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.

• Liaqat Ali Khan and 10 others vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, Member2021 YLR 349 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-07Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and others vs The State and others2021 SCMR 455, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-06-26
  Criminal AppealAnti-Terrorism ActMurderAcquittalConvictionBenefit of DoubtOcular AccountIndependent CorroborationWitness ReliabilityFalse Implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved criminal appeals against convictions and sentences under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for the murder of eight persons and injury to five others, alongside appeals against the acquittal of other co-accused. The core legal question revolved around the reappraisal of evidence, specifically the reliability of the ocular account and the necessity of independent corroboration, especially when co-accused attributed similar roles had been acquitted, or witnesses were found untruthful. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of Liaqat Ali, Mian Khan, and Mehdi Khan, setting aside their convictions and sentences, and acquitted them by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court dismissed the appeals against the acquittal of other private respondents. The key principles established include that witnesses found false in material aspects should not be relied upon for other depositions, and independent corroboration is crucial when the ocular account is unreliable or witnesses have falsely implicated others. Motive based on long-standing enmity can lead to false implication, requiring careful scrutiny.

  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and another vs The State and others2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 212, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 844, 2021 SCMR 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-26
  Criminal appealMurder convictionAcquittalBenefit of doubtEyewitness accountProof beyond reasonable doubtSentence enhancement petitionPakistan Penal CodeCriminal Procedure Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a criminal appeal filed by convict-appellant Liaqat Ali against his conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302(b)/34 PPC, along with connected petitions by the complainant seeking enhancement of Liaqat Ali's sentence and challenging the acquittal of co-accused Mumtaz Ahmad. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had established its case against Liaqat Ali beyond reasonable doubt, specifically scrutinizing the presence and credibility of the eyewitnesses. The Supreme Court observed that the presence of eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence was doubtful and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court allowed Liaqat Ali's appeal, setting aside his convictions and sentences, and acquitted him. The connected criminal petitions filed by the complainant were dismissed for being without merit, affirming the principle that benefit of doubt must be extended when the prosecution's case is not conclusively proven.

  Read full judgment →
• Laureate Boys Higher Secondary School vs Government Of Punjab and others2021 PLJ Lahore 454 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-10Read full judgment →
• Lasania Oil Mills vs Silver Star Insurance Company Limited and others2021 CLD 659 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-13
  insurance claimfire insurancerepudiation of insurance claiminsurance tribunalsurvey reportbreach of policy condition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 124 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 challenges the order of the Insurance Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's fire insurance claim following the gutting of its godown by fire. The core legal question was whether the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim based on the violation of a primary policy condition requiring the main power supply to be switched off when the godown is closed, and whether the appellant could claim ignorance of such a condition. The Lahore High Court held that since the appellant's own witness admitted during cross-examination that the power supply was not switched off when leaving the premises, and failed to plead or prove non-delivery of the policy at the time of issuance, the insurance company rightly repudiated the claim. The Court affirmed that an explicit policy condition breached by the insured validates repudiation, and oral admissions by the insured can outweigh the necessity of examining a surveyor.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an insurance company is justified in repudiating a claim upon the insured's admitted violation of a policy condition requiring the main power supply to be switched off?
  • Can an insured successfully claim ignorance of an insurance policy condition without having pleaded lack of notice or delivery in the initial petition?
  • Is the non-examination of a surveyor fatal to an insurance company's case when the breach of a policy condition is established through the oral admissions of the insured's own witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Sher vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 93 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-10
  criminal appealbenefit of doubttest identification parademurderocular evidencereasonable doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Lal Sher, for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's identity and participation in the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, given the absence of specific physical descriptions in the FIR and the reliance on a delayed test identification parade. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's involvement. The court observed that the FIR lacked specific features of the unknown accused, rendering the subsequent identification parade unreliable. Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant was not attributed any weapon or specific role in the commission of the offence, and the alleged motive pertained to other co-accused. Consequently, the court discarded the ocular account and found the medical evidence insufficient to implicate the appellant. The court reaffirmed the principle that the benefit of any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must accrue to the accused as a matter of right, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to mention specific physical features of an unknown accused in the FIR render a subsequent test identification parade unreliable?
  • Is the benefit of reasonable doubt a matter of right or a concession for an accused?
  • Can an accused be convicted for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, solely based on presence without an attributed role or weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Marjan and another vs Islam Gul and othersPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 188, 2021 P S c (Crl.) 156, 2021 SCMR 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-09
  post-arrest bailmurdersupplementary statementmasked assailantsfurther inquirycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving murder and firing. The incident involved two masked pillion riders who opened indiscriminate fire, resulting in the death of one victim. The petitioners were implicated in a supplementary statement recorded several days after the incident, allegedly due to a past motive involving a runaway marriage. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in the absence of strong incriminating evidence at the pre-trial stage. The Court observed that the assailants were masked, making identification difficult, and noted the Investigating Officer's failure to recover the weapon or the motorbike used in the crime. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution's case relied heavily on the supplementary statement, the evidentiary value of which required assessment during trial. Finding a case for further inquiry, the Court granted bail to the petitioners under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, emphasizing that where the prosecution's case rests on evidence requiring deeper scrutiny, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to recover the weapon or vehicle used in a crime constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution's case against the accused relies primarily on a supplementary statement that requires evidentiary assessment at trial?
  • Is the identification of masked assailants a relevant factor in determining the entitlement of an accused to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan, etc vs Government of Punjab, etc2021 KLR Labour & Service Cases 178 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-23
  regularization of servicecontract employeesproject employeesconstitutional petitionlength of servicediscriminatory treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated writ petition addresses the claims of several petitioners appointed on a contract basis under the National Program for Improvement of Watercourses and the Punjab Irrigated-Agriculture Productivity Improvement Project, seeking directions for the regularization of their services and release of withheld salaries. The core legal question revolves around whether long-serving contract employees performing duties of a permanent nature are entitled to regularization under the law and established jurisprudence. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners are entitled to be considered for regularization in accordance with the statutory framework and precedent. The court laid down the key principle that the government cannot engage in discriminatory pick-and-choose policies regarding long-term contract or project employees, and that such employees performing permanent functions must be considered for regularization transparently based on objective criteria, length of service, and satisfactory performance under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018.

  Questions settled

  • Are long-serving contract employees performing permanent functions entitled to regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018?
  • Can the provincial government adopt a policy of cherry-picking while considering project contract employees for regularization?
  • Does the nature of work determine whether an employee's services are of a permanent character despite being labeled as contract or project-based?
  Read full judgment →
• Lakhvir Singh etc vs The State of Punjab & Anr2021 P SC (Crl.) 664 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-19
  Probation of Offenders ActMandatory minimum sentenceReformative sentencingCriminal appealRehabilitationProbation of good conductIndian Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants, convicted under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, challenged their sentences, seeking the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958. The core legal question was whether the Act's provisions, specifically Section 4, could be invoked when the statute prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence. The Supreme Court held that the benefit of probation is not excluded by the mandatory minimum sentence requirement under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The Court emphasized that the Act is a reformative, beneficial legislation. It clarified that unless a specific law enacted after 1958 prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence and includes a non-obstante clause, the Act's provisions remain applicable. Considering the appellants' age at the time of the offence, the complainant's forgiveness, and the fact that they had already served half their sentence, the Court allowed the appeal. It directed the appellants' release on probation of good conduct upon entering into bonds, ensuring they maintain peace and good behaviour for the remaining sentence period, thereby prioritizing rehabilitation over continued incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 be granted for offences carrying a mandatory minimum sentence?
  • Does Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 override the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 applicable to offenders who were under 21 years of age at the time of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Lakhmir vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 928 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
• Lais Khan & another vs The State etc2021 PHC 58 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-16Read full judgment →
• Lahore Ring Road Authority and others vs Mian Mumtaz Ahmad and others2021 CLC 178 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-28
  Land AcquisitionEnhanced CompensationReferee CourtBurden of ProofMarket ValueCommercial LandAks Shajra KishtwarCompulsory Acquisition ChargesSection 18 Reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal arose from a judgment and decree of the Referee Court/Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, which enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from Rs. 350,000/- to Rs. 650,000/- per Marla for land acquired for the Lahore Ring Road Interchange. The core legal question was whether the landowners had successfully discharged their burden of proof through tangible, corroborative evidence to establish that the acquired land possessed a higher commercial market value justifying the enhancement. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, reversed the enhancement of land compensation, and upheld the original award rate of Rs. 350,000/- per Marla. The Court held that the burden of proving entitlement to higher compensation rests strictly on the landowner. Mere oral assertions, uncorroborated expert opinions, and sale deeds of non-adjacent, distant properties lacking site plans or Aks Shajra Kishtwar cannot substantiate a claim for enhancement. Furthermore, market value must be assessed based on transactions prevalent within the twelve months preceding the Section 4 notification under Rule 10(1)(iii)(c) of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving entitlement to enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lie upon the landowner claiming the enhancement?
  • Can sale deeds of distant or non-adjacent properties be relied upon to determine the market value of acquired land without producing an Aks Shajra Kishtwar or visual site plan?
  • Is the mere oral testimony or opinion of an expert witness sufficient to justify an enhancement of land acquisition compensation without documentary support?
  • What is the relevant statutory time period for assessing the market value of acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Land Acquisition Rules, 1983?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority through Director General and others vs Muhammad Irfan and others2021 PLJ Lahore 397 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-19
  disciplinary proceedingslabour court jurisdictionconstitutional petitionservice grievancestatutory rulesPEEDA Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the Lahore Development Authority to challenge an order passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a grievance petition filed by employees who had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The Court, relying on established precedents from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, held that where disciplinary action is initiated against an employee under a specific statute or statutory service rules, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is excluded. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, and ruled that the appropriate remedy for such employees, in the absence of a specific forum provided by the governing statute, lies before the High Court through a constitutional petition. The judgment reaffirms the principle that statutory disciplinary regimes displace the jurisdiction of Labour Courts regarding service grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition from an employee proceeded against under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
  • Where should an employee seek a remedy if disciplinary action is taken under statutory rules that do not provide a specific forum for grievance redressal?
  • Is a grievance petition maintainable before a Labour Court when the disciplinary action is governed by a special statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Kulsum Khaliq vs Inspector-General Of Police and others2022 PLD Islamabad 51, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 655 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-26
  contempt of courtretired judgescandalizing the courtfreedom of criticismprivate citizenmaintainability of petition
  Summary & questions settled

  Ms. Kulsum Khaliq, an Advocate of the High Court, filed a constitutional petition under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, seeking contempt proceedings against respondents Nos. 4 and 5 for allegedly scandalizing and character assassinating a former Chief Justice of Pakistan before the media. The core legal question was whether contempt proceedings can be initiated for criticism directed against a retired judge in his individual capacity. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a judge upon retirement severs his connection with the judicial organ, attaining the status of a private citizen, and is no longer part of the 'Court' for the purposes of contempt law. The key principle laid down is that the power of contempt is meant to protect the due administration of justice and litigants during pending proceedings, not to protect individual or retired judges as private citizens, who must resort to ordinary legal remedies if maligned.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contempt proceedings can be initiated for criticism directed against a retired judge of a superior court?
  • Does a retired judge attain the status of a private citizen under the law of contempt?
  • What is the true scope and objective of exercising the power of contempt under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Is a petition for contempt maintainable when the alleged act does not interfere with the due administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors vs State of U.P. & Anr2021 SCInd 136 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-03-08
  frivolous litigationabuse of court processsecond complaintmaterial improvementssummoning orderspeedy trialinherent powersquashing of criminal proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court order dismissing a petition to quash summoning and revision orders issued in a private criminal complaint filed six years after an alleged physical altercation between neighbours. The core legal question concerned whether a party can institute a subsequent private complaint containing material improvements and new allegations regarding the same incident after police had already investigated and filed a charge sheet on cross-information. The Supreme Court held that filing a successive private complaint with material improvements and suppression of facts amounts to a gross abuse of the process of the court and violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court laid down that Magistrates have a duty to actively scrutinize private complaints at the threshold to weed out frivolous or vexatious litigation and prevent the harassment of citizens through multiple proceedings arising from the same incident.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second complaint or private complaint filed by the same complainant in respect of the same incident with material improvements is permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
  • What is the role and responsibility of a Magistrate in scrutinizing a private complaint at the summoning stage to prevent frivolous litigation?
  • Does the institution of successive criminal proceedings regarding the same incident violate the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution?
  • Can the Supreme Court exercise its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash all related criminal proceedings to bring quietus to long-standing petty disputes between parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Limited vs Ambuj A. Kasliwal & Ors2021 SCInd 84 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-16Read full judgment →
• Kiran Jaan vs Province of the Punjab, etc2021 PLC (C.S.) 1066, 2021 LHC 1276 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-24
  regularization of servicecontract employeewrit petitionservice lawscrutiny committeestatutory interpretationpublic employment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a contract employee serving as a Programme Coordinator (BS-17), filed a writ petition seeking regularization of her service under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as an eligible contract employee entitled to regularization under the Act, given her three-year tenure and qualifications. The respondents opposed the petition, citing the absence of sanctioned posts and alleged performance issues. The Court held that the petitioner squarely fell within the definition of a contract employee under the Act and had completed the requisite three years of service. The Court rejected the respondents' objections as unsubstantiated and evasive. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the appointing authority to forward the petitioner’s case to the Scrutiny Committee for evaluation in accordance with Section 5(2) of the Act. The judgment establishes that once an employee meets the statutory criteria for regularization, the authorities are legally obligated to process the case through the prescribed mechanism, and mere unsubstantiated denials cannot defeat such statutory rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee who has completed three years of continuous contract service qualify for regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018?
  • Is the appointing authority legally obligated to process a regularization request if the employee meets the statutory criteria defined in the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018?
  • Can the state defeat a claim for regularization through unsubstantiated and evasive denials regarding the availability of sanctioned posts?
  • What is the role of the Scrutiny Committee in the regularization process under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018?
  Read full judgment →
• Kim Seon Bae vs The State and 2 others2021 YLR 114 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-06
  dishonest issuance of chequeacquittal appealsecurity chequebusiness transactionmens reacriminal breachappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, which set aside the conviction of respondent No. 2 under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonestly issuing a cheque, and acquitted him. The core legal question was whether the disputed cheque was issued with dishonest intention towards the repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation, or if it was given years prior as a security cheque during a genuine commercial transaction. The Sindh High Court held that the essential ingredients of Section 489-F, particularly the element of dishonest intention at the time of issuance, were lacking. The evidence demonstrated that the cheque was given as security in 2006, as supported by banking documents and discrepancies in the handwriting of the date, while ongoing legitimate business dealings and subsequent payments negated fraudulent intent. The key principles laid down are that Section 489-F cannot be mechanically invoked for commercial disputes or cheques issued as security, and an appellate court will not interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal enjoying the presumption of double innocence unless it is perverse or arbitrary.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a cheque issued purely for security purposes can attract penal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a pre-existing commercial dispute and subsequent part-payments negate the element of dishonest intention required under Section 489-F?
  • What are the parameters for a appellate court while interfering with a judgment of acquittal carrying a presumption of double innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Textile Mills Association vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 MLD 1325 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
• Khyber Medical University and others vs Aimal Khan and others2022 PLD Supreme Court 92, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-04
  impersonationunfair meansuniversity regulationsjudicial overreachacademic freedominstitutional autonomydisqualificationeducational institutions
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed a challenge against a High Court judgment that reduced a medical student's disqualification period from three years to one year on compassionate grounds. The respondent, a medical student, was caught impersonating another student during an examination, an act he subsequently admitted. The Khyber Medical University, acting under Regulation 32(c) of its Examination Regulations 2017, imposed a mandatory three-year disqualification. The High Court, while acknowledging the guilt, reduced the penalty as being 'harsh'. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, holding that Regulation 32(c) provides a fixed penalty with no discretion for reduction. The Court emphasized that under Article 4 of the Constitution, everyone must be treated in accordance with the law, and judges cannot override express legal provisions based on personal compassion or whims. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle of judicial self-restraint in educational matters, asserting that courts should not interfere in the internal disciplinary and administrative autonomy of universities unless there is a clear violation of law or fundamental rights.

  Read full judgment →
• Khwaja Muhammad Bilal Sethi & 95 others vs Edwards College through its2021 MLD 1271, 2021 PHC 8 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
• Khushnood Bano vs R.P.O. Faisalabad & another2021 MLD 1491, 2021 LHC 1086 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-19Read full judgment →
• Khushi Ram & Ors vs Nawal Singh & Ors2021 SCInd 98 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Khushhal vs The State2021 YLR 1579 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-08
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidenceabscondanceburden of proofacquittalidentification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Allah Yar, for an offence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the ocular account and surrounding circumstances. The Balochistan High Court found significant flaws in the prosecution's case, noting an eight-hour delay in lodging the FIR, the non-examination of material witnesses, and inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the alleged incident. Furthermore, the court highlighted the lack of secured evidence regarding lighting conditions at the 1:30 a.m. incident, rendering the identification of the accused unreliable. The court held that abscondance, not put to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, could not serve as substantive evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt, a right of the accused when reasonable doubt exists.

  Questions settled

  • Can abscondance be treated as substantive evidence of guilt?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused?
  • Does the failure to confront an accused with the allegation of abscondance during a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect its evidentiary value?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to examine material witnesses mentioned in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushdil Khan Malik vs The Secretary, Establishment Div. Cabinet Block2021 SCP 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil servantsecretariat grouptime scale promotionmeritorious servicedeputationrepatriationout of cadre
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil petitions arise from a consolidated judgment of the Islamabad High Court which set aside judgments in favor of the petitioner, who sought induction into the Secretariat Group, time scale promotion in BPS-21, and consideration for BPS-22 on a meritorious basis. The petitioner, originally appointed as a Headmaster (BPS-18) in the Federal Government Educational Institutions, had been serving outside his parent department on deputation and ex-cadre posts. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant outside the occupational groups has a vested right to be inducted into the Secretariat Group, whether time scale promotion is a matter of right or policy, and whether promotion on meritorious service can be directed by the court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for horizontal movement or induction into the Secretariat Group, that time scale promotion is a non-regular policy benefit rather than a statutory condition of service, and that evaluation for meritorious promotion is the exclusive prerogative of the Special Selection Committee. The petitions were dismissed and the High Court's judgment upholding the denial of these reliefs was affirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant belonging to an educational cadre have a vested right to be inducted into the Secretariat Group without meeting the prescribed horizontal movement criteria?
  • Is time scale promotion considered a regular term and condition of service under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Can a court assume the role of the Special Selection Committee to grant promotion on the basis of meritorious service?
  • Does serving on ex-cadre posts qualify a teaching staff member for time scale promotion and meritorious advancement meant for technical and professional officers in their parent department?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushdil Khan Malik vs The Accountant General Pakistan Revenues (Agpr)2021 PLC (C.S.) 399 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-29
  rejection of plaintOrder VII Rule 11civil servanthonorariumterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of civil courtFederal Service Tribunalremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal was preferred against an order and decree of the Civil Judge, Islamabad-West, rejecting the appellant's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the premise that the subject matter fell within the terms and conditions of civil service and was barred by law. The appellant, a serving civil servant, filed a suit for declaration and recovery after the Accountant General Pakistan Revenues failed to disburse an honorarium of three months' basic pay sanctioned by the Federal Cabinet. The core legal questions were whether an honorarium constitutes part of the terms and conditions of service or 'pay' of a civil servant, and whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The High Court held that an honorarium is a voluntary reward or special incentive distinct from monthly pay and not included within the terms and conditions of service under the Civil Servants Act 1973. Furthermore, absent an adverse departmental order, no appeal lay before the Federal Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. Consequently, the High Court set aside the rejection of the plaint and remanded the suit to the Civil Court for disposal on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an honorarium or special incentive granted to a government employee forms part of the 'pay' and 'terms and conditions of service' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution in a suit for recovery of an approved honorarium withheld by the Accountant General Pakistan Revenues?
  • Can an appeal be preferred before the Federal Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 in the absence of an adverse order passed by a departmental authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushdil Khan Malik vs Secretary, Establishment Division Cabinet Block, Islamabad and others2021 SCP 330, 2021 SCMR 1496, 2021 PSC 1587 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-09-12
  civil serviceSecretariat GroupTime Scale Promotionmeritorious promotiondeputationex-cadrevested rightoccupational group
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant originally appointed as a Headmaster in the Federal Government Educational Institutions, challenged the Islamabad High Court's consolidated judgment dismissing his claims for induction into the Secretariat Group, grant of Time Scale Promotion, and promotion on meritorious grounds. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner possessed a vested right to be inducted into the Secretariat Group despite not belonging to an Occupational Group, and whether he was entitled to Time Scale Promotion and meritorious promotion while serving on ex-cadre posts. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that induction into the Secretariat Group requires strict adherence to prescribed modes, including membership in an Occupational Group, which the petitioner lacked. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Time Scale Promotion and meritorious promotion are discretionary policy benefits, not vested rights, and are contingent upon specific conditions, such as serving in the parent department, which the petitioner failed to satisfy. The Court emphasized that it cannot usurp the authority of the Special Selection Committee in evaluating professional merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to be inducted into the Secretariat Group if they do not belong to an Occupational Group?
  • Is Time Scale Promotion a term and condition of service or a discretionary policy benefit?
  • Can a court assume the role of the Special Selection Committee in evaluating a civil servant for promotion on the basis of meritorious service?
  • Are the benefits of the Time Scale Formula applicable to a civil servant serving on ex-cadre posts outside their parent department?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushdil Khan Malik vs Federation of Pakistan and two others2021 IHC 118 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-03
  civil servantdeputationtransfer and postingterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of high courtservice tribunaloouster of jurisdictionrepatriation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed by a BS-20 civil servant challenging notifications regarding his transfer and repatriation to his parent department. The core legal questions addressed are whether a civil servant has a vested right to a particular post or deputation tenure, whether Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 applies to internal deputations of federal employees, and whether transfer disputes are barred by Article 212 of the Constitution. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that civil servants have no vested right to choose their posting, that internal federal employees cannot be appointed on deputation under Rule 20A(1) of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973, and that service-related transfer disputes fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal due to the constitutional ouster under Article 212.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a legal right to object to a transfer order or remain on deputation for a period of his own choice?
  • Can an employee already in the service of the Federal Government be appointed to another post within the Federal Government on a deputation basis under Rule 20A(1) of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973?
  • Does an order under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 to transfer a civil servant fall within the scope of terms and conditions of service, thereby attracting the bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushal Khan Khattak University through its Vice Chancellor and others vs Jabran Ali Khan and others2021 SCMR 977, 2021 SCP 182, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-26
  regularizationcontractual employmentmaster and servantconstitutional jurisdictiontrichotomy of powersvested rightuniversity servicewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These Civil Appeals were filed by Khushal Khan Khattak University against a Peshawar High Court judgment that directed the regularization of several contractual employees. The respondents, initially appointed on a temporary contingency basis under Section 11(5)(d) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2016, had failed subsequent skill tests and interviews for regular positions. The High Court had intervened, asserting that the University Syndicate's inquiry process was flawed and directed their confirmation. The Supreme Court, however, held that contractual employees possess no vested right to regularization unless specifically provided by statute. The Court further observed that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution by interfering in factual controversies, micromanaging administrative functions, and acting as an appointing authority, which violates the principle of trichotomy of powers. The Court emphasized that once a contract expires, the relationship of master and servant ends, and courts cannot retrospectively revive such contracts. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside.

  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid and others vs Altaf Hussain and others2021 YLR 1901, 2022 KLR Revenue Cases 17 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
• Khursheed Begum and 4 others vs Fateh Muhammad Khan Bajarani and 22021 YLR 578 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-11Read full judgment →
• Khursheed Ahmed vs Rent Controller, Islamabad (West) and another2021 YLR 2092 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Lubna Bibi vs Azhar Javed Abbasi and another2022 SCMR 946, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-11
  bail cancellationpre-arrest bailmedical boardmedico-legal opinionconflict of medical evidenceprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 337A(ii), 337A(iv), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that the respondent was accused of causing an injury falling under Section 337A(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the opinion of the initial medical examiner should be preferred over a subsequent Medical Board's opinion. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that when there is a conflict in medical opinions, the opinion of a Medical Board comprising multiple senior experts with superior qualifications and experience must be given precedence over the initial examination conducted by a single junior doctor. The Court observed that preferring the first examiner's opinion would frustrate the established hierarchical system of medical review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the opinion of an initial medical examiner must be given preference over the subsequent collective opinion of a duly constituted Medical Board?
  • How should a court resolve a conflict between the medical opinions of a single junior medical officer and a multi-member Medical Board?
  • Does the hierarchy of medical review established by provincial notifications allow a Medical Board's findings to supersede initial medico-legal reports for bail purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurram Zafar through Constituted Attorney vs Mst. Sarah and another2021 YLR 91 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
• Khurram Shahzad vs Naseem Akhtar and 2 others2021 CLC 1300 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Khurram Shahzad S/O Muhammad Yousuf Bhatti vs The State2021 SHC 518 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-07
  post-arrest bailconfessional statementfurther inquiryrobberyco-accusedcorroborationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns the petitioner’s request for post-arrest bail in a robbery case registered under Sections 392 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was not named in the First Information Report and was implicated solely based on the confessional statement of a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the confessional statement of a co-accused, in the absence of any independent incriminating evidence or recovery, constitutes sufficient grounds to deny bail. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, reasoning that the case requires further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that a co-accused's confession, without corroborating material, is insufficient to determine prima facie involvement at the bail stage. Furthermore, as the investigation was complete and the charge sheet submitted, there was no risk of tampering with evidence. The key principle laid down is that the mere confessional statement of a co-accused, without independent corroboration, does not justify the denial of bail when other factors like lack of recovery and potential malice are present.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant bail when the accused is implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused's confessional statement?
  • Does the absence of recovery from an accused justify the grant of bail in a robbery case?
  • Is a case considered to require further inquiry when the prosecution relies exclusively on a co-accused's confession without independent evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurram Faraz vs Addl: District Judge, etc2021 [M] C L R 697 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-17Read full judgment →
• Khuda-E-Dad and 15 others vs Bhawal Khan and another2021 MLD 1141 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-15Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux Khoso vs The State2021 SHC 1334 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20
  pre-arrest bailunlawful assemblyprohibitory clausefalsely implicatedland disputecriminal bail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Khuda Bux Khoso, following the refusal of such relief by the Sessions Judge, Jacobabad. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, as part of an unlawful assembly, caused lathi blows to the injured party and insulted the complainant. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated due to a pre-existing dispute over landed property. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay, the alleged offenses (except one) were bailable, and the specific offense under section 337-F(ii) did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court observed that co-accused had already been granted bail, the challan had been submitted, and the applicant had joined the trial without misusing the concession. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR without plausible explanation impact the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an offense under section 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the applicant has joined the trial and co-accused have already been admitted to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 845 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-03
  criminal appealrape convictionbenefit of the doubtforensic evidenceDNA analysisdelayed FIRacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Khuda Bakhsh, who was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, for rape and causing hurt. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the evidence. The High Court scrutinized the prosecution's narrative, noting significant discrepancies: the complainant's failure to clarify the location of the occurrence, the unexplained delay in medical examination and FIR registration, the victim's contradictory statement regarding the number of assailants, and the forensic evidence indicating a DNA mixture of at least two unknown individuals, which the prosecution failed to explain. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction, as the complainant had suppressed material facts. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case is riddled with unexplained delays, material contradictions between the FIR and medical evidence, and uninvestigated forensic findings, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR and medical examination of the victim undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when forensic DNA evidence indicates the presence of unknown individuals not mentioned in the FIR?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the victim's statement regarding the number of assailants contradicts the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh vs Province of Punjab and another2021 LHC 8116 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-21Read full judgment →
• Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas vs State of Chhattisgarh2021 SCInd 76 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-11
  culpable homicide not amounting to murdersudden quarrelheat of passionException 4 to Section 300conviction alterationpremeditationsepticemia
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a High Court judgment confirming the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question was whether, given the circumstances of the incident, the conviction should be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the conviction should be modified. The Court found that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel regarding money, without premeditation, and the accused acted in the heat of passion without taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the case fell within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The Court emphasized that while death by septicemia does not automatically reduce a charge, the absence of premeditation and the nature of the sudden fight are determinative factors. Consequently, the conviction was altered to Section 304-I, and the sentence was reduced to the 14.5 years already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Does a death resulting from a sudden quarrel without premeditation fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the act was committed in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel?
  • Does the fact that a victim died of septicemia automatically reduce the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizer Hayat Khan vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Local2021 PLC (C.S.) 1275 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29
  pension rightsfundamental rightscontempt of courtKarachi Development Authoritypost-retirement benefitsjudicial oversightofficial assignee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions filed by retired employees of the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) regarding the non-payment of their pension and post-retirement benefits. The core legal question was whether the KDA could withhold pension payments citing financial constraints while continuing to pay full salaries to senior management, and whether the KDA’s failure to comply with court-ordered payment schedules and submission of false financial data constituted contempt. The Court held that pension is an unalienable fundamental right, and the KDA’s failure to discharge this statutory obligation, coupled with its willful disobedience of court orders and suppression of facts, was unacceptable. Consequently, the Court appointed the Official Assignee as a Commissioner to oversee the sale of KDA properties and ensure the disbursement of pension arrears. The Court further directed that if payments were not settled by the stipulated deadline, the salaries of KDA’s top management must be suspended. Additionally, the Court initiated contempt proceedings against relevant KDA officials for their deliberate non-compliance and misrepresentation of facts before the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is the payment of pension an unalienable fundamental right under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can a court appoint a Commissioner to oversee the financial obligations of a statutory body upon its failure to comply with court orders?
  • Does the submission of false financial information and failure to adhere to undertakings given to the court constitute contempt of court?
  • Can a court order the suspension of salaries of senior management of a statutory body to enforce the payment of pensions to retired employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizer Hayat Khan vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2022 YLR 921 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat vs The State and others2021 MLD 1597 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-21
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequefurther inquirynon-prohibitory clausedocumentary evidencecriminal breach of contractcivil recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when the case relies on documentary evidence already in the prosecution's possession, the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the investigation reveals significant gaps, including the absence of original documents and conflicting ledgers. The Court held that the case constitutes one of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the offence and the petitioner's continued incarceration would be punitive rather than preventive. The key principles laid down are that criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 should not be used as a recovery tool for civil debts, and that bail should be granted in non-prohibitory offences unless exceptional circumstances exist, particularly when the case rests on documentary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of a criminal case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constitute a valid substitute for civil recovery proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is the mere registration of multiple criminal cases of a similar nature against an accused sufficient ground to deny bail?
  • Does the absconsion of an accused person preclude the grant of bail if the case otherwise falls within the scope of 'further inquiry'?
  • Should bail be refused in a non-prohibitory offence solely because the trial is expected to commence in the near future?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizar Abbas vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1332 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytest identification paradenon-recoverycriminal procedurebail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Khizar Abbas, in connection with FIR No. 410 registered at Police Station Kot Chutta, District Dera Ghazi Khan, for offences under Sections 394, 511, 337-F(iii), 337-F(iv), 337-F(v), and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the identification and the lack of recovery of incriminating items. The Court observed that the crime report initially described the culprits as unknown and muffled-faced, rendering the subsequent test identification parade subject to determination by the trial court. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to recover the alleged motorcycle or the crime weapon during the petitioner's physical custody. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry into his guilt. The Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where identification is questionable and incriminating evidence remains unrecovered, the accused is entitled to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as continued incarceration serves no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to recover the crime weapon and vehicle during physical custody constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be granted post-arrest bail when the initial crime report describes the culprits as unknown and muffled-faced?
  • Is the credibility of a test identification parade a matter for the trial court to determine during the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawar Hussain vs Government Of Punjab and others2021 MLD 442 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-24Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Rauf Segal vs Full Bench, National Industrial Relations2021 PLJ Islamabad 130, 2021 PLC 39 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-08-24
  bogus educational certificatemisconductshow-cause noticedisciplinary proceedingsunfair labour practicewrit of certioraripremature petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) dismissing his petition against a show-cause notice issued by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). The show-cause notice called upon the petitioner to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for committing misconduct by submitting a bogus intermediate certificate to secure employment as a cargo assistant. The core legal questions involved whether an employer has the right to initiate disciplinary proceedings for misconduct regarding fake educational credentials, whether such initiation constitutes an unfair labour practice, and whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked prematurely against a mere show-cause notice or pending inquiry. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that an employer possesses the legal right to verify educational testimonials and initiate disciplinary proceedings for misconduct, which does not constitute an unfair labour practice under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court laid down that challenging a show-cause notice or inquiry stage prematurely is unwarranted, and that obtaining qualifications subsequent to appointment does not cure the initial lack of eligibility.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings by an employer upon discovering a bogus educational certificate constitutes an unfair labour practice under the industrial relations laws?
  • Can a High Court interfere under its constitutional writ jurisdiction against a mere show-cause notice or during the pendency of a domestic inquiry before it culminates in a final order?
  • Does obtaining the prescribed educational qualifications subsequent to the date of appointment cure the initial lack of eligibility or render the appointment valid?
  • Whether an employee who secured employment on the basis of forged educational testimonials can claim protection or parity under Article 25 of the Constitution based on illegal favours extended to others?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Mohammad Qasim through L.Rs vs Arif Aslam Khan and 2 others2021 MLD 585 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-09-25Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Bashir Ahmed & Sons Pvt. Ltd vs M/s Martrade Shipping &2021 P SC 755, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 373, 2021 SCP 24, 2021 PLJ SC 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-14
  withdrawal of suitpermission to file fresh suitsufficient groundsindivisible applicationformal defectcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from concurrent decisions of the lower courts declining to grant permission to the appellant to file a fresh suit upon the withdrawal of its original civil suit against a defendant. The appellant had filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to withdraw the suit against respondent No.2 while reserving the right to sue afresh. The trial court dismissed the suit as withdrawn but refused permission to file a fresh suit, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether an application for withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh one under Order XXIII Rule 2(b) is indivisible, and what constitutes a sufficient 'ground' for granting such permission. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a plaintiff cannot withdraw a suit merely at their sweet will without disclosing facts that in law amount to a valid 'ground' under Rule 2(b). The Court laid down that an application merely stating a temporary disinclination to proceed does not constitute a ground, and unless a proper ground is disclosed, the court is not required to grant permission for a fresh suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for withdrawal of a suit under Order XXIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is indivisible?
  • What constitutes a sufficient ground under Order XXIII Rule 2(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for granting permission to file a fresh suit?
  • Can a plaintiff be permitted to withdraw a suit and reserve the right to sue afresh merely at their sweet will and pleasure?
  • What is the legal effect if a trial court dismisses a suit as withdrawn without expressly declining or granting permission to file a fresh suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Aqeel Rasheed Butt vs Ccpo, Lahore & others2021 LHC 5041 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-30
  criminal revisionrevisional jurisdictionprocedural hierarchySessions JudgeMagistrateconcurrent jurisdictionexhaustion of remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate under Sections 110 and 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether a party aggrieved by an order of a Magistrate can bypass the Sessions Court and directly approach the High Court for criminal revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that while the High Court possesses concurrent revisional jurisdiction, it should not be exercised as a parallel option without plausible justification, as this would frustrate the legislative intent behind Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which devolved revisional powers to Sessions Judges to ensure justice at the doorstep. The Court affirmed that a Magistrate is inferior to the Sessions Judge, and the proper procedural hierarchy must be respected. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the revision directly and directed the office to transmit the petition to the Sessions Judge, Lahore, for a decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party directly approach the High Court for criminal revision against an order of a Magistrate without first approaching the Sessions Judge?
  • Does the High Court's concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, allow for bypassing the Sessions Court in revision matters?
  • What is the legislative intent behind Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding the devolution of revisional powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Khatoon Bibi through L.Rs. and Attorney vs Mst. Attia Ishaque and 2 others2021 CLC 605 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-13Read full judgment →
• Khatoon Bibi (Late) through L.Rs vs Mst. Attia Ishaque and 2 others2021 CLC 605, 2021 PLJ Karachi 46 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-13Read full judgment →
• Khan Construction Company vs Punjab Province through Secretary Hud2021 LHC 5320, 2022 CLC 364 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-08Read full judgment →
• Khamisa and 2 others vs The State2021 YLR 347 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-29
  post-arrest bailrecovery of weaponpointationfurther inquirytentative assessmentcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from a criminal case involving charges under Sections 302, 109, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an FIR alleging murder due to a land dispute. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the evidence of recovery of weapons and their nomination in the FIR. The Court held that while the applicants Sikandar and Kareem Bakhsh were not entitled to bail due to the recovery of crime weapons on their pointation—making their disclosure admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984—the applicant Khamisa was entitled to bail. The Court established that mere nomination in an FIR without a specific role attributed to an accused, and in the absence of incriminating recovery, warrants further inquiry into guilt. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed for two applicants but allowed for the third, subject to the provision of surety, emphasizing that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is a disclosure made to the police admissible as evidence if it leads to the discovery of a new fact?
  • Does mere nomination in an FIR, without specific attribution of a role, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Can an accused be granted bail if no incriminating material or weapon is recovered from them during investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Khallid Hussain, etc vs Nazir Ahmad, etc2021 P SC 1206, 2021 SCMR 1986, 2021 SCP 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-29
  inheritancegift deedmutationsuit for declarationsuit for cancellationvoid documentvoidable documentSpecific Relief Actonus of proofIslamic law of giftdelivery of possessionco-ownershiplimitationregistration of document
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition concerned siblings disputing inherited property, challenging a Gift Deed and subsequent mutation. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, for a registered document, and the necessity of seeking consequential relief like possession. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in finding the suit non-maintainable. It clarified the distinction between void and voidable documents, stating that for a void document (e.g., forged or procured by deceit), a suit for declaration under Section 42 is competent, and cancellation under Section 39 is not mandatory. Furthermore, not seeking possession was not fatal as the petitioners claimed co-ownership, and the respondents failed to prove exclusive possession. The Court emphasized that the onus was on the beneficiaries of the Gift Deed to prove its due execution, valid registration, and the three essential conditions of a valid gift under Islamic Law: declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The respondents failed to adduce reliable evidence for these conditions. The Court also determined that the cause of action for the petitioners arose upon their father's death, making the suit timely. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellate court's decision, which decreed the petitioners' suit, was upheld.

  Read full judgment →
• Khalique Rehman vs The State2021 SHC 1020 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-02Read full judgment →
• Khalilullah Kakar vs Provincial Police Officer, Balochistan etc2021 PLJ SC 333, 2021 SCP 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service tribunaljurisdiction of high courtseniority listdeputy superintendent of policeterms and conditions of servicecivil servantspolice branches
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves consolidated civil appeals arising from a dispute over whether Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs) in the Balochistan Police Force belonging to different branches, specifically the legal/prosecution branch versus general and other branches, should have a joint seniority list or separate ones. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of constitutional petitions filed by civil servants before the High Court in view of the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether separate seniority lists for DSPs of different cadres are sustainable under the law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain service matters falling within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal, especially when the Tribunal was operational. On the merits, the Court held that separate seniority lists for DSPs of different branches are well-founded given the distinct qualifications, training, and nature of duties, and do not compromise the integrity of the police force since seniority lists merge beyond the rank of DSP. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable by a civil servant in relation to matters connected with the terms and conditions of service where a Service Tribunal has jurisdiction?
  • Does Article 212(2) of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain proceedings relating to terms and conditions of service even if the impugned orders are alleged to be mala fide, ultra vires, or coram non judice?
  • Whether separate seniority lists for Deputy Superintendents of Police belonging to the legal/prosecution branch and other branches of the Balochistan Police Force are permissible under the law?
  • Does the issuance of separate seniority lists up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police violate the status of the police force as an indivisible body?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalilullah Kakar vs Provincial Police Officer, Balochistan and others2021 P SC 1402, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 869, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 1030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-21
  service tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional petition maintainabilityseniority listpolice servicecadre separationcivil servants
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses appeals arising from a High Court judgment directing the issuance of a joint seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs) across all branches of the Balochistan Police Force. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of constitutional petitions by civil servants before the High Court in light of the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether separate seniority lists for DSPs belonging to different branches such as the legal and prosecution branch are legally sustainable. The Court held that the constitutional petitions were not maintainable because matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution, and the Tribunal was functional at the relevant times. On merits, the Court held that maintaining separate seniority lists for DSPs of specialized branches like prosecution, given their distinct recruitment, training, and duties, is valid and does not compromise the compactness of the police force. The appeals were allowed and the impugned High Court judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant relating to terms and conditions of service is maintainable before the High Court in the presence of the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Does the bar under Article 212(2) of the Constitution apply when the service tribunal is operational?
  • Whether separate seniority lists of Deputy Superintendents of Police belonging to the legal/prosecution branch and other branches of the police force are legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalilullah Kakar and others vs Provincial Police Officer, Balochistan and others2021 SCMR 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-21
  maintainability of constitutional petitionArticle 212 barService Tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicecivil servantsseniority listpolice cadres
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals under Article 185(3) of the Constitution arose from a High Court judgment directing the Provincial Police Officer, Balochistan, to issue a joint seniority list for Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs) across all branches. The primary legal questions concerned whether constitutional petitions under Article 199 were maintainable despite the bar in Article 212(2) of the Constitution, and whether maintaining separate seniority lists for legal/prosecution and general cadres of DSPs was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court judgment. The Court held that respondents were civil servants and seniority directly relates to terms and conditions of service, falling squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Under Article 212(2), the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred from entertaining such petitions, even if the Tribunal was temporarily non-functional or the action was alleged to be ultra vires. Furthermore, given differences in recruitment, training, and duties under Rule 2(b) of the Balochistan DSP Service Rules, 1978, issuing separate seniority lists at the DSP level is legally permissible and does not violate the unity of the police force, provided lists merge upon higher promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 maintainable by a civil servant regarding terms and conditions of service in light of the bar under Article 212(2) of the Constitution?
  • Does the temporary non-functionality of a Service Tribunal confer jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain service matters under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can separate seniority lists be legally maintained for different cadres of Deputy Superintendents of Police based on distinct duties, training, and recruitment procedures?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil-Ur-Rehman and others vs The State and others2021 MLD 671 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-22
  murder referencedeath sentencebenefit of the doubtocular accountfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusrecoverymotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing Qatl-i-Amd, alongside a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony, the corroborative value of alleged recoveries and motive, and the application of the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus following the acquittal of co-accused based on the same evidence. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions in the FIR, unexplained delays, unnatural conduct of the sole eye-witness, and violation of mandatory procedural provisions regarding recoveries under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Furthermore, since the evidence against the acquitted co-accused was rejected, it could not be safely used against the appellant. The court laid down that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, and tainted ocular evidence cannot be salvaged by weak motive or flawed recoveries.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eye-witness disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused can be safely relied upon to convict the remaining appellant on a common set of evidence?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses of the locality during a weapon or object recovery vitiate the evidentiary value of such recovery under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can uncorroborated motive and defective recovery serve as sufficient independent corroboration to sustain a conviction when the ocular account is found to be unreliable?
  • What is the legal effect of a material omission in the initial oral statement or FIR regarding the identity of the primary eye-witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ullah alias Khalil vs Awas Khan and another2021 CLC 456 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
• Khalil Akhtar vs Magistrate 1st Class, District Mianwali and another2021 P Cr. L J 1822 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-26
  medical boardterritorial jurisdictionconstitutional petitionmedico-legal certificatepresumption of regularitycriminal justice systemjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a Magistrate's order directing the re-examination of an injured complainant by a second medical board. The petitioner argued that the Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction and acted without legal justification. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate can repeatedly order the constitution of medical boards to re-examine an injured person without strong grounds, and whether such an order can be issued to a forum outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable. It reasoned that the Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction to direct a hospital in a different district to constitute a board and that the repeated constitution of medical boards is alien to the criminal justice system. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that official acts, such as initial medical examinations, enjoy a statutory presumption of regularity under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, which cannot be dismantled without compelling evidence of mala fides. Consequently, the Court set aside the Magistrate's order, affirming that medical reports are not per se admissible evidence without the author's testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate order the constitution of a medical board for the re-examination of an injured person outside his territorial jurisdiction?
  • Does the law permit the repeated constitution of medical boards to re-examine an injured person in a criminal case?
  • Are medico-legal certificates and medical board reports per se admissible in evidence without the testimony of the medical officer?
  • Can a statutory presumption of regularity regarding official acts be dismantled without strong evidence of mala fides?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmed and another vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 1424 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-20
  circumstantial evidencecapital punishmentinadmissible confessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealchain of evidencemurderDNA evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including pointation, recoveries, and a confession made to the police. The core legal question was whether this evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It found the medical evidence regarding the cause of death inconsistent with the state of the body, noted the absence of an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, and ruled the confession inadmissible under Article 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court emphasized that for a capital conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain must be unbroken, connecting the accused to the crime. Furthermore, it held that one tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellants, and answered the confirmation reference in the negative, reiterating that the benefit of the doubt is a right of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a confession made before the police while in custody be used as evidence against an accused?
  • What is the standard of proof required for circumstantial evidence to sustain a capital conviction?
  • Can one tainted piece of evidence corroborate another tainted piece of evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid vs Pakistan Tobacco Company Akora Khattak, District Nowshera, KP2021 PHC 236, 2022 PLC 15, 2022 PCTLR 99, 2022 [M] CLR 41 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-08
  workman definitionindustrial relationstermination of servicelabour lawwrit jurisdictionNIRCstanding orders
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenge the judgment of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission, which reversed a Single Bench order reinstating the petitioners, who were employed as Field Officers by the respondent company. The core legal question was whether the petitioners qualified as "workmen" under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, to claim protection against termination. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners did not fall within the definition of "workmen." The court established that the status of a "workman" is determined by the nature of duties performed, not by job designation. It held that where an employee's primary duties involve intellectual exertion, independent decision-making, specialized knowledge, or supervision—rather than routine manual or clerical labor—they are excluded from the definition of "workman." The court emphasized that manual or clerical tasks must constitute the "pith and substance" of the employment, and ancillary manual duties performed by a supervisory or managerial employee do not confer "workman" status under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee qualify as a 'workman' if their primary duties involve intellectual exertion and decision-making rather than manual labor?
  • Is the designation of an employee conclusive in determining their status as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can ancillary manual duties performed by a supervisory employee bring them within the definition of a 'workman'?
  • What is the test for determining whether an employee is a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid ur Rehman and another vs The State & another2021 IHC 64 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-24
  post-arrest bailfamily disputefurther inquiryprohibitory clausebail as punishmentdelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, arising from a family dispute involving property between brothers, their father, and mother. The core legal questions pertained to whether the delay in the FIR, delayed addition of a section, and the nature of the family dispute made the case one of further inquiry, and whether bail should be granted when investigation is complete and no risk of abscondence or tampering exists. The court held that the petitioners made out a case for further inquiry on a tentative assessment, noting that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, the petitioners have no criminal record, and the investigation is complete. The court laid down the principle that bail should not be refused as a punitive measure pending trial when none of the standard exceptions—such as risk of abscondance, tampering with evidence, or previous conviction—are attracted, and where unjustified incarceration cannot be compensated if the accused is ultimately acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be withheld as a punishment pending trial when the investigation is complete and the accused pose no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence?
  • Does the delayed addition of an offence section in the FIR and a family feud background constitute grounds for further inquiry warranting post-arrest bail?
  • Is bail to be denied solely on the basis of the seriousness of charges when none of the standard exceptions against granting bail are attracted?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Nadeem Kiyani vs I.G. Police, Islamabad and others2021 PLJ Islamabad 159, 2021 YLR 728 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-02Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs The State2021 LHC 4682, 2022 MLD 1848 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-07
  capital punishmentocular evidenceinjured witnesscommutation of sentenceforensic corroborationcriminal appealmurder referencewitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the appropriateness of the death penalty. The Court held that while the testimony of one injured eyewitness was credible and corroborated by forensic evidence, the testimony of another witness was suspect due to contradictions with medical evidence. Consequently, the conviction was maintained based on the reliable witness's account. Regarding sentencing, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and that the appellant inflicted only a single injury. Applying the principle that the death penalty is not mandatory where mitigating circumstances exist, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The judgment reaffirms that while a solitary, credible witness can sustain a conviction, sentencing must be proportionate to the facts, particularly when the motive is unproven and the act lacks extreme brutality, warranting a shift from capital punishment to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital offense be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness?
  • Does the presence of a firearm injury on a witness confirm their presence at the crime scene?
  • Is the death sentence mandatory for a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the testimony of an eyewitness be discarded if it contradicts medical evidence regarding the distance of the shot?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs The State and 2 others2022 YLR 522 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-10-25
  dying declarationconfessional statementcircumstantial evidencebenefit of the doubtmurderrobberyweapon recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased following an attempted robbery. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value and admissibility of a statement treated as a dying declaration under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the voluntariness and truthfulness of a retracted judicial confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the reliability of circumstantial evidence and weapon recoveries under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution relied on a weak, unverified statement failing to meet the requirements of a dying declaration, that the confessional statement suffered from mandatory procedural illegalities and material contradictions, and that weapon recoveries and forensic reports were highly doubtful. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, establishing that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the accused's guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an injured person's statement recorded in an FIR qualify as a dying declaration when the declarant survives for 39 days without medical certification of fitness?
  • Can a retracted judicial confession be relied upon when it contradicts the material particulars of the prosecution's circumstantial evidence?
  • Is a weapon recovery admissible under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when independent local witnesses are not associated despite prior police information?
  • What constitutes the necessary benchmark for establishing guilt solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence in a capital charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs Additional District Judge, West Islamabad and 22021 PLJ Islamabad 162, 2021 MLD 264 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-10Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood and others vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1746 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-14
  murderqatl-i-amdchance witnessesbenefit of the doubtmedical evidenceabscondenceacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, murder reference, and petition for special leave to appeal arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Khalid Mehmood, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased, Muhammad Sher, while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal questions involve the reliability of chance witnesses, the valuation of motive, medical and forensic corroboration, and the standard of interference in acquittal orders. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eye-witnesses at the crime scene, rendering them unconvincing chance witnesses whose testimony contradicted physical realities and human conduct under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, withholding natural inmate witnesses, discordant forensic reports, and unproven motives created fatal reasonable doubts. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the petition against the acquittal of the co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses who fail to provide a plausible reason for their presence at the crime scene can form the basis of a murder conviction?
  • Can medical evidence alone serve to identify an accused or corroborate an unreliable ocular account?
  • What is the evidentiary value of abscondence in the absence of substantive supporting evidence?
  • On what grounds can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal that carries a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood and another vs The State and others2021 SCMR 810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-24
  MurderConvictionAcquittalJail PetitionCriminal AppealEyewitness TestimonyBenefit of DoubtMaterial ImprovementsMotiveReasonable Doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a murder conviction under Section 302(b) P.P.C., where the petitioner was initially sentenced to death, later converted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The Supreme Court considered a jail petition, converted into an appeal, and a criminal petition for enhancement of sentence. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had proven its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the credibility of eyewitnesses and the consistency of the motive. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing material improvements in eyewitness testimonies, inconsistencies between the FIR and trial statements, and uncorroborated motive. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, and acquitted him. The criminal petition for enhancement of sentence was dismissed as irrelevant after the acquittal.

  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood and 128 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1516 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-27
  pensionary benefitstransferred employeesstatutory protectionterms and conditions of servicePakistan Telecommunication Employees Trustwrit jurisdictionpension increase
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated petition concerns the entitlement of former employees of the Telegraph and Telephone Department, subsequently transferred to the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited, to pensionary benefits. The core legal question is whether the statutory protection afforded to these employees under Section 9 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991, and Sections 35 and 36 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, entitles them to receive pension increases periodically declared by the Federal Government for civil servants, or if such benefits were frozen at the time of transfer. The Court held that the statutory protection of terms and conditions of service is not dependent on the employees' status as civil servants. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that these provisions guarantee that pensionary benefits cannot be varied to the employees' disadvantage. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners are entitled to the same pension increases as those announced by the Federal Government for civil servants, directing the Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust to calculate and pay the arrears.

  Questions settled

  • Are transferred employees of the former Telegraph and Telephone Department entitled to the same pension increases as those announced by the Federal Government for civil servants?
  • Does the statutory protection of terms and conditions of service under the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991, and the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, depend on the employment status of the transferred employees as civil servants?
  • Can the Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust vary the pensionary benefits of transferred employees to their disadvantage?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs Additional District Judge, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 140 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-22Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood and 3 others vs Umara Khan deceased through Legal2021 YLR 391 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-26Read full judgment →
• Khalid Kamal Syed & 18 others vs The Government of Sindh and 03 others2021 SHC 30 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Khalid Iqbal and others vs Shahid Iqbal and others2021 CLC 1880 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-16Read full judgment →
• Khalid Imran vs Station House Officer, etc2021 PLD Lahore 527, 2021 PLJ Lahore 911, 2021 LHC 1078 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-21Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain and others vs The Inspector General Punjab Police and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 104 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-06
  constitutional jurisdictionrecruitment policyeligibility criteriajudicial reviewPunjab Policeservice matterdiscretion of employer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the rejection of their applications for the post of Constable in the Punjab Police. Petitioner No. 1 was rejected for exceeding the age limit for ex-army personnel, while Petitioner No. 2 was rejected for failing to provide a Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) with his application. The core legal question was whether the Court could interfere with the recruitment policy and eligibility criteria set by the department. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the determination of eligibility qualifications and recruitment policies falls within the exclusive discretion of the employer. The Court affirmed that it cannot interfere in such policy matters unless the criteria are capricious or arbitrary. The key principle laid down is that courts should not substitute their own judgment for the lawful discretion exercised by departments in formulating job qualifications, as no candidate possesses a vested right to be appointed to a public post.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court interfere with the eligibility criteria and recruitment policies formulated by a government department?
  • Does a candidate have a vested right to be appointed to a public post?
  • Under what circumstances can a court interfere with the policy decisions of a department regarding job qualifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain and 6 others vs Asif Iqbal and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 242 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-12
  cognizance of offensepolice reportsection 173 Cr.P.C.framing of chargemagisterial powerscriminal miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of an offense on a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and adding a penal section not mentioned in the FIR or investigation report, as well as an appellate order dismissing a revision against it. The core legal question concerns the extent of a Magistrate's power to add or subtract sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when taking cognizance of a case originating from a police report rather than a private complaint. The Sindh High Court held that in a police-reported case, a Magistrate cannot arbitrarily add or delete penal sections at the stage of taking cognizance; rather, the addition or alteration of charges must be determined by the trial court at the appropriate stage of framing charges based on the investigation material and the FIR. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Magistrate's order to the extent of the unauthorized addition of the penal section, clarifying that the trial court retains the liberty to examine charge-framing questions in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate can add or subtract sections of the Pakistan Penal Code at the time of taking cognizance in a case based on a police report?
  • What is the distinction between a case instituted on a private complaint and a case instituted on a police report regarding a Magistrate's powers?
  • At what stage of proceedings can the trial court alter or frame charges under appropriate sections of the Pakistan Penal Code in a police-reported case?
  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to introduce an offense not mentioned in the FIR or the final police report without supporting investigative material?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid and others vs State and othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 544 · Lahore High Court
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of doubtmedical evidence conflictocular testimonyprivate complaintacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected matters challenge the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a private murder complaint. The core legal question involves the appraisal of evidence regarding ocular testimony, medical corroboration, and the credibility of eyewitnesses where an initial FIR was registered against unknown culprits. The Lahore High Court held that the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the scene was highly improbable, the ocular account was in direct conflict with the medical evidence showing only a single firearm injury, and the initial FIR cast grave doubt on the subsequent nomination of the appellants. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants of the charges and answered the murder reference in the negative, establishing that material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, coupled with an unexplained shift in the prosecution's stance from the initial police report, render a conviction unsafe.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained when the ocular account is in direct conflict with the medical evidence?
  • Does an unexplained shift from an initial FIR against unknown culprits to a subsequent private complaint casting wide-ranging nominations impair the credibility of eyewitnesses?
  • Whether the presence of an alleged eyewitness who claims to be present during a motorcycle incident but sustains no injuries can be deemed doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Khaista Muhammad vs The State through A.A.G. and others2021 P Cr. L J 1323 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-19
  dying declarationconfessional statementreduction of sentencemitigating circumstancesmurder trialappellate reviewocular testimonyweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of his daughter, along with a conviction under Section 15 of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the deceased victim's dying declaration, the evidentiary value of a delayed judicial confession, and whether mitigating circumstances warrant the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Peshawar High Court held that the dying declaration, corroborated by natural eye-witnesses and medical evidence, alongside a voluntary confessional statement and weapon recovery, conclusively proved the guilt of the appellant. However, considering mitigating factors such as societal norms influencing the motive, minor weaknesses in prosecution evidence, and the advanced age of the appellant (68 years), the court upheld the conviction but altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that mitigating circumstances and evidentiary weaknesses, while insufficient for an outright acquittal, can be validly invoked to reduce a capital sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration form the sole basis of a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession automatically render it inadmissible or unreliable?
  • Whether mitigating circumstances and minor weaknesses in prosecution evidence can be pressed for the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is the presence of natural eye-witnesses inside a house at the time of an occurrence rendered doubtful merely by their omission from the initial FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Khaista Gul son of Jan Gul, r/o Khan Mast Colony District, Peshawar vs The2021 PHC 348 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• Khair Ullah vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 916 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-18
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquirytentative assessmentvicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed by Khair Ullah in respect of FIR No. 104 dated 05.04.2020 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with subsequent additions. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry and post-arrest bail, particularly considering the role attributed to him, the nature of injuries sustained by the injured persons, and the principle of consistency. The Court held that the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased, the injuries sustained by the injured witnesses were simple with discrepancies regarding the weapon, and co-accused facing similar allegations had already been admitted to bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where tentative assessment reveals a case for further inquiry and co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail, the rule of consistency entitles the petitioner to the same relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency when co-accused with similar roles have already been granted bail?
  • Does a case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no fatal injury is attributed to the petitioner and injuries sustained by the injured witnesses are simple?
  • Can the question of vicarious liability under Sections 149 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be properly determined at the bail stage without recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain Mirjat vs The State2021 SHC 1296 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-16
  attempted rapeoutraging modestycriminal appealmodification of sentencesufficiency of evidenceintent to commit rape
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for attempted rape under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for which he was sentenced to twelve years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence, consisting of witness testimony regarding the removal of the victim's shalwar without further corroborating evidence of intent or medical proof of rape, was sufficient to sustain a conviction for attempted rape. The Court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish the intent to commit rape, as the prosecution failed to examine key witnesses and the medical evidence did not support the allegation. Relying on the principle that mere removal of clothing without further evidence of sexual intent or physical capability does not constitute an attempt to commit rape, the Court modified the conviction to the lesser offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to two years of rigorous imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere removal of a victim's clothing, without further evidence of sexual intent, constitute an attempt to commit rape under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for attempted rape be converted to an offence under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the prosecution fails to prove the requisite intent for rape?
  • Is the failure to examine key prosecution witnesses a ground for re-evaluating the nature of the offence committed?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Ali vs Hakim Ali and another2021 YLR 1556 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-23
  illegal dispossessionacquittal appealco-sharer disputeappreciation of evidencedouble presumption of innocencecivil nature dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  The criminal appeal arose from a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kamber, whereby the respondent was acquitted of charges under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant-complainant had alleged that the respondent, along with others, illegally dispossessed him from agricultural land at gunpoint and took away crops. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal judgment suffered from any perversity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence warranting interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the complainant failed to establish the identity of the specific land, maintain possession, or prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the dispute was essentially of a civil nature between co-sharers. The High Court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal judgment enjoys a double presumption of innocence and will not be interfered with unless there is gross misreading of evidence resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • When will the High Court interfere with an acquittal judgment in a criminal appeal?
  • Does a dispute regarding ownership and possession between co-sharers attract the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • What is the evidentiary requirement regarding the identity and boundaries of land in an illegal dispossession complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Kh. Javaid Iqbal s/o Kh. Abdul Samad, r/o Morimilvan, District Haveli,2021 SC AJK 30 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Kh. Aamir Ahmed vs Azad Government Of The State Of Jammu And Kashmir through Chief Secretary and 6 others2021 YLR 1313 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-03-19
  date of birth correctionsuperannuationacting chief justicequo-warrantoservice recordlegitimate expectancyconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant writ petitions filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, sought directions to retire the private respondent from the position of Judge/Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir based on an alleged discrepancy in his date of birth between his National Identity Card/salary slip and his Matriculation certificate/initial service record, and to issue a writ of Quo-Warranto. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant's date of birth recorded at the time of entry into service on the basis of a Matriculation certificate can be altered at a belated stage near retirement based on conflicting computerised records, and whether an Acting Chief Justice is entitled to retirement benefits as Chief Justice. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the date of birth entered in the Matriculation certificate and verified at the time of initial appointment is conclusive, that an employee cannot be penalized for discrepancies in identity documents, and that principles from landmark judgments regarding legitimate expectancy and retirement benefits of acting chief justices apply. The court laid down key principles regarding the finality of service record birth dates and the binding nature of constitutional conventions for judicial appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the date of birth recorded in a Matriculation certificate at the time of initial induction into government service is conclusive for determining the age of superannuation?
  • Can a civil servant challenge or alter their recorded date of birth at the belated stage of retirement after decades of service?
  • Are computerised national identity cards and salary slips considered primary and conclusive proof of age over foundational educational certificates and service books?
  • Does an Acting Chief Justice acquire a legitimate expectancy and entitlement to retirement benefits and status as a permanent Chief Justice in the absence of valid reasons to the contrary?
  Read full judgment →
• Kazim Ali and others vs The State etc2021 SCP 386, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-11
  pre-arrest bailprinciple of consistencyfurther inquirycounter versioncriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when similarly placed co-accused had already been granted post-arrest bail which remained unchallenged. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The Court held that where co-accused with general and indistinguishable roles have been granted bail and the order remains unchallenged, denying pre-arrest bail on technical grounds serves no useful purpose since the accused would immediately become entitled to post-arrest bail upon arrest. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency applies to pre-arrest bail when the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the co-accused's bail has attained finality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted on the principle of consistency when similarly placed co-accused have already been granted post-arrest bail?
  • Does the existence of a counter-version FIR justify further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a petition for pre-arrest bail should be denied on technical grounds when the accused would immediately become entitled to post-arrest bail upon surrender or arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Kazim Ali and others vs The State and others2021 SCMR 2086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-11
  pre-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquirycounter-versiondelay in FIRvicarious liabilitycriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution was filed against the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case involving multiple injuries, house trespass, and assault on women. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated, citing a four-day delay in the FIR and a counter-version of the incident. The Supreme Court observed that four co-accused with similar roles had already been granted post-arrest bail, which remained unchallenged by the complainant. Applying the principle of consistency, the Court held that denying pre-arrest bail on technical grounds would be futile, as the petitioners would inevitably be entitled to post-arrest bail upon arrest. The Court further noted the existence of a counter-FIR and the general nature of the allegations against seventeen nominated persons. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and granted pre-arrest bail, ruling that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.

  Read full judgment →
• Kathoor and another vs The State2021 MLD 1924 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-09-30
  contraband liquorprohibition ordersearch and seizurebenefit of doubtnon-association of independent witnesseschemical examiner reportcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for possessing, manufacturing, and selling contraband liquor. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt despite serious procedural lapses, non-association of independent witnesses from the locality under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, failure to send samples to the Chemical Examiner, and lack of evidence regarding manufacturing or selling. The Federal Shariat Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants. The court held that non-compliance with mandatory search provisions, failure to associate independent inhabitants during a house search despite prior information, and unverified chemical reports create insurmountable doubts in the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that a single reasonable doubt arising from material flaws and contradictions in police testimony entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to associate independent inhabitants of the locality during the search of a dwelling house vitiates the recovery proceedings?
  • Does the absence of chemical analysis and proper sealing of alleged contraband liquor render a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 unsustainable?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient to entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Can a conviction for manufacturing and selling liquor stand when no evidence or machinery regarding manufacturing is collected by the raiding party?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 299 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-11
  criminal appealmurder referencecircumstantial evidencelast seen togetherextrajudicial confessionbenefit of doubtcapital punishmentappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for the murder of a minor. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, specifically the theory of "last seen," an alleged extrajudicial confession, and recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The court ruled that the "last seen" evidence was unreliable due to a significant time gap and lack of corroboration. Furthermore, it found the alleged extrajudicial confession to be weak and unconvincing, noting that such evidence requires strong corroboration to sustain a capital charge. The court also dismissed the recoveries as inconsequential, noting the absence of bloodstains on the recovered weapon. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the Murder Reference in the negative. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits, and any single circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is the theory of 'last seen together' sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does an extrajudicial confession made to close relatives without corroboration constitute sufficient evidence for a capital conviction?
  • What is the legal effect of a significant, unexplained delay in reporting a crime to the police?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the recovery of a weapon if the prosecution fails to prove the presence of bloodstains?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif S/O Muhammad vs The State2021 SHC 318 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-13
  narcotics possessionreasonable doubtcriminal appealfalse implicationprosecution evidenceacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the possession of 2050 grams of charas, recorded by the Trial Court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the defense's contention of false implication and discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. The High Court observed significant inconsistencies regarding the date of the arrest and seizure, noting that police documents, including the FIR and investigation records, contained conflicting dates and appeared to be written in the same handwriting, casting doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's narrative. The Court held that these discrepancies, coupled with the Investigating Officer's inability to explain erroneous dates in witness statements, created sufficient doubt regarding the incident's occurrence. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the cardinal principle of criminal law that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt entitles them to the benefit of acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy in the date of arrest and seizure recorded in police documents create sufficient doubt to warrant the acquittal of an accused in a narcotics case?
  • Is the absence of independent witnesses in a narcotics recovery case necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to prove the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Mahmood vs Ministry Of Health Islamabad, through Secretary and another2021 PLJ Lahore 721 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-15Read full judgment →
• Kashif alias Wajid alias Waju vs The State and another2022 SCMR 828, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 165, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-27
  post-arrest bailsupplementary statementfurther inquirydouble murderhired assassindelay in nomination
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was nominated as a hired assassin in a supplementary statement recorded by the deceased's daughter over three months after the double murder. The initial First Information Report, registered by the deceased's nephew, did not name the petitioner or provide a motive, whereas the daughter's subsequent statement introduced a new narrative involving election rivalry and hired assassins. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the prosecution's initial case was diametrically opposed to the version subsequently advanced by the daughter. The Court held that the evidentiary value of a belated supplementary statement and the daughter's explanation for her delay in participating in the investigation were matters of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making his continued detention unconscionable. The petition was converted into an appeal and bail was granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a diametrical contradiction between the initial First Information Report and a belated supplementary statement by a close relative brings a case within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted where the nomination of the accused as a hired assassin is based on a delayed supplementary statement whose evidentiary value is yet to be determined at trial?
  • Is the continued detention of an accused justified when the investigation is complete and the prosecution's case relies on conflicting versions of the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Ullah Baig and 4 others vs Asad Ullah Baig and 5 others2021 YLR 427 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-10-25Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 640, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1182 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-13
  group insurancecivil servantswelfare fundrefund of premiumconstitutional petitionretirement benefitsstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by retired government servants of the Province of Sindh seeking directions for the refund of insurance premium amounts compulsorily contributed towards Group Insurance during their service. The core legal question concerns whether retired civil servants are entitled to the refund of their group insurance contributions or payment upon crossing the age of sixty-five years, given that group insurance policies under the governing statutory framework mature exclusively upon death. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that group life insurance operates on a master policy basis where premiums are pooled for risk coverage rather than personal investment maturity, bonuses, or surrender values, and that the governing statutory provisions and rules validly dictate that benefits are payable strictly upon death during service or the extended post-retirement coverage window. The key principle laid down is that group insurance contributions made under statutory compulsion do not accrue a right to refund upon retirement or superannuation in the absence of an enabling statutory provision, as group insurance is strictly designed for death-contingent risk protection rather than as a fixed-term savings or investment scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Whether retired civil servants are entitled to a refund of compulsorily deducted group insurance premiums upon crossing the age of sixty-five years?
  • Does a group insurance policy under the Sindh Civil Servants Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1979 mature upon retirement or superannuation?
  • Can a High Court issue a mandamus directing the legislature to amend a statute to provide for retirement insurance benefits?
  • What is the legal nature and distinguishing characteristic of group life insurance compared to individual or fixed-term insurance policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh vs Zahir Shah Subedar Malakand Levies and others2021 PHC 162, 2022 PLD Peshawar 237 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-03Read full judgment →
• Kareem Ullah and 3 others vs The State2021 MLD 1295 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-06-03
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryidentification in darknessnatural witnesscriminal proceduremurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking bail in a case involving murder and attempt to murder. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail in view of conflicting statements of prosecution witnesses, particularly when a natural witness stated that due to darkness assailants could not be identified, bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry. The court held that the statement of the natural witness creates a dent in the prosecution case, making the matter one of further inquiry to be determined at trial, and consequently granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where statements of natural witnesses present divergent accounts regarding identification in darkness, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictory statements of witnesses regarding identification in the dark bring a criminal case within the ambit of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the absence of a statement of a natural witness at the initial stage justify granting post-arrest bail?
  • Are accused persons who remained absconders initially barred from seeking bail when subsequent evidence creates doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamat Ali vs State2021 PLJ Cr.C (Lahore) 834 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-20
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtchance witnesspost-mortem delaymotivecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Karamat Ali, under Sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of four individuals (including an unborn child) and causing injuries to another, resulting in a sentence of death and imprisonment. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt through credible eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, motive, and recovery. The Court held that unexplained delays in conducting post-mortem examinations, the unreliability of chance witnesses, the lack of positive forensic matching for the recovered weapon, and discrepancies regarding the motive created serious doubts regarding the participation of the appellant in the crime. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted the appellant on the benefit of the doubt, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in conducting post-mortem examinations creates a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of chance witnesses who fail to establish their presence at the scene?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon consequential without a positive forensic report matching crime empties?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →