP. Consequently, these rules are non-statutory in nature. The court affirmed that where service terms are not governed by statutory provisions, the relationship between the employer and employee is strictly governed by the principle of 'master and servant.' Therefore, the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 cannot be invoked for individual service grievances, and the petitioners must seek alternative remedies before a court of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable against the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan regarding an employee's terms and conditions of service?
  • Are the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Service Rules, 1981, considered statutory rules?
  • Does the principle of 'master and servant' apply to the employment relationship between the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan and its employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Masood Ahmed Bhatti vs Federation of Pakistan and others2021 SHC 936 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mashooq Ali Rajpar vs Raja Abdul Hameed and another2021 MLD 850 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-04Read full judgment →
• Maryam Begum (aka Ms. Moni) vs Fop through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and another2021 IHC 310 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
• Maryam Begum (Aka Ms. Moni) vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and another2021 MLD 1543 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
• Marriam Bibi and others vs Azhar Iqbal and others2022 LHC 6756, 2022 PLD Lahore 840 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-07Read full judgment →
• Maratab Ali Alvi, Assistant Accounts Officer (34618), Controller Military2021 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 1 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service appealupgradationpremature incrementextra-ordinary leavecompulsory retirementrevised pay slipfederal service tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a retired Assistant Accounts Officer, challenged orders dated 28.12.2016 and 10.3.2017 whereby a premature increment granted consequent to the upgradation of his post from BS-16 to BS-17 was withdrawn following the issuance of a revised pay slip, and his request for an annual increment for 2006 was denied. The core legal question was whether the withdrawal of the premature increment and the denial of the annual increment were lawful given that the appellant had been compulsorily retired and had spent a period on extra-ordinary leave (EOL) without pay and allowances. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the appellant, having been on EOL during the relevant period and having already been compulsorily retired from service, was not entitled to the premature increment granted during that period or to the annual increment, and that the department correctly rectified the inadvertent wrong fixation of pay. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as devoid of force and merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee on extra-ordinary leave without pay is entitled to a premature increment upon the upgradation of their post?
  • Can a government department rectify an inadvertent wrong fixation of pay and withdraw an unauthorized increment?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to an annual increment for a calendar year during which they remained on extra-ordinary leave and were compulsorily retired?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ali vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. & another2021 SHC 98 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 436 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-15
  murder referencebenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidencecriminal appealacquittalcorroborationprosecution burden
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant was sentenced to death by the trial court for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the ocular account, the acquittal of a co-accused with a similar role, and the failure to substantiate the alleged motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The court found the ocular account unreliable due to unexplained delays in reporting the crime, dishonest improvements made by witnesses, and direct conflict with medical evidence regarding the number of injuries. Furthermore, the court applied the principle that if eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding an acquitted co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon against the remaining accused without independent corroboration. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative, establishing that a single circumstance creating doubt is sufficient to warrant acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be relied upon against an accused if the same witnesses were disbelieved regarding an acquitted co-accused with a similar role?
  • Does an unexplained delay in reporting a crime to the police undermine the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Is a single circumstance creating doubt in the prosecution's story sufficient to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  • Must the prosecution prove its case independently without relying on the weaknesses of the defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Hussain Amir, etc vs Controller General Of Accounts, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 610 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-16Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed Mahessar & 2 others vs NAB through its Chairman and others2021 SCMR 1166, 2021 SCP 164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-04
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailNAB referencedeposit of embezzled amountabuse of process of lawconsent orderbarter freedomremand
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard petitions challenging orders of the High Court of Sindh, Sukkur Bench, which granted pre-arrest and post-arrest bails to accused persons in various National Accountability Bureau (NAB) references based on consent and conditional upon depositing the amounts allegedly embezzled. The core issue before the Court was whether bail can be lawfully granted in NAB references in exchange for depositing the allegedly embezzled amounts. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and allowed them, setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the bail petitions back to the High Court for fresh decision on merits. The Court held that conditioning or granting bail in lieu of monetary deposits is ultra vires and amounts to bartering freedom. An accused seeking post-arrest bail must satisfy the legal parameters established in the Talat Ishaq case, while pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary equitable remedy strictly confined to protecting innocent citizens from harassment and abuse of process, as settled in Hidayat Ullah Khan's case, and cannot be granted routinely on consent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court lawfully grant pre-arrest or post-arrest bail to an accused in a NAB reference in lieu of depositing the allegedly embezzled amount?
  • Is a consent-based order directing the deposit of embezzled public funds valid for admitting an accused to bail in NAB proceedings?
  • Under what specific circumstances and legal principles can the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail be extended to an accused facing a cognizable and non-bailable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed and another vs The State2022 YLR 798 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-04
  pre-arrest bailrule of consistencybenefit of doubtfurther inquirymurdervicarious liabilitybail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicants in a case involving murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail despite being nominated in the FIR for a heinous offense. The court held that the applicants were entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the "rule of consistency," as a co-accused with an identical role had previously been granted bail by the same court. The court further held that the mere involvement of an accused in an offense punishable by death does not automatically disentitle them to bail, especially when the case requires further inquiry. It was affirmed that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused even at the bail stage. Consequently, the court admitted the applicants to bail, noting that their guilt or innocence remained to be determined by the trial court after a full recording of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to bail applications where a co-accused with an identical role has already been granted bail?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
  • Does the mere involvement in an offense punishable by death automatically disentitle an accused from the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs The State2021 MLD 1038, 2021 LHC 1189 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-08
  suspension of sentencereduction of surety amountexcessive bailindigent accusedbail bondfundamental right to libertyfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner, convicted of offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code, filed an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking a reduction of the bail bond amount after his sentence was suspended pending appeal. The core legal question was whether the court can reduce a previously fixed surety or bail bond amount when an indigent accused is unable to furnish it due to financial incapacity, thereby frustrating the benefit of bail. The Lahore High Court held that the right to reasonable bail requires that bail amounts not be excessive, harsh, or unreasonable, and must take into account the financial capacity of the accused so as not to defeat the object of granting bail. The Court laid down the principle that once bail is granted, if an accused is genuinely unable to furnish sureties despite best efforts due to impecuniosity, the court may make a reasonable reduction in the surety amount to prevent unnecessary pre-trial or post-conviction incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court can reduce the amount of a bail bond after suspending a convict's sentence if the accused is unable to furnish it due to financial incapacity?
  • Does fixing an excessively high bail bond amount amount to a refusal of bail?
  • What are the key principles and standards a court must consider when determining a reasonable bail or surety amount?
  • Does Section 426(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make any distinction regarding bail bonds between pre-trial release and suspension of sentence after conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1152 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-21
  murder convictiondeath sentence commutationmitigating circumstancesocular evidenceforensic evidenceunproven motivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, alongside a murder reference for the confirmation of said sentence. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and forensic evidence, and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the evidentiary record. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent, reliable eye-witness testimony and corroborating forensic evidence, including the recovery of the weapon and a positive report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and noted that the appellant fired only a single shot, refraining from repeating the fire despite having the opportunity. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, establishing the principle that failure to prove an asserted motive and the non-repetition of injury by an assailant serve as mitigating circumstances justifying the avoidance of the extreme penalty of death.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive justify the commutation of a death sentence?
  • Can the non-repetition of a firearm injury by an assailant be considered a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution witnesses are related to the deceased but remain consistent under cross-examination?
  • Does a positive forensic report matching a recovered weapon to a crime scene empty corroborate ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1111 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-30
  pre-arrest bailcivil litigationproperty disputemala fidecriminal liabilitymutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Maqbool Ahmad, in connection with FIR No. 174/2019 registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The allegations involve a property dispute regarding the possession of a 10-marla plot, which the complainant claims was purchased by her deceased husband, while the petitioner is accused of illegal possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the civil nature of the underlying dispute and the lack of specific allegations of forgery against him. The Court held that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, as evidenced by existing litigation and the status of the mutation, and that the criminal proceedings appeared to be an attempt to resolve a civil possession issue. Consequently, the Court confirmed the petitioner's pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings should not be utilized to settle disputes that are essentially civil in nature, particularly when the matter involves property possession and existing civil litigation, thereby establishing that such cases warrant pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be initiated to resolve a dispute regarding the possession of property that is already the subject of civil litigation?
  • Does the absence of specific allegations of forgery against an accused in an FIR involving property disputes support the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is a case involving a property mutation dispute and possession claims considered a matter for civil courts rather than criminal prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs Manzoor Hussain and 3 others2022 MLD 54 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-26Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad and another vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 644 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-27
  pre-arrest bailconcealment of factsprofessional misconductsuccessive bail applicationcompromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in respect of an offence under Section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 25D of the Telegraph Act 1885. During the proceedings, it was disclosed that the petitioners had obtained confirmation of their pre-arrest bail from the court of first instance during the pendency of the instant petition before the High Court, without disclosing such pendency. The core legal question involved the propriety and legal consequences of filing a second bail application before the lower court during the pendency of a bail petition before the High Court and the concealment of material facts. The Court held that concealment of the pendency of a matter before a superior court constitutes professional misconduct and avoids conflicting judicial orders. However, considering the unconditional apology tendered by the young counsel and that the petitioners were laymen unaware of legal technicalities, the show-cause notices were discharged with a stern warning. Since the pre-arrest bail had already been confirmed by the lower court on the basis of a compromise, the petition was disposed of accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of a second bail petition before a lower court during the pendency of a bail petition before the High Court without disclosing the pendency constitute professional misconduct?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed by the court of first instance on the basis of a compromise between the parties while a bail petition is pending before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzuor Elahi vs President, UBL & others2021 P SC 572 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-18
  service tribunalabatement of proceedingsfinality of judgmentback benefitsgolden handshake schemejudicial implementationservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's miscellaneous petition for lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had not been challenged before the Supreme Court, attained finality and remained executable despite the subsequent ruling in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam (PLD 2006 SC 602). The Court held that, based on the clarification provided in Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 681), judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal that were never assailed before the Supreme Court attained finality and were not subject to abatement. Consequently, the Tribunal's judgment in the appellant's favor was valid and executable. The key principle laid down is that the abatement doctrine established in Mubeen-us-Salam applies only to proceedings pending before the Supreme Court; cases where the Tribunal's judgment was not challenged remain final and binding. Given the excessive delay and the appellant's superannuation, the Court directed the respondent-bank to pay the appellant's dues based on the bank's Golden Handshake/Voluntary Separation Scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Do judgments rendered by the Federal Service Tribunal that were never challenged before the Supreme Court attain finality?
  • Does the doctrine of abatement established in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam apply to cases where the Federal Service Tribunal's judgment was not challenged before the Supreme Court?
  • Can the Supreme Court direct the payment of dues under a voluntary separation scheme to an employee whose reinstatement judgment was not implemented?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Khan and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1129, 2022 YLR 2064 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-20
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquirydiplomatic consignmentliquor recoveryprohibition hadd order
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this criminal petition, the petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, after being intercepted carrying bottles of liquor allegedly imported as a diplomatic consignment for the Sri Lankan High Commission. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners, acting as driver and loader, made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether bail should be granted when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioners to bail, holding that offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause warrant the grant of bail as a rule and refusal as an exception, and that a tentative assessment of the record revealed a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that where an offense falls outside the prohibitory clause, the concession of bail must be favorably considered and denied only under exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted as a rule when an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the transportation of a claimed diplomatic consignment of liquor by employees of a forwarding agency constitute a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the exceptional circumstances in which bail may be refused for offenses punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The State2021 SHC 888 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-06
  Ex-Officio Justice of Peaceregistration of FIRdirect complaintquasi-judicial functionscognizable offenseSection 561-A CrPCcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Criminal Miscellaneous Applications challenging orders passed by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, who declined to issue directions for the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) regarding alleged cognizable offenses. The core legal questions were whether the High Court should interfere with such refusals under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the complainants had an adequate alternative remedy. The Court held that the orders of the Justice of Peace were proper and maintained them, dismissing the applications. It established that the functions of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are quasi-judicial, requiring the application of judicial mind rather than mechanical registration of cases. The Court further clarified that a direct complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitutes a robust legal remedy. Under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a magistrate can direct investigations that include powers of arrest, thereby dispelling the misconception that only police-registered FIRs permit the arrest of accused persons.

  Questions settled

  • Are the functions performed by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 executive or quasi-judicial in nature?
  • Can a court in a private complaint under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 order an investigation that includes the power to arrest?
  • Is the registration of an FIR the only legal remedy for an aggrieved person when the police refuse to register a case?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to interfere with a Justice of Peace's refusal to order the registration of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs Govt. of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab Lahore2021 LHC 3498 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 736 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-24
  pre-arrest bailunexplained delay in FIRmala fide intentioncivil litigationcustodial interrogation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Manzoor Hussain and others in relation to FIR No. 07 dated 04.01.2021, registered under Section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Chobara, District Layyah. The petitioners were accused of destroying crops and stealing trees from the complainant's land. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the significant delay in reporting the crime and the existence of prior civil litigation between the parties. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of approximately nine months and noted the pendency of a civil suit for permanent injunction regarding the disputed property, suggesting potential mala fide intent by the complainant. Furthermore, the Court noted that the investigation was already complete, rendering the petitioners' custodial interrogation unnecessary. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, holding that the combination of unexplained delay and ongoing civil litigation established sufficient grounds for the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained nine-month delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can the pendency of a civil suit regarding the same property be considered evidence of mala fide intent in a criminal case?
  • Is custodial interrogation necessary when the police investigation into the alleged offense has already been completed?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain alias Babu vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1862 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-13
  qatl-i-amdcapital punishmentmitigating circumstancescommutation of sentenceocular accountmedical evidencerelated witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Manzoor Hussain alias Babu, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and sentencing him to death, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot and killed the deceased during a wedding procession due to a previous verbal altercation. The Lahore High Court examined the ocular account provided by related witnesses, medical evidence, recovery of the weapon, and the prompt lodging of the FIR. The court found that while the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, certain mitigating circumstances existed, including the suddenness of the occurrence, the lack of repetition of the fatal fire shot, unproved motives, and the fact that the recovered weapon's firing pin was removed. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal regarding conviction but accepted it partially regarding the sentence, commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life while maintaining the compensation and benefit under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased is sufficient by itself to discard their testimony if otherwise reliable and corroborated?
  • Does the absence of a repetition of a fire shot by an accused constitute a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether minor contradictions and unproved motives in a prosecution case warrant the complete acquittal of an accused when ocular and medical evidence remain consistent?
  • Can a death sentence be converted to imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when mitigating circumstances are present?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Elahi vs President, UBL and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-18
  Section 2-Aabatement of proceedingsFederal Service Tribunalexecution of tribunal judgmentpast and closed transactionreinstatementVoluntary Separation Scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing an employee's application for implementation of a service judgment for lack of jurisdiction following the striking down of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam. The core legal question was whether a judgment of the Service Tribunal, rendered under Section 2-A before the Mubeen-us-Salam judgment and never challenged before the Supreme Court, abated or attained finality and remained executable. The Supreme Court held that as clarified in Muhammad Idrees, judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal based on Section 2-A that were never challenged before the Supreme Court attained finality, did not abate, and were required to be implemented by the concerned organizations without further litigation. To avoid subjecting the appellant to another round of litigation after years of delay, the Court exercised its jurisdiction to direct the respondent bank to pay the appellant financial dues under a Voluntary Separation Scheme as if he had remained in service.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal rendered under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 abate if it was never challenged before the Supreme Court?
  • Are judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal that were not appealed before the Supreme Court binding and executable as final orders?
  • Which forum is appropriate for executing a final judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal where the Tribunal subsequently lost jurisdiction following the declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 2-A?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Elahi vs President UBL and others2021 SCMR 461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-18
  service appealabatement of proceedingsfinality of judgmentimplementation of tribunal orderservice tribunal jurisdictionback benefitsgolden handshake scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of the appellant's petition for implementation of a reinstatement order, citing lack of jurisdiction following the Supreme Court's judgment in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal's judgment, which the respondent-bank had not challenged, had abated or attained finality. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's judgment had attained finality because it was never challenged before the Supreme Court. Relying on the clarification provided in Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, the Court affirmed that only cases pending before the Supreme Court at the time of the Mubeen-us-Salam ruling were subject to abatement. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Tribunal's judgment was executable. Given the significant delay and the appellant's superannuation, the Court directed the respondent-bank to pay the appellant's dues under its Golden Handshake/Voluntary Separation Scheme, treating him as if he were in service at the relevant time, thereby ensuring justice and preventing further litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal that was never challenged before the Supreme Court abate following the ruling in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan?
  • Are judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal rendered on the basis of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, which were not challenged before the Supreme Court, considered final and executable?
  • Can the Supreme Court direct the implementation of a Service Tribunal judgment through a financial settlement scheme when reinstatement is no longer practical due to the efflux of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Elahi vs District And Sessions Judge, Sargodha and 2 others2021 PLD Lahore 843 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-19Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ali S/O Maqbool Ahmed vs The State2021 SHC 534 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-21
  post-arrest bailmethamphetamineprohibitory clausenarcotic substanceschemical examiner reportpublic witnessesstatutory amendment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case registered under Sections 6 and 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 60 grams of methamphetamine (Ice) from his possession. The core legal question involved whether the recovered quantity of narcotics fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Section 51 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, particularly in view of the amendments introduced by The Control of Narcotics Substances (Sindh Amendment) Act, 2021. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the net weight of the recovered Ice exceeded the maximum limit of 50 grams prescribed under clause (b) of Section 9 of the Act, thereby attracting clause (c) of Section 9 and the statutory bar against bail. The court reaffirmed that non-association of public witnesses does not discredit police testimony at the bail stage and that offenses carrying punishments within the prohibitory clause disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of methamphetamine exceeding 50 grams attracts clause (c) of Section 9 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the non-association of independent public witnesses during a narcotics recovery make the case one of further inquiry at the bail stage?
  • Whether an offense under clause (c) of Section 9 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ali Janwari vs The State2021 SHC 1338 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20
  post-arrest bailabsconsionfurther inquiryrule of consistencymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by Manzoor Ali Janwari seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving charges of murder, attempted murder, unlawful assembly, and creating harassment. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry, consistency with co-accused who were granted bail, and notwithstanding his period of absconsion. The Sindh High Court held that since the role attributed to the applicant was limited to causing injury to an animal (a sheep), and co-accused with similar roles were already granted bail, the applicant made out a case for bail on merits. The Court laid down the principle, relying on precedent, that mere absconsion of an accused does not bar the grant of bail if the accused otherwise has a good case for bail on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be granted to an accused on the ground of consistency when co-accused with similar roles have been admitted to bail?
  • Does mere absconsion of an accused disentitle them to post-arrest bail if a good case on merit is made out?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 689 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-30
  circumstantial evidencelast seen theoryretracted judicial confessiondeath sentence confirmationsodomymurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and death reference arose from the conviction of the appellant, a Pesh Imam, for the murder of a five-year-old child in a mosque. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, specifically the 'last seen' theory, the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession, and whether the evidence supported a conviction for sodomy. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including the appellant being the last person seen with the deceased, the recovery of the crime weapon at his instance, and a voluntary judicial confession. The Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, based on medical and chemical examiner reports, the Court reversed the trial court's acquittal on the sodomy charge, convicting the appellant under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The judgment reaffirms that a retracted judicial confession, if found voluntary and true, and last-seen evidence, when coupled with other incriminating circumstances, are sufficient to sustain a conviction, including capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on a retracted judicial confession if the court finds it to be voluntary and true?
  • Is last-seen evidence sufficient to sustain a murder conviction when supported by other incriminating circumstances?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to explain the disappearance of a victim last seen in their company?
  • Can a death sentence be imposed based solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of guilt is unbroken?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed and others vs The State2021 SCMR 2002, 2021 SCP 382, 2022 P SC (Crl.) 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-12
  abductionrapesexual assaultsentence reductioncorroborationmedical evidencefirst offenders
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal petitions for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, which convicted the petitioners for abduction, causing hurt, and rape. The core legal questions involved whether the conviction for sexual assault could be sustained based on the prosecutrix's testimony without DNA analysis, and whether the sentences of certain petitioners could be reduced to the period already undergone. The Supreme Court held that the consistent testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated by medical evidence of pregnancy and the injuries sustained by family members during the abduction, was sufficient to establish guilt, rendering DNA analysis unnecessary in the circumstances. The Court affirmed the conviction for rape. Regarding the other petitioners, the Court exercised discretion to reduce their sentences to the period already undergone, contingent upon the payment of compensation to the injured parties, noting their status as first offenders. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault, when consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, even in the absence of DNA profiling.

  Questions settled

  • Is DNA analysis a mandatory requirement for sustaining a conviction in a rape case?
  • Can a conviction for sexual assault be sustained solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Does the court have the discretion to reduce sentences to the period already undergone for first-time offenders under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed Akhtar vs The State2021 P S c (Crl.) 138, 2021 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-09
  forgerycriminal breach of trustfraudulent reinstatementanticorruptionbenefit of doubtculpabilityfake judicial order
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Secondary School Teacher, challenged his conviction for using a forged High Court judgment to secure reinstatement and financial benefits following his earlier criminal conviction. After being reinstated based on the fake acquittal order, he faced prosecution by the Anti-Corruption Department. While a Special Judge convicted him on multiple counts, the High Court modified the judgment, setting aside convictions under Sections 409, 420, and 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while maintaining others and adding a conviction under Section 466. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could escape criminal liability for using a forged document to secure employment benefits, particularly when a co-accused was acquitted. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's disclaimer regarding the fake judgment was meritless, as he was the sole beneficiary of the fraud. The Court affirmed that the acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically invalidate the case against the principal offender where evidence distinctly points to his culpability. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' findings regarding the petitioner's guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a beneficiary of a forged judicial order disclaim knowledge of the forgery to escape criminal liability?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically invalidate the prosecution's case against the principal offender?
  • Is a public servant liable for criminal charges when using a fake acquittal order to secure reinstatement and service benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman, Islamabad and 2 others2021 PLJ Lahore 112 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-19Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and 13 others vs Government Of Punjab and 256 others2021 PLJ Lahore 560 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
• Manthar vs The State2021 SHC 260 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
• Mansoor and another vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary2021 PLC (C.S.) 537 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-17
  service conditionsstatutory protectiontransfer ordersconstitutional jurisdictionPTCL employeesterms of employmentwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), challenged their transfer orders to Quetta, contending that their terms and conditions of service, protected under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, restricted their posting to the Southern Telecommunication Region. The core legal question was whether the respondents could unilaterally transfer these employees outside their original region of appointment, and whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. The Court held that the petitioners’ terms and conditions of service, derived from their initial appointment and protected by the 1996 Act, were statutory in nature. Consequently, any violation of these terms was amenable to the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. Finding that the transfer orders violated the specific terms of the petitioners' appointment letters, which limited their service area, the Court declared the transfers illegal and set them aside. The judgment reaffirms that statutory protections regarding service conditions cannot be unilaterally altered to the disadvantage of transferred employees.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to adjudicate service disputes of employees whose terms are protected by the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act 1996?
  • Are the terms and conditions of service of employees transferred to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited protected from adverse alteration?
  • Can an employer unilaterally transfer an employee outside the geographical region specified in their original appointment letter?
  Read full judgment →
• Manik alias Mohammad Ali and another vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1654 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-06
  criminal appealmurderdelayed FIRocular testimonywithholding witnessadverse inferencedoubtful recoveryballistic reportbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kashmore at Kandhkot, convicting the appellants under section 302(b), 324, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the credibility of delayed FIR lodging, the reliability of ocular testimony, the withholding of a key injured witness, and the safety of relying on doubtful weapon recoveries and ballistic reports. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that an unexplained twenty-three-hour delay in lodging the FIR raises strong possibilities of consultation and fabrication, that significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence render eyewitness accounts untrustworthy, that withholding the injured eyewitness without valid medical justification invites adverse inferences under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that tainted recoveries of crime weapons and delayed dispatch to the forensic laboratory destroy the evidentiary value of ballistic reports. The key principle laid down is that criminal convictions cannot be sustained on fragile, contradictory ocular accounts and dubious recoveries when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of twenty-three hours in lodging the First Information Report create room for deliberation, consultation, and false implication?
  • Can the prosecution's case be sustained when material ocular testimony directly conflicts with medical evidence regarding the distance of firing?
  • What is the legal effect under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution withholds the best available piece of evidence, such as the injured eyewitness, without sufficient justification?
  • Can a positive forensic ballistic report form the basis of a conviction if the recovery of the crime weapon and crime empties is found to be doubtful and tampered with?
  Read full judgment →
• Mandokhail vs The State2021 YLR 1696 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-29
  criminal appealmurderdelay in FIRcommon intentionvicarious liabilitybenefit of the doubtinterested witnessesmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 302(b) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to imprisonment and compensation. The core legal questions involved the unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, the reliability of related ocular witnesses, the proof of motive, and the application of vicarious liability under Section 34 without proof of an overt act. The Balochistan High Court held that an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR casts serious doubt on the prosecution case, that failure to prove the set-up motive damages the prosecution, and that mere presence without an overt act is insufficient to attract vicarious liability under Section 34, especially when the conduct of the armed accused leaving close relative witnesses unharmed is unnatural. The court laid down the principles regarding the fatal nature of delayed FIRs, the necessity of proving established motives, and the strict requirement of proving a pre-arranged plan or overt act for common intention, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt and acquitting him.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report create fatal doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case?
  • Whether failure of the prosecution to prove the motive set up in the FIR damages the prosecution's case?
  • Can mere presence of an accused at the crime scene without any overt act attract vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is it unnatural and improbable for armed assailants to spare close relative eyewitnesses present at the spot during a murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, Bank Of Khyber and 2 others vs Miss Iffat Nawaz and 22021 PLC 93 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-09
  National Industrial Relations Commissionworker definitiongrievance petitionjurisdiction of NIRCremoval from serviceremand orderbank employeewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed before the Islamabad High Court impugns a judgment of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.), which had set aside an order of a Member, N.I.R.C. and remanded a bank employee's grievance petition for a decision on merits. The core legal question was whether the respondent, an Officer Grade-III performing clearing duties at a bank, qualified as a 'worker' or 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, so as to give the N.I.R.C. jurisdiction to adjudicate her grievance against removal from service. The court examined statutory provisions regarding the definition of worker and the jurisdiction of the N.I.R.C. under the Act, focusing on the true nature of the employee's duties rather than her mere designation. The holding and key principle laid down affirm that job duties of a clerical nature bring an employee within the definition of a worker, and that remand orders by appellate forums on jurisdictional and merits determinations warrant judicial restraint.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Officer Grade-III performing clearing duties in a bank qualify as a worker under Section 2(xxxiii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate a grievance petition filed by a bank employee whose duties are clerical in nature?
  • Does a mere designation as an officer or clearing officer exclude an employee from the ambit of worker or workman?
  • Under what circumstances can a grievance petition be remanded by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission for a decision on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Mamoon Wazir, etc. (in both cases) vs Abwa Knowledge Village (Pvt)2021 SCP 396, 2022 PSC 480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-27
  medical admissionMDCATPakistan Medical Commissionprivate medical collegesubordinate legislationstatutory interpretationadmission criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from petitions filed by newly enrolled medical and dental students whose admissions to a private medical college were cancelled because they failed to pass the mandatory Medical and Dental Colleges Admissions Test (MDCAT). The petitioners challenged the pre-admission requirement of MDCAT introduced under Section 18 of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act 2020, arguing that it violated the Admission Regulations (Amended) 2020-2021, as the college's prospectus did not mandate MDCAT. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the statutory provisions and regulations, holding that Section 18 of the Act clearly mandates MDCAT as a basic minimum requirement across the board for all public and private medical and dental colleges in Pakistan. The Court ruled that any criteria or entrance tests devised by private colleges are in addition to, and cannot substitute, the statutory minimum of MDCAT. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that subordinate regulations cannot dilute or dispense with mandatory statutory requirements. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Medical and Dental Colleges Admissions Test (MDCAT) is a mandatory statutory requirement for admission to private medical colleges under the Pakistan Medical Commission Act 2020?
  • Can a private medical college dispense with the statutory requirement of MDCAT through its own prospectus or admission criteria?
  • Can subordinate regulations dilute, override, or dispense with a mandatory requirement established by primary legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Malikan/Jumla Awam Basha Thak through representatives vs2021 YLR 335 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-11-22Read full judgment →
• Malik Zafar Iqbal etc vs The State etc2021 LHC 5961 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-11
  Anti-Terrorism Actretrospective punishmentproscribed organizationcriminal liabilityburden of prooffair trialacquittalevidence appreciation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, specifically regarding funding a proscribed organization. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellants could be held criminally liable for activities predating the proscription of the organization and whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges, noting that the appellants could not be punished for acts performed before the organization was proscribed, as this would violate the constitutional protection against retrospective punishment. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimony of a key witness, unreliable, uncorroborated, and insufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court established that criminal liability requires clear, prospective law and that the prosecution must independently prove all ingredients of an offence beyond reasonable doubt, rather than relying on the mere fact of an organization's proscription. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal and acquitted the appellants of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prohibition against retrospective punishment under Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 prevent the prosecution of individuals for acts committed before an organization was proscribed?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, solely based on the proscription of an organization without independent proof of the specific criminal acts alleged against the accused?
  • Does the failure to supply copies of witness statements under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, automatically vitiate a trial, or can it be cured under Section 537?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Tajamal Hayat Khan vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary Home and 4 others2021 MLD 1627 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Shah Jahan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Provincial Police Officer_IGP, Peshawar and others2021 PHC 340 · Peshawar High Court
  service matterwrit jurisdictionArticle 212departmental inquirycriminal acquittallachescivil servantService Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions challenging the dismissal of police constables from service following departmental inquiries. The petitioners contended that their dismissal was illegal, particularly given their subsequent acquittal in related criminal cases, and argued that the departmental proceedings violated natural justice. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to adjudicate service-related disputes, and whether acquittal in criminal proceedings necessitates the setting aside of departmental dismissal orders. The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain these petitions due to the express bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution, which mandates that matters regarding the terms and conditions of civil servants fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that departmental disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings; thus, acquittal in the latter does not automatically absolve a civil servant of departmental liability. Additionally, the petitions were found to be barred by the principle of laches due to the significant delay in filing.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Does an acquittal in criminal proceedings automatically absolve a civil servant of departmental liability?
  • Can a writ petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches if there is an unreasonable delay in challenging a departmental dismissal order?
  • Are departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings independent of each other?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Saif-ur-Rehman & another vs Faisal Naeem Khan & 02 others2021 IHC 130 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Munsif Awan, Advocate, Chairman, Pakistan Justice Party, Lahore vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law & Justice, Islamabad & others2021 PLD Supreme Court 379, 2021 P SC 638, 2021 SCP 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-18
  Special Assistants to the Prime MinisterRules of Business 1973Dual NationalityDisqualification of ParliamentariansTrichotomy of PowersJudicial RestraintExecutive DiscretionService of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Islamabad High Court's judgment dismissing a Constitutional Petition that challenged the appointment of several Special Assistants to the Prime Minister (SAPMs). The appointments, made pursuant to Rule 4(6) of the Rules of Business, 1973, were challenged on grounds of alleged cronyism, arbitrariness, and ineligibility due to dual nationality under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution. The core legal questions pertained to the constitutional validity of Rule 4(6), whether dual nationals are barred from appointment as SAPMs, and if conferring the status of Minister of State violates constitutional qualifications for parliamentarians. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that SAPMs are neither parliamentarians nor in the 'Service of Pakistan' under Article 260; thus, the disqualifications in Articles 62 and 63(1)(c) do not apply to them. Conferring the status of Minister of State on an SAPM does not make them a constitutional Minister. Consequently, the Prime Minister's discretion to appoint SAPMs is lawful, and judicial restraint governs unless blatant illegality or arbitrariness is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Are dual nationals disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution from being appointed as Special Assistants to the Prime Minister?
  • Is Rule 4(6) of the Rules of Business, 1973 constitutionally valid under Articles 90 and 99(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does conferring the status of a Minister of State upon a Special Assistant to the Prime Minister legally transform that person into a Minister of State or Cabinet member?
  • Does the office of Special Assistant to the Prime Minister fall within the definition of 'Service of Pakistan' under Article 260 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Masood Ahmed and another vs Federation of Pakistan and 02 others2021 SHC 48 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12
  absorption of civil servantsdeputationpensionary benefitsKarachi Port Trustre-employment of armed forces personnelvoid ab initiowrit of quo warranto
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the permanent absorption of a retired naval officer (respondent No. 3) into the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) as Deputy Estate Manager (BPS-18) and his subsequent entitlement to a second pension. The petitioners contended that the absorption was illegal, lacked a competitive process, violated KPT service regulations, and contravened the Estacode. The core legal questions were whether the absorption of a retired military officer into a civil post without a competitive process is lawful, and whether such an individual is entitled to a second pension from the civilian organization. The Court held that the absorption was void ab initio because it bypassed mandatory competitive recruitment processes and lacked approval from the competent authority. The Court ruled that the respondent was not entitled to a second pension from KPT, as his service was irregular and the absorption was illegal. The judgment reaffirms that re-employment of retired personnel must strictly adhere to the Civil Servants Act 1973 and established Estacode procedures, and that illegal absorption cannot confer vested rights or entitlement to pensionary benefits from the public exchequer.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retired military officer be permanently absorbed into a civilian organization without a competitive recruitment process?
  • Is a person who is illegally absorbed into a civil post entitled to claim a second pension from that organization?
  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to remain in a post indefinitely or to be absorbed into the permanent cadre?
  • Are appointments to BPS-16 and above in the Karachi Port Trust required to be made through a competitive process?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Zahid vs Fida Muhammad and 3 others2021 PHC 276, 2022 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-08-03Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Younas vs Capital Development Authority through its2021 IHC 70 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ramzan vs Administrator Chairman Market Committee2021 CLC 141 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Naveed vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2021 PLC (C.S.) 855 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-10
  regularization of servicesspecial police officersconstitutional petitionequal protection of lawreinstatementservice lawarbitrary administrative action
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the exclusion of the petitioner, a Special Police Officer, from a notification regularizing the services of similarly situated officers under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Special Police Officers (Regularization of Services) Act, 2019. The core legal question is whether an employee, who was dismissed but subsequently reinstated with effect from the date of dismissal, is entitled to the benefits of a regularization notification issued during the interim period of his dismissal. The court held that because the petitioner’s reinstatement was effective from the date of his dismissal, he was legally in service at the time the regularization notification was issued. Consequently, the respondents' failure to include the petitioner in the regularization process was arbitrary, discriminatory, and lacked legal justification. The court affirmed that statutory functionaries cannot make individual distinctions for extraneous reasons and must ensure equal treatment for similarly placed citizens. The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to regularize the petitioner’s services in accordance with the notification, ensuring he received the same benefits as his colleagues.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee reinstated with effect from the date of dismissal is entitled to the benefits of a regularization notification issued during the interim period?
  • Does the exclusion of a similarly placed employee from a regularization notification violate the constitutional principle of equality?
  • Can administrative authorities deny regularization benefits to an employee who was undergoing departmental proceedings at the time of the notification's issuance?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ejaz Channar vs The State etc2021 LHC 5381, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 52, 2022 PLD Lahore 427, PLJ 2022 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-07
  Illegal Dispossession Actcompoundable offensewithdrawal of complaintcompromiseappellate stagecontinuation of trialacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties presented a compromise deed stating that the dispute had been resolved and the complainant had regained possession of the property. The core legal questions revolved around whether an offense under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is compoundable and whether a complaint can be withdrawn on the basis of a compromise during the appellate stage. The Lahore High Court held that an offense under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is not compoundable under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as special law offenses not designated as compoundable remain non-compoundable. However, the court held that a complaint can be permitted to be withdrawn under section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 at the appellate stage because an appeal is a continuation of the trial, and the provisions of the Code apply to proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act by virtue of section 9 of the Act. Consequently, the withdrawal of the complaint was allowed, resulting in the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offense under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is compoundable?
  • Can a complaint be withdrawn under section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 at the appellate stage?
  • Does the withdrawal of a complaint under section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 result in the acquittal of the accused?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applicable to proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Azeem vs Mst. Sahira Bibi and 8 others2021 PLJ AJ&K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-08-27Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ameen vs Mst. Saeeda Maqbool and others2022 YLR 742 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-10-29Read full judgment →
• Malik Moazzam Ali Kalru, Deputy Secretary National Assembly and another2021 PLJ Islamabad 255 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Mehrullah Khan vs Muhammad Hayat and 3 others2021 PLD Balochistan 94 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-02Read full judgment →
• Malik Ghulam Ali (deceased) through his Legal Heirs vs Rehmat Ullah etc2021 PLJ Lahore 784 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-03Read full judgment →
• Malik Faraz Ahmed and 5 others vs Agha Khursheed Ahmed and 5 others2022 YLR 913 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
• Malik Ehsan Ullah etc vs Province Of The Punjab etc2021 PLJ Lahore 352 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Bashir Ahmed, etc vs Senior Member Board of Revenue, etc2021 [M] C L R 1464 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Malik Allah Ditta (deceased) through his legal heirs etc vs Member, Board2021 LHC 6673, 2022 CLC 414 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-21
  evacuee propertypublic auctionprivate treatyintra court appealillegal occupantsconstitutional jurisdictionboard of revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 challenged the dismissal of a writ petition concerning the purchase of evacuee agricultural land. The core legal questions involved whether the appellants were eligible to purchase the evacuee land under the relevant laws and policies, and whether the Notified Officer had the jurisdiction to sell evacuee agricultural land through a private treaty. The Lahore High Court held that public assets and evacuee properties must be disposed of transparently through unrestricted open public auction, and that state functionaries have no jurisdiction to alienate such property via private treaties or outside the prescribed statutory framework. The Court further ruled that unauthorized occupants and illegal possessors of state property are not entitled to preferential treatment or discretionary constitutional relief. The appeal was dismissed with directions to the authorities to retrieve possession of the land, impose penal rent, and dispose of the property via open public auction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Notified Officer has the jurisdiction to sell evacuee agricultural land through a private treaty?
  • Can evacuee property be disposed of by a method other than an unrestricted open public auction?
  • Are illegal occupants or unauthorized possessors of state property entitled to discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether an agreement or compromise made in violation of statutory provisions regarding evacuee land possesses legal sanctity?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Aamir S/O Noor Khan vs The State2021 SHC 520 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-19
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencymisappropriationcriminal breach of trustfurther inquirybail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Malik Aamir, who was charged under Sections 407 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged misappropriation of containers entrusted to him for transportation. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail, particularly in light of the fact that a co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail and given the significant delay in lodging the FIR. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail, emphasizing the rule of consistency, as the role attributed to the applicant and the co-accused was identical. Furthermore, the Court noted that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been submitted, and the applicant had been incarcerated for eight months, rendering further detention unnecessary for investigative purposes. The key principle laid down is that where co-accused persons share the same role in an FIR, the principle of consistency dictates that bail granted to one should generally be extended to the other, provided no other compelling reasons for denial exist.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused with an identical role in an FIR has already been granted bail?
  • Is a significant delay in lodging an FIR a relevant factor for the court to consider when evaluating a post-arrest bail application?
  • Does the completion of the investigation and submission of the charge sheet support the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Makil Tajamal Hayat Khan vs Government of KPK thorugh Secretory Home2021 PHC 108 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
• Major (R) Muhammad Iftikhar Khan vs The State and another2022 SCMR 885, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-02
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayconclusion of trialattempted murderinterlocutory applicationsdelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an application under Order XXXIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, seeking entertainment of a fresh criminal petition for post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in a case involving Sections 324, 429, 148, 149, 337-D, and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on statutory delay grounds when the non-conclusion of trial within a stipulated timeframe is largely attributable to acts of the accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the application, holding that perusal of trial court records showed the delay was primarily caused by the applicant filing numerous interlocutory applications, including applications for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, stay of proceedings, and re-examination of injured persons. The Court affirmed the settled principle that bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right on statutory grounds when the delay is attributable to the accused, particularly where prosecution evidence is nearly complete.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay if the delay in trial is attributable to the accused?
  • Can bail on statutory grounds be claimed as a matter of right where trial delay is caused by frequent interlocutory applications filed by the defence?
  • Whether post-arrest bail on statutory grounds should be granted when prosecution evidence is substantially complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Majis Ali vs The State2021 SHC 270 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-26
  post-arrest bailfurther enquiryprinciple of consistencyno-objection affidavitdelay in FIRcompounding of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Majis Ali, who is accused of abduction and murder. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the complainant's no-objection affidavit, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the principle of consistency regarding a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the police omitted the charge of abduction with intent to murder from the final challan, the complainant had compounded the offence, and a co-accused with a similar role had already been admitted to bail. Furthermore, the Court noted that the five-hour delay in lodging the FIR could not be overlooked and that there were no eyewitnesses to the actual commission of the death. Consequently, the Court established that where there is a delay in the FIR, a no-objection from the complainant, and consistency with the treatment of co-accused, a case for further enquiry is made out, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principle of consistency applies when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
  • Does a complainant's no-objection affidavit constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail in a murder case?
  • Can a delay in lodging an FIR be considered a ground for further enquiry in a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Majid Ali son of Sono Khan Abro vs The State2021 SHC 882 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-02
  post-arrest bailattempted rapefurther inquirytentative assessmentstatutory delaycross-versioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail after being refused by the trial court in F.I.R. No. 42 of 2021 registered at Police Station Darri, District Larkana, for offenses under sections 452, 376, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, considering the delay in lodging the F.I.R., previous land disputes, and severe injuries sustained by the applicant. The Sindh High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry due to conflicting medical reports, unexplained injuries on the applicant's body, and the tentative nature of the allegations. The court laid down the principle that at the bail stage, a deeper appreciation of evidence is barred, and where a prima facie case for further inquiry is established under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 but involves questions requiring further inquiry?
  • Can unexplained injuries on the person of the accused at the time of arrest form a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a delayed F.I.R. coupled with a prior property dispute between the parties create a proper ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Majid Ali & another vs Capital Development Authority, etc2021 IHC 254 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-29Read full judgment →
• Majeed Fabrics (Pvt) Ltd, etc vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Energy, etc2021 PTD 1136, 2021 LHC 961 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-03Read full judgment →
• Maimoona Rajab vs Province Of Punjab through Section Officer of Governor of Punjab, Lahore and another2021 PLC (C.S.) 1037 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-09
  workplace harassmentconstitutional petitionProvincial Ombudsmanquasi-criminal chargeappellate representationappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an order passed by respondent No. 1 under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010, which allowed respondent No. 2's representation and set aside the Provincial Ombudsperson's order awarding the penalty of removal from service. The core legal question is whether the charge of harassment was substantiated through sufficient, credible, and independent evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a quasi-criminal charge of sexual harassment requires convincing and independent evidence to survive the test of reasonableness, which the petitioner failed to provide. The Court established that unsubstantiated assertions and multifarious grievances regarding administrative failures do not constitute proven harassment, and the appellate authority's reasoned conclusion absolving the accused warrants no interference under constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a charge of workplace harassment can be sustained solely on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions without independent and convincing evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary standard required to prove a quasi-criminal charge of sexual harassment at the workplace?
  • Can the High Court interfere under constitutional jurisdiction with a reasoned factual finding of the appellate authority regarding harassment charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahum Shaukat and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2021 IHC 318 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mahnaz Mirza Malik Through Attorney vs Bilal Embroidery through Owner_Partner and 2 others2021 CLD 507 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-14Read full judgment →
• Mahesh Kumar vs Bahria University & others2021 SHC 176 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
• Maher Muhammad Altaf Traggar vs State and 3 othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 202 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02
  criminal revision petitionEx-officio Justice of Peaceregistration of criminal caseconfessional statementmisappropriation of pistolquashing of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed to impugn the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge acting as Ex-officio Justice of Peace, whereby the SHO was directed to record the version of Respondent No. 3 for registration of a case. The core legal question revolved around the sustainability of the direction for registration of a criminal case regarding the alleged misappropriation of a licensed pistol, in light of subsequent developments. The Lahore High Court held that since Respondent No. 3 had made a confessional statement and was convicted and sentenced with a fine in the related case, the allegations against the petitioner stood falsified and Respondent No. 3 could no longer claim misappropriation. Consequently, the criminal revision petition was allowed and the impugned order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace was set aside, establishing that subsequent judicial confessions and convictions in related proceedings nullify the evidentiary basis for coercive police registration orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace directing the recording of a criminal version can be set aside when the complainant subsequently confesses guilt in a related proceeding?
  • Does a conviction and sentence upon a confessional statement falsify prior allegations of weapon misappropriation made against a petitioner?
  • Can a criminal revision petition be allowed when subsequent judicial events render the original grievance of the respondent untenable?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahendar Kumar and 2 others vs The State2022 YLR 846 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-05
  post-arrest bailmoney launderingbenami accountsparallel bankingprohibitory clausewhite collar crimehawala hundi
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application wherein the applicants sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 409, 468, 471, 477-A, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010 relating to allegations of operating benami accounts, money laundering, parallel banking, and cheating the general public through web portals and international networks. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given that certain offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that co-accused had been granted bail. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail applications, holding that the material collected during the investigation revealed strong prima facie evidence connecting the applicants to heinous economic crimes against society, and that bail can be denied in non-bailable offences even outside the prohibitory clause when exceptional circumstances exist. The key principle laid down is that financial crimes of a serious nature involving massive dubious transactions and benami accounts constitute exceptional circumstances warranting the refusal of bail regardless of the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused in non-bailable offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a co-accused being granted bail automatically entitle other co-accused to the same relief regardless of distinguishable roles?
  • Can the operation of benami accounts and money laundering through parallel banking be considered an exceptional circumstance to deny post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ahmed Khan vs The State and 14 others2021 YLR 654 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mabushra Sam vs Government Of The Punjab and others2021 PTD 929, 2021 CLC 973 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-15Read full judgment →
• Maaz Ullah vs Secretary Interior, Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad and 32021 YLR 589 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• M.D Steel Furnace vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 PTD 181 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-09Read full judgment →
• M.C.R. (Pvt.) Ltd. Franchisee Of Pizza Hut vs Multan Development Authority2021 CLD 639 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
• M.C.R. (Pvt) Ltd, franchisee of Pizza Hut vs Multan Development Authority2021 CLD 639, 2021 [M] C L R 1067, 2021 LHC 731 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
• M.A. Industries, Multan vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Multan2021 PTD (Trib.) 747 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-10-08Read full judgment →
• M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, Chief Justice, High Court Of Aj&K, Muzaffarabad vs Raja Waseem Younis, Advocate, Ex-General Secretary, Azad Jammu And Kashmir, High Court Bar Association, Mirpur and others2021 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-02-14Read full judgment →
• M. Nadeem A. Shaikh & another vs Government of Sindh & others2021 SHC 1056, 2021 SHC 486, 2022 PLJ Karachi 48, 2022 CLC 1181 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
• M. Khurram Gumman vs Shahid Khan & others2021 [M] C L R 740 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-21Read full judgment →
• M. Haroon Ashraf vs Dr. Fayyaz Ranjha, etc2021 LHC 6874 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-17Read full judgment →
• M. Fesal Vawda vs Election Commission of Pakistan & another2021 IHC 290 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-12Read full judgment →
• M. Faizan vs The State2021 SHC 166 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequefurther inquirymalafidedelayed FIRcivil litigationprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, M. Faizan, who was accused of issuing a dishonoured cheque and subsequently threatening the complainant. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of fraud, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the existence of ongoing civil litigation between the parties. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The court reasoned that the sixteen-day delay in filing the FIR remained unexplained, and the existence of parallel civil litigation suggested potential ulterior motives by the complainant. Furthermore, the court noted that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure provisions. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR is delayed without plausible explanation and there is evidence of prior civil litigation between the parties, a case for further inquiry and malafide is established, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail, provided the trial is directed to conclude expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sixteen-day delay in lodging an FIR, without plausible explanation, constitute grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the existence of ongoing civil litigation between parties in a criminal case suggest ulterior motive relevant to bail applications?
  • Is an offence that falls outside the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally eligible for bail on the point of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Lutaf Ullah vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 800 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-01
  murder referencebenefit of doubtchance witnessocular accountappreciation of evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Mst. Atiya-tul-Noor. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on testimony from alleged chance witnesses and the absence of corroborative evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court found the ocular account unreliable, noting that the witnesses were chance witnesses who failed to provide a plausible reason for their presence at the crime scene, and their testimony was contradicted by medical evidence. Furthermore, the court determined that the motive was unsubstantiated and the recovery of the weapon was inconsequential due to the lack of forensic analysis. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of doubt. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits without relying on defence weaknesses, and a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt is sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be accepted without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its case on its own merits entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to prove guilt if the occurrence itself is found to be unwitnessed?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to substantiate the alleged motive and recovery of the weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Lumberdar Hilla Khan through L.Rs. and 24 others vs Jumla Zamindaran2021 YLR 2227 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bano vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 956 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (Retd.) Baqar Nawab vs Syed Muhammad Hassan Tauheed and 22021 P Cr. L J 545 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-13
  criminal acquittal appealSection 249-A CrPCcriminal breach of trustcheatingtrial delayabuse of processprocurement of witnessesframing of charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which acquitted the respondents in a case involving alleged financial embezzlement under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The trial court had based the acquittal on the delay in trial proceedings and the legal view that an accused cannot be simultaneously convicted for both cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court’s order was perverse and legally unsustainable. The Court clarified that Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is an enabling provision to be exercised sparingly. It ruled that delay in trial is not a valid ground for acquittal unless it amounts to an abuse of process, and that trial courts must actively procure witness attendance. Furthermore, the Court established that a trial court cannot acquit an accused mid-trial based on perceived legal defects in the charge; rather, it must examine the evidence and, if necessary, omit specific sections at the conclusion of the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the ground of delay in trial?
  • Is it legally permissible for a trial court to acquit an accused mid-trial on the basis that the accused cannot be simultaneously convicted for both cheating and criminal breach of trust?
  • What is the obligation of a trial court regarding the procurement of prosecution witnesses before exercising the power of acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the framing of a charge create a vested right for the complainant to produce evidence to prove the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Lpg Association Of Pakistan through Chairman vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 CLD 214 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-26
  legislative competencecompetition lawconstitutional petitionultra viresCompetition Commission of PakistanCompetition Appellate Tribunaljudicial powerparallel judicial systemseparation of judiciaryfederal legislative listprovincial autonomyEighteenth Amendmentdeeming provisionordinance lapsestatutory interpretationpith and substancespillover effectfundamental rightsdirect appeal to Supreme Courtregulatory authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The Lahore High Court addressed multiple constitutional petitions challenging the legislative competence of Parliament to enact the Competition Ordinances of 2007, 2009, and 2010, and the Competition Act, 2010. Petitioners also questioned the vires of sections 43, 44, and 62 of the Act, arguing that the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) and Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) exercised judicial power, creating a parallel judicial system, and that direct appeals to the Supreme Court contravened Article 185 of the Constitution. Additionally, the continuity of proceedings initiated under lapsed Ordinances was challenged. The Court, by majority, held that Parliament is competent to legislate on competition, deriving authority from Articles 18 and 151 of the Constitution, read with Entry 58 of the Federal Legislative List, as it pertains to the Federation and national economy. The CCP and CAT were deemed to perform quasi-judicial and administrative functions, respectively, not judicial power under Article 175. Sections 43 and 44, allowing direct appeals to the Supreme Court, were found constitutional under Article 175(2) and Entry 55 of the FLL. Section 62, a deeming provision, validly saved and continued proceedings from lapsed Ordinances. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Louis Dreyfus Co. Pvt Ltd vs F.B.R & Others2021 SHC 718, 2022 PTCL 400, 2022 PTD 205 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-02Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs Government Of Balochistan through Secretary Mines and Minerals Development Department Balochistan and 2 others2021 MLD 1587 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-20Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 239 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-02
  criminal appealQatl-i-Amdburden of proofchance witnessesbenefit of doubtmurder referenceforensic evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife. The prosecution relied on the testimony of three alleged eye-witnesses who claimed to be present at the scene, despite not being mentioned in the initial FIR lodged by the appellant. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the credibility of these chance witnesses and the evidentiary value of the weapon recovery. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. It emphasized that the burden of proof never shifts to the accused, even when a death occurs within their home, unless the prosecution has already established a prima facie case. Furthermore, the Court ruled that recovery of a weapon is inconsequential without forensic matching, and that the presence of chance witnesses must be convincingly established. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused when a death occurs within their home?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon sufficient for conviction without forensic matching of crime empties?
  • What is the evidentiary value of testimony from chance witnesses who were not named in the initial FIR?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a reasonable doubt exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs District Collector Gujrat etc2021 LHC 4675, 2022 MLD 1195, 2022 PLJ Lahore 57 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-07
  Intra Court AppealLand AcquisitionMaintainabilityConstitutional PetitionOriginal OrderLaw Reforms OrdinanceWrit Jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal (ICA) challenges an order of a Single Bench dismissing a constitutional petition against land acquisition notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core legal question is whether an ICA is maintainable under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, when the underlying land acquisition proceedings provide a statutory right of appeal under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that the ICA is not maintainable. It reasoned that because the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for an appeal against the award, which constitutes the 'original order' in these proceedings, the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 bars an ICA against a judgment rendered in constitutional jurisdiction arising from such proceedings. The key principle established is that the test for the maintainability of an ICA under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is not whether the specific order impugned in the writ petition is appealable, but whether the original order in the proceedings from which the constitutional petition arose is subject to appeal, revision, or review under the relevant statute.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Intra Court Appeal maintainable against a judgment in a constitutional petition if the underlying proceedings provide for an appeal, revision, or review?
  • What is the test for determining the maintainability of an Intra Court Appeal under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
  • Does the term 'original order' in the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 refer to the order impugned in the writ petition or the order with which the proceedings commenced?
  • Are land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 subject to the bar on Intra Court Appeals contained in the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
  Read full judgment →