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.

• Hyderabad Electric Supply Company (HESCO) through Executive Engineer2021 PLC (C.S.) 1510 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-18
  tarkainheritanceservice benefitssuccession certificatepensionary benefitsnomineegeneral provident fund
  Summary & questions settled

  This miscellaneous appeal challenges orders passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which granted a succession application in favour of Respondent No. 1 for the pensionary and service benefits of a deceased HESCO employee. The core legal question involves determining whether various service benefits of a deceased employee form part of the 'Tarka' (inheritance) to be distributed among legal heirs under Muhammadan Law, or if they are payable solely to a nominee under WAPDA rules. The court held that benefits claimable by an employee during their lifetime, such as General Provident Fund and pension commutation, constitute 'Tarka' and are heritable. Conversely, post-death benefits like group insurance, gratuity, and family pension which do not mature during the employee's lifetime are not part of the 'Tarka' and are distributed according to service rules. Furthermore, because the relationship between the respondent and the deceased was seriously disputed and predicated on potentially manipulated documents, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondent to establish his status and entitlement through a competent civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service benefits that an employee could claim during their lifetime form part of 'Tarka'?
  • Are post-death benefits such as group insurance and family pension considered heritable property under Muhammadan Law?
  • Can a succession certificate be granted when the fundamental relationship between the applicant and the deceased employee is seriously disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Huzoor Bux vs The State2021 SHC 1030 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-16
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryrule of consistencydelayed FIRmurderDNA evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant, who is accused of murder by drowning the deceased in a tube well. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the principles of further inquiry and the rule of consistency, given the circumstances of the case. The court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of six days, the incident appeared to be unseen, and eyewitnesses were introduced only through subsequent statements. Furthermore, the court noted that the DNA report was negative and that co-accused persons had already been granted bail by the trial court. Holding that the applicant's case warranted further inquiry, the court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where there is significant delay in lodging an FIR, the introduction of eyewitnesses via subsequent statements, and negative forensic evidence, the case for bail on the ground of further inquiry is established, particularly when co-accused have already been granted relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can the introduction of eyewitnesses through subsequent statements after an FIR is lodged weaken the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Huzoor Bux vs Pir Siddiue Sajjad Ghous Shah & Others2021 SHC 918 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
• Hussain vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1454 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-14
  bail cancellationpre-arrest bailfree fightcross-versionunlawful assemblyexceptional circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran, which granted pre-arrest bail to Respondents No. 2 to 5 in a case registered under Sections 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 354, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled on the grounds that they were specifically nominated in the FIR with attributed roles and that the lower court allegedly ignored settled legal principles. The court held that cancellation of bail is an extraordinary and harsh measure requiring very strong and cogent reasons, akin to grounds for appeal against acquittal, and that the trial had already commenced with prosecution evidence being summoned, making interference unwarranted. The key principle laid down is that the considerations for the cancellation of bail are distinct from those for granting bail, requiring proof that the bail order is perverse, ignores material evidence, or results in a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • What are the distinct considerations required for the cancellation of bail compared to the grant of bail?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail once granted can be recalled after the commencement of the trial and summoning of prosecution evidence?
  • What constitutes exceptional circumstances or strong and cogent reasons for the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Shah and others vs Imam Bakhsh2021 PLD Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-03Read full judgment →
• Khalid Ahmed vs The State2021 SHC 1128 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-26Read full judgment →
• Hussain Ahmed vs The State and others2021 SCMR 1263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-14
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquirytampering of recordcriminal investigationmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the denial of post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of murder following a land dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the lack of a specific role attributed in the FIR, the admitted tampering of police diaries during the investigation, and the fact that a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had acknowledged the tampering of the record but failed to consider its implications. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court noted that the co-accused had received bail due to discrepancies in the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the absence of recovery of the weapon of offence or incriminating evidence from the petitioner supported the conclusion that the case required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted the bail, holding that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused has been granted bail in similar circumstances?
  • Can bail be granted when there is admitted tampering of police diaries during the investigation?
  • Does the absence of a specific role attributed in the FIR justify a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain @ Muhammad Hussain vs The State2021 SHC 42 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12
  post-arrest bailmurderprohibitory clauseocular accountmedical evidencerule of consistencytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant Hussain @ Muhammad Hussain seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, 427, 337-H(ii), 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question involved whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail despite being specifically nominated in the FIR with a role of causing firearm injuries resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was nominated with a specific role, his case fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and contradictions raised by the defense required deep appreciation of evidence not permissible at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that the rule of consistency does not apply when a co-accused granted bail is not similarly circumstanced or named in the FIR, and that tentative assessment of evidence governs bail matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused specifically nominated in the FIR for causing firearm injuries to deceased persons is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when granting bail to a co-accused whose name does not transpire in the FIR?
  • Can contradictions in the ocular and medical evidence be deeply appreciated at the bail stage?
  • Whether belated statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be looked into for tentatively determining reasonable grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Humayun Gulzar vs Muhammad Asif, etc2021 IHC 246 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-06Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Commission Of Pakistan through Chairperson and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Ministry of Education and others2022 SCMR 643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-14
  Evacuee Trust Property Boardminority rightsFIA investigationrehabilitation of templespublic interest litigationdue processaudit paras
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the ongoing oversight by the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the management of Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) assets and the protection of minority religious sites. The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) submitted a report detailing progress on audit paras, including the registration of FIRs, recovery of immovable properties, and retrieval of outstanding rent. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of supporting documentation for these claims and directed the FIA to file all relevant records. The Court cautioned the FIA to act strictly in accordance with the law, ensuring that no harassment occurs and that criminal action is only initiated when a prima facie case is established. Furthermore, the Court addressed the rehabilitation and restoration status of various temples, including Jain Mandir and Neela Gumbad Mandir in Lahore, and the Gori Temple in Nagar-Parkar. It also directed the ETPB to examine claims regarding rehabilitation expenditures and ordered the Chief Secretary of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to report on hospital conditions in the province, specifically in Teri, District Karak.

  Questions settled

  • Must the Federal Investigation Agency provide supporting documentation for FIRs and recoveries reported to the Court?
  • What standard must the Federal Investigation Agency meet before initiating criminal action against officials or private individuals regarding government property?
  • Is the Evacuee Trust Property Board required to provide detailed reports on the status of litigation and rehabilitation regarding specific minority religious sites?
  Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Case No. 318 of 1993: In the matter of vs N/A2021 CLD 547, 2021 CLD 428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-14
  environmental protectionMargalla Hillsstone crushinglimestone miningjudicial reviewpublic interest litigationenvironmental pollution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns various civil miscellaneous applications filed in a long-standing Human Rights Case regarding environmental protection and the prohibition of stone crushing and limestone mining in the Margalla Hills. The core legal question addressed is whether the Court should recall or modify its previous orders prohibiting these activities, given the claims of leaseholders that their operations are lawful and economically necessary. The Court held that the prohibition on crushing and mining in the Margalla Hills remains necessary to prevent irreparable environmental damage, preserve the natural landscape, and protect the ecosystem. Consequently, the Court dismissed applications seeking to challenge these restrictions, affirming that environmental preservation takes precedence over commercial interests. However, the Court granted the applicants permission to remove their machinery and equipment from the prohibited areas under official supervision. The Court also directed that requests for national legislation regarding mountain ecosystem protection be addressed to the relevant government authorities, and dismissed applications for impleadment where alternative legal remedies were available to the aggrieved parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Court should recall or modify its order prohibiting stone crushing and limestone mining in the Margalla Hills?
  • Are leaseholders entitled to continue mining and crushing operations in the Margalla Hills despite environmental protection orders?
  • Can the Court grant permission to remove machinery and equipment from areas where industrial activity has been prohibited?
  • Is the Court the appropriate forum to direct the promulgation of national legislation for mountain ecosystem protection?
  Read full judgment →
• Human Resources Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd. through authorized representativePTCL 2021 CL. 411, 2021 PTD 933 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-27
  withholding taxadvance taxminimum taxgross amount payableturnovermanpower outsourcing servicesreimbursable expensesexemption certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, human resource and manpower service providers, sought a declaration that withholding tax under Section 153(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is deductible only on their service fee rather than the gross amount received from service recipients (which includes employee salaries, contributions, and reimbursements). They also sought a declaration regarding the meaning of "turnover" for obtaining Exemption Certificates under Clause 94 of Part-IV of the Second Schedule to the Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the "gross amount payable" under Section 153(1)(b) includes reimbursable expenses like salaries, or is restricted to the gross service fee. The Sindh High Court held that the gross amount on which advance tax is to be deducted under Section 153(1)(b) is exclusively the gross fee received in lieu of services, excluding reimbursable expenses and salaries. Similarly, for the purposes of Clause 94 of Part-IV of the Second Schedule, "turnover" means the gross fee for rendering services excluding reimbursable amounts. The petitions were allowed accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether withholding tax under Section 153(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is to be deducted on the gross amount including salaries and reimbursements or only on the service fee?
  • Does the definition of "turnover" under Section 153(7)(v)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 exclude reimbursable expenses and employee salaries?
  • What is the correct interpretation of "gross amount payable" for manpower outsourcing services under Division-III of Part-III of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Human Resources Solution (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & othersPTCL 2021 CL. 411 · Sindh High Court
  withholding taxmanpower servicesgross amount payablereimbursable expensesturnover definitionincome taxservice fee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, manpower service providers, challenged the tax authorities' practice of deducting withholding tax under Section 153(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, on the entire gross receipts, which included reimbursable expenses like employee salaries. The core legal question was whether the 'gross amount payable' under Section 153(1)(b) and 'turnover' under the repealed Clause 94 of the Second Schedule include reimbursable expenses or are limited to the service fee earned by the provider. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the 'gross amount' for withholding tax purposes under Section 153(1)(b) must be interpreted as the service fee received, excluding reimbursable expenses. The Court established that tax statutes must be interpreted to reflect the substance of the transaction; where a service provider acts as an intermediary for salary disbursements, the reimbursable portion does not constitute income or turnover subject to withholding tax. The definition of 'turnover' in Section 153(7)(v)(b) is restricted to the gross fee for rendering services, excluding reimbursements.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'gross amount payable' under Section 153(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 include reimbursable expenses like employee salaries?
  • Is the 'turnover' for the purpose of exemption certificates under the repealed Clause 94 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 limited to the gross service fee?
  • Can tax authorities treat reimbursable expenses as part of the taxable gross amount for withholding tax purposes when the service provider merely acts as a conduit for such payments?
  Read full judgment →
• Hukum Khan vs The State2021 YLR 1379 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-07-23
  superdaricustody of vehicleownership disputecriminal proceduredocumentary evidenceinterim custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the 'superdari' (custody/supremacy) of a vehicle involved in a criminal case. The petitioner, claiming to be the father of the deceased driver and the owner of the vehicle, challenged the dismissal of his earlier superdari application by the Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established a valid title or right to possession of the vehicle to warrant its release on superdari. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove bona fide ownership or a clear chain of title. Specifically, the vehicle registration remained in the name of a third party, and the provided receipt failed to establish a valid transfer from the registered owner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that in the absence of proof of ownership or a clear right to possession, the vehicle could not be released to the petitioner. The Court clarified that the actual owner could re-apply for superdari after rectifying the identified documentary deficiencies.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petitioner entitled to the superdari of a vehicle involved in a criminal case without proving bona fide ownership?
  • Can a court grant superdari of a vehicle when the registration book reflects a different owner and the chain of title is broken?
  • Does the failure to pay token tax and lack of clear ownership documentation preclude the release of a vehicle on superdari?
  Read full judgment →
• House Building Finance Company Limited vs Muhammad Iqbal and another2021 PLJ Lahore 837 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hot vs Malik Allahyar Khan and 5 others2021 CLC 1385 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
• Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation. Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax2022 PTD 310, PTCL 2022 CL.437, 2022 PCTLR 1014 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
• Honda Atlas Cars Pakistan Ltd. through Authorized Representatives vs Federation Of Pakistan through Minister of Finance and others2021 PTD 212 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
• Honda Atlas Cars Pakistan Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & othersPTCL 2021 CL. 144 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
• Honda Atlas Cars Pakistan Limited through General Manager vs Appellate2021 PTD 1947 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-09Read full judgment →
• Hira Bibi vs Managing Director Lead Campus School2021 PHC 250, 2022 YLR 686 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-16Read full judgment →
• Himat Ali and others vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 150 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-28
  kidnapping for ransompolice encounterdelayed FIRidentification paradeballistic reportappellate criminal review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for kidnapping for ransom, police encounter, and illegal arms possession. The core legal questions relate to the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the effect of delay in lodging the FIR in abduction cases, the necessity of an identification parade, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding a police encounter and subsequent recovery of the abductee and weapons. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through reliable and confidence-inspiring evidence, including the testimony of the abductee who remained in captivity and identified the culprits, and that minor discrepancies do not vitiate the conviction. The Court established that delay in lodging an FIR in ransom cases is justified where the safety of the victim is at stake, and that an identification parade is unnecessary when witnesses have spent considerable time with the accused and subsequently identify them in court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging an FIR in cases of abduction for ransom is fatal to the prosecution's case when adequately explained?
  • Is a judicial identification parade mandatory when witnesses have spent considerable time in the company of the accused during captivity?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of an abductee recovered during a police encounter is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses warrant the setting aside of a conviction for heinous offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr vs Himachal Road Transport2021 SCInd 100 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-22Read full judgment →
• Himachal Pradesh Bus Stand Management and Development Authority (HPBSM&Da) vs The Central Empowered Committee Etc. & Ors2021 SCInd 18 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Higher Education Commission through its Executive Director, Islamabad vs Ms. Zia Batool2021 IHC 48 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• High Court of Kerala vs Reshma A. & Others Etc2021 SCInd 11 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Ullah Khan vs Mirza Ali Khan2021 MLD 837 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-01Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Ullah (deceased) through his Legal Heirs vs Haji Ghulam Hassan2021 PLJ Lahore 210 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hazrat Said and others vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 551 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-18
  pensionary benefitspay revisionservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional equalityreasonable classificationcivil servantswrit of mandamus
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, retired civil servants, challenged the 2011 pay revision scheme, alleging it was discriminatory and violated Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. They contended that merging certain allowances into basic pay for employees retiring after July 1, 2011, created an irrational classification, denying them equal pensionary benefits. The respondents argued the petition was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution, as the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court first addressed the jurisdictional challenge, holding that it possessed jurisdiction because the relief sought—a command to the authorities to treat the petitioners at par with others—was beyond the scope of the Service Tribunal's authority. On the merits, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the classification between employees retiring before and after the pay revision was reasonable. It held that serving employees and retirees constitute distinct classes, and pensioners cannot claim benefits of subsequent pay revisions. Consequently, the Court found no violation of the constitutional right to equality.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to government authorities regarding pensionary benefits when the Service Tribunal lacks the power to grant such a command?
  • Does the classification of civil servants based on their date of retirement for the purpose of pension calculation violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can retired civil servants claim the benefits of a pay revision scheme that was introduced after their date of retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Bilal S/O Naimat Baig vs The State2021 SHC 516 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-07
  pre-arrest bailrobberystatement of co-accusedfurther inquirydelay in FIRcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a bail application filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.68/2021 registered under Sections 392, 397, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gulbahar Karachi Central. The core legal question concerns whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not nominated in the FIR, was implicated solely through a co-accused's statement during police interrogation, and where an unexplained delay exists in lodging the FIR. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant made out a case for the grant of bail as the prosecution presented no independent or incriminating material to corroborate the co-accused's statement at the tentative assessment stage, and further investigation was no longer required. The court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that a co-accused's statement alone, without corroborative independent material, warrants further inquiry in favour of granting bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when an accused is implicated solely on the basis of a statement made by a co-accused during police interrogation?
  • Does the absence of independent corroborative material against an accused person bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR on the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Bilal (decd.) through LRs & others vs Mst. Spogmai and others2021 PLD Supreme Court 700, 2021 P SC 1060, 2021 SCP 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-15
  Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulationremand of casesappellate jurisdictionrevisional jurisdictionCode of Civil Procedureconstitutional amendmentrepeal of laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several civil petitions arising from judgments of the Peshawar High Court, which had remanded various cases to trial courts for de-novo proceedings. The core legal question was whether, under the Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009, appellate or revisional courts possess the authority to remand cases, or if they are mandated to decide the matters themselves. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in remanding these matters. The Court determined that the Regulation 2009 explicitly requires appellate and revisional courts to decide cases without remand. Furthermore, the Court clarified that appellate and revisional courts have sufficient powers under Order XLI, Rule 27 and Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to record necessary evidence or implead parties themselves, thereby obviating the need for remand. The key principle laid down is that where a special law mandates the final disposal of appeals or revisions by the appellate/revisional forum, the power of remand is excluded, and the court must exercise its inherent and procedural powers to resolve the controversy on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009 permit appellate or revisional courts to remand cases to the trial court?
  • Does the omission of Article 247 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 affect pending legal proceedings initiated under the Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009?
  • Can an appellate court record additional evidence or implead necessary parties instead of remanding a case?
  • Does Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 protect legal proceedings and remedies initiated under a law that has subsequently been repealed or omitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Amin and 8 others vs Mst. Nishat Begum and another2021 CLC 1249 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-08Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Ali Rehman vs State and another2021 PLJ Cr.C (Lahore) 813 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-09
  narcoticscharas recoveryrepresentative samplechemical examiner reportreduction of sentenceControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the alleged recovery of 1080 grams of Charas, which resulted in a sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the appellant could be convicted for the entire bulk when the recovered contraband consisted of multiple pieces and a single representative sample was not properly drawn from each piece. The Lahore High Court held, following precedent, that where narcotic substances are recovered in multiple pieces and separate samples are not drawn from each piece, the conviction can only be sustained to the extent of the quantity actually received and analyzed by the forensic laboratory. The court laid down that failure to separate representative samples from each distinct piece restricts the penal liability to the weight of the tested sample alone, modifying the conviction from Section 9(c) to Section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be sustained for the entire bulk when contraband is recovered in multiple pieces but a single sample is sent for analysis?
  • What is the legal effect on the quantum of sentence when a representative sample is not separated from each distinct piece of recovered narcotic substance?
  • Can the High Court modify a conviction from Section 9(c) to Section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 based on the quantity established by the forensic report?
  Read full judgment →
• Hayatullah vs Deputy Inspector General Of Balochistan Police, Quetta and 3 others2021 P Cr. L J 1079 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-10
  quashment of FIRcognizable offenceregistration of FIRinherent powersinvestigation stage
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Balochistan High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to declare an inquiry and the consequent First Information Report illegal and liable to be quashed. The core legal question was whether an officer in charge of a police station can conduct an inquiry under section 157(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without first registering a criminal report under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon receiving information of a cognizable offence, and whether the High Court should quash an FIR at the investigation stage. The court held that the mandatory statutory duty to register an information regarding a cognizable offence under section 154 must precede any recourse to section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the High Court generally should not interfere with an investigation or quash an FIR under section 561-A unless exceptional circumstances are shown. The court laid down the principle that the police cannot bypass the mandatory registration of an FIR under section 154 to conduct preliminary inquiries, and that factual disputes and the truthfulness of allegations are matters to be determined by the trial court after evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an officer in charge of a police station can conduct an inquiry under section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without first registering a First Information Report under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the High Court quash an FIR under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while the case is still at the investigation stage?
  • What are the precise eventualities or grounds upon which an FIR can be legally quashed by the High Court?
  • Is the question of truthfulness or falsity of allegations in an FIR a matter of fact to be resolved through inherent jurisdiction or by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Hayat Muhammad vs State through Additional Advocate General, KP and another2021 SCP 362, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-20
  ocular testimonyinjured witnessmedical evidenceforensic reportcriminal appealconvictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that partially upheld the petitioner's conviction for firing shots at the complainant, causing injuries during a dispute over a water pipeline. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction under Sections 324 and 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was sustainable given the alleged variances in the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court found that the injured witness's testimony was straightforward, confidence-inspiring, and fully corroborated by medical evidence, the recovery of the weapon, and forensic reports matching the weapon to the crime scene empties. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of an injured witness, when consistent with medical evidence and corroborated by other forensic or ocular accounts, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, particularly when the occurrence takes place in daylight between known parties, leaving no room for misidentification or substitution.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient for conviction if corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon and forensic matching of empties corroborate an ocular account of a shooting?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the occurrence takes place in daylight between known parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Hayat Muhammad vs State through Additional Advocate General, Khyber2021 SCMR 1831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-20
  attempted murderinjured witnessocular accountmedical evidenceforensic reportleave to appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that partially allowed an appeal against a conviction for attempted murder and causing injuries. The petitioner was originally convicted under sections 324, 337-D, 337-F(iii), and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of the injured witness, when corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the injured witness's testimony was straightforward, confidence-inspiring, and fully corroborated by medical evidence regarding the nature and locale of the injuries, as well as by forensic reports matching the weapon recovered from the petitioner to the crime scene empties. The Court affirmed the principle that the testimony of an injured witness, when consistent with medical evidence, is sufficient to support a conviction, particularly when there is no possibility of misidentification or substitution.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient for conviction if it is corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon and matching forensic reports of empties corroborate the ocular account of an injured witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Nawaz vs Atta Muhammad (Deceased) through his LRs2021 P SC 1087, 2021 SCMR 857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-01
  Local Commissionerrecording of evidencede novo trialremand orderCode of Civil Procedurecivil revisionevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges a High Court judgment that remanded a suit for de novo trial, citing the trial court's failure to personally record evidence as required by Order XVIII, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal question was whether evidence recorded by a court-appointed Local Commissioner is legally valid or if it necessitates a de novo trial for non-compliance with Order XVIII, Rule 8. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its application of the law. The Court clarified that Order XVIII, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates a judge to record evidence or a memorandum of substance, does not apply to evidence recorded by a Local Commissioner appointed under Order XXVI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Once a Commission's report and evidence are returned to the court, they form part of the judicial record and are treated as evidence recorded by the court itself. The principle laid down is that evidence recorded through a Commission is valid, and a remand for de novo trial is unjustified absent proof of prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order XVIII, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to evidence recorded by a Local Commissioner?
  • Is a trial court required to record evidence personally in all civil proceedings?
  • Can a High Court order a de novo trial solely because evidence was recorded by a Local Commissioner rather than the trial judge?
  • Does evidence recorded by a Local Commissioner under Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 form part of the judicial record?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Khan vs Director General Radio Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation2021 PLJ Islamabad 288 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hassan Jilani vs Full Bench National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad and 4 others2021 PLC 153 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-15
  writ jurisdictioncertiorarigrievance petitionlimitationNIRCconcurrent findingssupervisory jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged concurrent orders passed by the Single Bench and Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which dismissed the petitioner's grievance petition against his dismissal from service as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should interfere with these concurrent findings regarding limitation and the merits of the dismissal. The Court held that the petition was meritless. It affirmed that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is supervisory, not appellate. Consequently, the Court will not review findings of fact or re-evaluate evidence unless a patent legal defect, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error is demonstrated. Since the petitioner failed to establish that the NIRC acted without jurisdiction or committed an error of law in determining the limitation issue, the High Court declined to interfere. The principle laid down is that the High Court will not exercise its writ jurisdiction to act as an appellate court to re-examine factual determinations made by competent tribunals.

  Questions settled

  • Is the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 appellate in nature?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by a tribunal in the absence of a patent legal defect or jurisdictional error?
  • Does the withdrawal of a grievance petition with permission to file a fresh one affect the limitation period for the subsequent petition under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• Hasnat Ahmed vs The State and another2021 LHC 322, 2023 YLR 585 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-17
  Qatl-i-Amdchance witnessesfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of doubtcriminal appealrecovery of weaponburden of proofdying declaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for Qatl-i-Amd under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony from "chance witnesses," the validity of the recovery of the weapon, and the applicability of the principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus following the acquittal of co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the ocular witnesses were "chance witnesses" who failed to justify their presence at the scene, and the recovery of the weapon violated section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court applied the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus rule, noting that the witnesses were previously disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused. The Court established that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution and cannot shift to the accused based on mere suspicion. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of witnesses be discarded entirely if they are found to have lied regarding the role of acquitted co-accused?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused if a crime occurs within their residence?
  • Is a recovery of a weapon valid if it violates the mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a dying declaration that lacks medical endorsement or independent attestation?
  Read full judgment →
• Hasnain Raza vs Lahore High Court, Lahore & others2021 SCP 408, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-09
  StrictureJudicial conductAppellate courtLower judiciaryJudicial independenceBinding precedentDisciplinary actionExpungement of remarksConstitutional mandate
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned petitions by two District Judiciary judges challenging strictures and a direction for inquiry against them issued by the Lahore High Court in an appellate judgment. The core legal question was whether an appellate court can record strictures against a lower court judge concerning their efficiency or conduct. The Supreme Court, converting the petitions into appeals, allowed them and expunged the impugned stricture and direction. The Court reiterated and affirmed principles previously laid down in Nusrat Yasmin v. Registrar, PHC and Aijaz Ahmed v. State. These principles dictate that appellate courts should not pass strictures or summon lower court judges to explain their orders. Instead, procedural errors should be communicated confidentially, and matters of grave inefficiency or serious misconduct should be reported confidentially to the competent disciplinary authority on the administrative side. Public reprimand of judges by appellate courts is deemed inappropriate, as it undermines public trust in the judiciary and negatively impacts judicial morale. The Court emphasized the binding nature of its decisions on all other courts under Article 189 of the Constitution.

  Read full judgment →
• Hasnain Ali Chohan S/o Mumtaz Ahmed vs Miftah Ismail Ahmed and2021 SHC 734 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-02Read full judgment →
• Hashmi Charitable Trust through Chairman vs Javed Baloch and 3 others2021 YLR 762 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-03Read full judgment →
• Hashmat son of Mahmood, r/o Pushtakhara Payan, Peshawar vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 913, 2021 PHC 4 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Haseeb Iftikhar Ahmad vs The Secretary, Law And Justice Division, Government Of Pakistan and another2021 PLC (C.S.) 280 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-02-14
  quo warrantopublic appointmentcivil servicerecruitment rulesappointment by transfercondition precedentCustoms Appellate Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions seeking a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Assistant Registrar (BPS-16) in the Customs Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the appointment by transfer was valid under the rules prescribed by Notification S.R.O. 747(I)/98, dated 01.07.1998. The notification mandates that the post be filled by initial appointment, and only "failing that" by transfer. The court held that the appointment was unlawful because the Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights failed to initiate any process for initial appointment, thereby violating the mandatory recruitment procedure. The court emphasized that the phrase "failing that" creates a condition precedent, requiring an unsuccessful attempt at initial recruitment before resorting to transfer. Consequently, the court declared the appointment of respondent No. 2 unlawful and directed the Ministry to initiate the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Registrar through initial appointment in strict compliance with the applicable notification. The judgment reinforces the principle that public appointments must strictly adhere to codal formalities and established rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does the phrase 'failing that' in a recruitment notification create a condition precedent that must be satisfied before an appointment by transfer can be made?
  • Can a government department bypass the mandatory requirement of initial appointment to fill a post by transfer?
  • Is an appointment to a public office unlawful if it is made in violation of the prescribed recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Haseeb Hashmi vs The State, etc2021 IHC 188 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-29
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustcivil disputebail as rulepunitive detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Haseeb Hashmi, in a case involving an alleged offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the dishonour of a cheque issued in a property transaction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the completion of the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that the offence under Section 489-F carries a maximum punishment of three years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court further emphasized that bail cannot be withheld as a measure of punishment, that Section 489-F is not a tool for monetary recovery, and that mere involvement in other cases without conviction does not bar the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld as a measure of punishment for an accused?
  • Is the provision of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 intended to be used for the recovery of money?
  • Does the mere involvement of an accused in other cases without conviction serve as a bar to the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Haseeb Hashmi vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1029 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-29
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal liabilitycivil nature of dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Haseeb Hashmi, in connection with an F.I.R. registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged dishonour of a cheque issued for the purchase of a residential flat. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offence and the duration of his detention. The court held that the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 carries a maximum punishment of three years, thereby falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court granted bail, establishing that in such cases, bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The court further emphasized that bail should not be withheld as a measure of punishment, that Section 489-F is not a tool for recovery, and that mere involvement in other cases without conviction does not bar the grant of bail when a case for further inquiry is made out.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld as a measure of punishment for an accused?
  • Is the mere involvement of an accused in other cases, without conviction, a sufficient ground to deny bail?
  • Is Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 intended to be used as a mechanism for the recovery of money?
  Read full judgment →
• Hasan Khursheed Hashmi vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 480, 2022 CLC 1288 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
• Haryana Space Application Centre (Harsac) & Anr vs M/s Pan India2021 SCInd 34 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
• Haroon-Ur-Rasheed and others vs The State and others2021 SCMR 1106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-13
  narcoticscannabiscriminal appealsentence reductionforensic reportjoint arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition assailing the judgment of the Islamabad High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns the sustainability of the conviction for transporting a heavy consignment of cannabis based on the evidence, forensic reports, and joint arrest. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence was consistent, the forensic report confirmed the contraband, and the defense failed to rebut the findings during trial. However, considering that the prosecution's case itself saddled each convict with distinct quantities ranging from 2 to 5 kg, indicating a makeshift union rather than a concerted joint detour, the Court exercised discretion to proportionately modify the sentence. The key principle laid down is that while concurrent findings of guilt based on solid forensic and testimonial evidence will be maintained, the quantum of sentence may be proportionately adjusted where the specific individual attribution of contraband amounts reveals a makeshift rather than a deeply coordinated enterprise.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be maintained when supported by consistent witness testimony and unrebutted forensic analysis?
  • Can the sentence of convicts be proportionately reduced when the prosecution's own case attributes distinct individual quantities of contraband indicating a makeshift association rather than a deeply coordinated joint enterprise?
  Read full judgment →
• Haroon Farooq vs Government of Punjab & others2021 LHC 4226 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-09Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs The State2022 YLR 721 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-30
  Qatl-i-Amdmitigating circumstancesunproven motiveocular accountmurder referencecommutation of sentencerecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the Sessions Court convicting the appellant, Haq Nawaz, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony from related witnesses, the legal effect of unproven motive, and the validity of weapon recoveries violating section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses were natural, prompt in reporting, and corroborated by medical evidence, establishing the charge beyond reasonable doubt despite the failure to prove motive and defects in weapon recovery. However, the court ruled that the unproven motive and the obscure immediate cause of the incident constituted mitigating circumstances justifying the commutation of the death sentence. The court laid down the principle that the failure of the prosecution to establish an asserted motive, coupled with uncertainties surrounding the immediate altercation, serves as a mitigating factor warranting the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether related eyewitness testimony can form the basis of a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is a weapon recovery admissible in evidence when mandatory provisions regarding independent locality witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are violated?
  • Whether a solitary firearm injury on a vital part of the body is sufficient to establish intent to cause death under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz and another vs Habib Bank Limited through Manager, Paf2021 CLD 1367 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-14Read full judgment →
• Hamza Sheraz and another vs Riaz Mehmood (deceased) through L.Rs2022 PLD Supreme Court 3, 2022 PLJ SC 22, 2022 PSC 924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-28
  pre-emption suitdeposit of sale priceshortfall in depositrevisional jurisdictionmandatory provisiondismissal of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, wherein the High Court set aside two concurrent judgments of the subordinate courts that had dismissed a pre-emption suit. The dismissal was based on the plaintiff's failure to deposit the exact one-third of the sale price within thirty days as mandated by Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991, resulting in a shortfall of three hundred and thirty-three rupees and thirty-five paisas. The Supreme Court examined whether courts possess the discretion to condone a shortfall or extend the statutory deposit period under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991. The Court held that Section 24 is a self-contained, clear, and mandatory provision that prescribes the automatic dismissal of the suit for non-compliance. The Court ruled that the quantum of the shortfall is irrelevant and that courts have no discretion to condone such mistakes. Consequently, the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction was declared illegal, and the concurrent judgments dismissing the suit were restored.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have the discretion to condone a shortfall in the deposit of one-third of the sale price required under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991?
  • What is the legal consequence if a pre-emptor fails to deposit the exact one-third of the sale price within the thirty-day statutory period?
  • Can the High Court exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to allow a pre-emptor to deposit a shortfall in the pre-emption money after the statutory period has expired?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Bashir and others vs Pakistan Medical Commission through President and others2021 PLD Lahore 654 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09
  medical admissionsPakistan Medical Commissiondue processnatural justiceconstitutional petitioncancellation of admissionregulatory powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment addresses petitions filed by medical and dental students challenging an advertisement and orders issued by the Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC) calling for a re-admission process in certain private colleges and suspending existing admissions. The core legal question revolves around whether the PMC is authorized under the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 and its regulations to pass omnibus orders suspending student admissions and cancelling interview marks without conducting individualized inquiries or affording a right of hearing to the affected students. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned orders and advertisement were in violation of the principles of natural justice, due process, and the statutory mandate, as the PMC failed to adjudicate individual complaints on merit and penalized students without a hearing. The court set aside the impugned orders and advertisement, laying down the principle that regulatory bodies must strictly adhere to due process, conduct specific factual inquiries into complaints, and provide an opportunity of being heard to all adversely affected parties before taking any adverse action affecting student admissions.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Pakistan Medical Commission pass an omnibus order suspending student admissions without deciding individual complaints on merit?
  • Whether students admitted to medical and dental colleges are entitled to a right of hearing before their admissions are suspended by the regulator?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a general order of the regulatory body where statutory remedies are not efficacious for the specific grievance?
  • Does the Pakistan Medical Commission have the authority under its statutory framework to issue blanket re-admission advertisements without establishing specific irregularities against individual students?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Aslam vs I.G. Police, etc2021 KLR Civil Cases 78 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-15Read full judgment →
• Hamza Alam vs The State2021 YLR 380 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-19
  rapesexual assaultstatement under section 164 Cr.P.C.delay in FIRmedical evidenceminor victimcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the legality and propriety of the judgment passed by the trial court, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The prosecution case alleged that the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with a six-and-a-half-year-old minor victim. The core legal questions involved the sustainability of conviction based on statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the victim and her mother were not examined at trial, the effect of delay in lodging the FIR, and the application of Section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through medical evidence and statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which were admissible under Section 265-J due to the unavailability of the witnesses. The appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on the basis of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the victim and witness are not examined during the trial?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report inherently vitiate the prosecution case in sexual assault matters?
  • Can statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as substantive evidence under Section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a negative chemical examiner report sufficient by itself to discard medical and ocular evidence in a rape case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Afsar vs The State and another2021 MLD 1961 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-01
  post-arrest bailabductionfurther probesupplementary statementpre-trial incarcerationtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was implicated in an FIR registered under Section 365-B/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, regarding an alleged abduction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not nominated in the initial FIR and was implicated only through a belated supplementary statement, was entitled to the grant of bail pending trial. The Court observed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, the investigation against him was complete with no incriminating material recovered during physical remand, and the prosecution's case relied on a supplementary statement based on mere apprehensions. Holding that the petitioner's involvement and the applicability of the charged offence required further probe, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where the case against an accused is one of further inquiry and no incriminating material is recovered, continued incarceration serves no useful purpose and would amount to punishment before trial, as the ultimate acquittal of an innocent person cannot compensate for unjustified pre-trial detention.

  Questions settled

  • Does the implication of an accused in a belated supplementary statement, without other incriminating evidence, constitute grounds for further probe in a bail application?
  • Is the absence of incriminating material recovered during physical remand a relevant factor for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has not yet been submitted to the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Hammad Hussain & another vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 others2021 IHC 238 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-01Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ullah vs The State2021 PHC 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-16
  resampling of narcoticsretesting of drugsdeficient FSL reportadversarial systemfair trialfilling lacunasCNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order of the trial court allowing the prosecution's application for resampling and retesting of narcotics during the pendency of the trial. The core legal question was whether a trial court can permit the prosecution to draw fresh samples and conduct retesting to rectify a deficient chemical examiner report or fill gaps in its case. The Peshawar High Court held that allowing resampling and retesting amounts to granting a premium to the prosecution for its mistakes and permits it to fill lacunas, which is contrary to the adversarial system of justice and violates the right to a fair trial. Relying on binding precedents of the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that courts cannot order fresh testing or re-investigation, though ambiguities in an existing report can be clarified by summoning the analyst based on the existing record. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order for resampling and retesting was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can permit the prosecution to draw fresh samples and retest narcotics to cure a deficient chemical report?
  • Does allowing the prosecution to conduct re-testing of case property amount to filling gaps and giving an unfair advantage in an adversarial system?
  • How can a trial court resolve ambiguities in a Government Analyst's report without permitting a fresh test or new report?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ullah vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 579 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-11
  murdercompromiseacquittalcompoundable offencedeath sentencemurder referencelegal heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal appeal and a murder reference following a judgment by the Sessions Judge, Chakwal, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder and sentencing him to death. During the pendency of the appeal and murder reference, a compromise application was filed stating that the legal heirs of both deceased persons had resolved the matter. The veracity of the compromise was verified through an inquiry by the Sessions Judge, which confirmed that all legal heirs of the victims had forgiven the appellant in the name of Allah Almighty, with financial safeguards and land transfers executed for the minor legal heir. The Lahore High Court held that the offense under Section 302(b) is compoundable and that the compromise was genuine and voluntary. Consequently, the High Court accepted the compromise application, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellant convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be acquitted on the basis of a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • How is the interest of a minor legal heir safeguarded during a compromise in a murder case?
  • What is the effect of a genuine compromise between the parties on a pending murder reference and criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Iqbal vs Additional Assistant Commissioner Revenue through Advocate General, Khyberpakhwa and another2021 P Cr. L J 1772 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-17
  summary trialhoardingfood stuffs controlspecial magistratecriminal procedureconviction quashment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions challenging the convictions and sentences of the petitioners by a Special Magistrate for simple imprisonment and a fine under the Food Stuffs Control Act, 1958, following a summary trial. The core legal questions concern the legality of conducting summary trials for offences carrying punishments exceeding six months and the validity of convictions where the accused were neither named in the initial official report nor linked to the alleged offences by any evidence on record. The Peshawar High Court held that summary trials under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are restricted to offences punishable with imprisonment of less than six months, and convictions cannot be sustained in the absence of any incriminating evidence connecting the accused to the charged offences. The court laid down the principle that statutory provisions authorizing summary trials must strictly adhere to the jurisdictional limits prescribed by law, and criminal liability cannot be fastened upon individuals without proper legal process and supporting evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can offences carrying a maximum imprisonment term exceeding six months be legally tried through a summary trial under Chapter XXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Whether a conviction can be sustained against an accused person who was neither named in the initial official report nor connected to the alleged offence through any evidence on record?
  • Do the Food Stuffs Control Act, 1958 and the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 provide a statutory right of appeal against convictions rendered by Special Magistrates?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Hussain vs The State2021 YLR 720 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-05-04
  rapechild victimDNA evidencestate defense counselanti-terrorismcurable irregularitycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for offences involving the rape and physical assault of an eight-year-old child under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act. The core legal questions pertained to whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence, and positive DNA profiling, and whether the appointment of state defense counsel lacking the statutory seven-year standing vitiated the trial. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the prosecution successfully established guilt through a consistent and natural statement of the minor victim, corroborated by medical examination and undisputed DNA match results. Furthermore, the court held that the procedural irregularity concerning the defense counsel's experience did not cause prejudice and was curable under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principles laid down are that a natural and convincing statement of a rape victim requires no further corroboration, DNA evidence serves as strong corroboratory proof, and procedural irregularities not causing prejudice to the accused do not vitiate a trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appointment of a state defense counsel lacking the statutory seven-year standing under the Anti-Terrorism Act vitiate the trial?
  • Is further corroboration required in rape cases where the victim's statement is natural and convincing?
  • Can procedural irregularities during a criminal trial be cured under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if no prejudice is caused?
  • Whether positive DNA profiling serves as strong corroboratory evidence in sexual assault cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Hayat vs D.G. Excise and Taxation etc2021 KLR Civil Cases 333, 2021 LHC 1256, 2021 [M] CLR 1376, 2021 PLC (C.S.) · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-24
  constitutional petitionservice tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicedisciplinary proceedingsinquiry officer transfercivil servantbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a civil servant challenging an order passed by the Director General Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab, declining the petitioner's application to transfer a departmental inquiry from Hafizabad to Lahore due to alleged bias against the inquiry officer and violation of the right to fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether an order refusing to transfer a disciplinary inquiry or change an inquiry officer constitutes an administrative or executive action falling outside the jurisdictional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that disciplinary proceedings, including the appointment or change of an inquiry officer, form an integral part of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. The court established the principle that the bar under Article 212 is absolute and inflexible, and interlocutory steps in disciplinary proceedings cannot be carved out as independent executive actions to bypass the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order refusing to transfer a disciplinary inquiry from one region to another falls within the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the appointment or change of an inquiry officer constitute an independent administrative action outside the scope of disciplinary proceedings?
  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to examine allegations of mala fide and the authority of an officer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Baig vs Mst. Saba Khan & Others2021 SHC 786 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-26Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ali Tanoli vs The State2022 YLR 602 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-29
  pre-arrest bailheinous crimetentative assessmentabscondencemurdercriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, who is charged with the murder of his wife in a case registered under sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail given the material available on the record. The High Court, upon reviewing the case, observed that the deceased had previously filed a complaint regarding threats to her life from the applicant and had initiated legal proceedings for the recovery of her children. Furthermore, the court noted the applicant's abscondence after the incident and his failure to join the investigation. The court held that there was sufficient material connecting the applicant to the heinous crime, thereby disentitling him to the relief of bail. Consequently, the court recalled the interim pre-arrest bail and remanded the applicant to custody. The key principle laid down is that while deciding bail applications, courts must rely on a tentative assessment of the available record, avoiding deeper appreciation of evidence or premature discussion on the merits of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence required when deciding a bail application?
  • Does the failure of an accused to join the investigation after obtaining interim pre-arrest bail constitute grounds for recalling that bail?
  • Can an accused be granted pre-arrest bail if there is sufficient material on record prima facie connecting them to a heinous crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameed Haroon vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 1168 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-03Read full judgment →
• Haleema Shuja vs Mst. Syeda Mehmooda Begum (Deceased) through L.R.2021 PLD Lahore 533 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-19
  Section 12(2) CPCfraud and forgeryconsent decreelimitationmixed question of law and factconstitutional petitionsummary dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the summary dismissal of an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which sought to set aside a consent decree allegedly obtained through fraud. The core legal question was whether such an application, involving serious allegations of forgery and misrepresentation, could be summarily dismissed on the ground of limitation without a full trial, and whether multiple applications challenging the same decree should be adjudicated jointly. The High Court held that the lower courts erred by dismissing the application summarily. The ratio is that allegations of fraud and forgery constitute mixed questions of law and fact that cannot be determined without framing issues and recording evidence. The court laid down the principle that when an application under Section 12(2) raises complex factual disputes, such as the date of death of a party, it must be decided on merits after a due trial. Furthermore, where multiple proceedings challenge the same decree, they should be consolidated to prevent inconsistent findings, and limitation issues in fraud cases require trial determination rather than summary rejection.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be summarily dismissed on the ground of limitation without recording evidence?
  • Should multiple applications under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenging the same decree be decided jointly?
  • Is the question of limitation in a case involving allegations of fraud a mixed question of law and fact?
  • Does the High Court have the power under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to set aside a revisional order that suffers from a patent error of fact or misapplication of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Haleem Adil Shaikh vs Election Commission of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 358 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-16Read full judgment →
• Hakimul Din Jokhio S/O Taj Muhammad Jokhio vs The State & Others2021 SHC 310, 2022 MLD 1933 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-01Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali etc vs Mst. Feroza Begum (deceased) thr. L.Rs., etc2021 PLJ SC 332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-19
  civil petitionrejection of plaintlimitationcondonation of delaysale deedconcurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises out of concurrent decisions of the lower forums dismissing the petitioners' suit for declaration and permanent injunction as time-barred. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners' suit, instituted on 20.11.2013 challenging a sale deed dated 05.04.1961—with knowledge of the same acknowledged by the petitioners at least by 17.03.2006—was within the period of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the suit was manifestly barred by time, as the petitioners failed to institute it within the statutory period from the date of their admitted knowledge. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the refusal to condone delay under the Limitation Act 1908, laying down that a suit filed long after acquiring knowledge of the contested transaction cannot be entertained and is liable to outright rejection.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit filed years after acquiring clear knowledge of a disputed sale deed is barred by limitation?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when it is manifestly barred by time?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the dismissal of a time-barred suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Walayat Khan and 6 others vs Saleem-Ur-Rehman and 7 others2021 CLC 970 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-02-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Shah Behram vs The State and others2021 SCMR 1983, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-03
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationmurderous assaultfurther inquiryprohibitory clausefirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order of the Peshawar High Court granting post-arrest bail to respondents in a murderous assault case arising from a property dispute. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by holding that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry and outside the prohibitory clause. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and cancelled the bail. The Court held that the High Court misdirected itself by treating the matter as one for further inquiry despite direct incriminating evidence from the injured complainant, eye-witnesses, and medical reports. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that the additional punishments provided for specific hurts under Islamic injunctions do not override or substitute the primary punishment prescribed for murderous assault under Section 324, and that an erroneous application of law by a lower court constitutes a strong ground for the annulment of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere possibility of further inquiry in a criminal case justifies the grant of bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the specific punishment provided for hurt under Islamic injunctions substitute or override the primary punishment prescribed for murderous assault under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Is an erroneous application of law by a competent tribunal a sufficient ground for the annulment of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Latif vs Muhammad Sharif & another2021 SCP 294, 2021 SCMR 1430, 2022 PSC 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-09
  ejectment petitionleave to defendrent controllerinterim orderfinal orderPunjab Rented Premises Act 2009writ jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a common order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed writ petitions against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller in ejectment proceedings. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller, after refusing leave to defend to a tenant under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, can direct the landlord to adduce evidence and grant the tenant the right to cross-examine, rather than immediately passing a final order. The Supreme Court held that under Section 22(6) of the Act, once leave to contest is refused, the Rent Tribunal is mandated to pass a final order rather than treating the proceedings as an ordinary civil trial requiring evidence. The Court ruled that while appeals against interim orders are barred, the High Court erred in ignoring the patent illegality of the Rent Controller's procedure, converting the petitions into appeals, and directing the Rent Controller to pass final orders pursuant to Section 22(6).

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal consequence under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 when a Rent Controller refuses to grant a tenant leave to contest an ejectment petition?
  • Can a Rent Controller direct a landlord to adduce evidence and allow a tenant to cross-examine after declining leave to defend?
  • Whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge an interim order of a Rent Tribunal when appeal against it is barred by statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Asif Sehar and another vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance Islamabad and 11 others2021 CLC 1310 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-05Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Amin and 3 others vs Lahore Development Authority2021 PLJ Lahore 378 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhajereen & others vs Akbar Said & others2021 PHC 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Mohammad Riaz and another vs Khalid Mehmood Abbasi and others2021 CLC 408 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Mirza Karim & others vs Residents of Denin Lasht through Wali2021 PHC 170, 2022 MLD 303 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Haji Mehr Khan vs Government Of Punjab and others2021 PLJ Lahore 622 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
• Haji Fazal Ghani vs Fazle Ahad and 4 others2021 YLR 1055 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02
  civil revisionnecessary partiesnon-impleadmentlimitation periodrejection of plaintproperty disputecondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a property dispute concerning the ownership of shops, where the petitioner challenged the dismissal of an appeal by the appellate court. The core legal questions involved whether an appeal or revision is maintainable when necessary parties, specifically the legal heirs of the deceased original plaintiff, are not impleaded, and whether the petition was filed within the statutory limitation period. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the failure to implead all necessary legal heirs rendered the appeal and the subsequent revision incompetent and fatal. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petition was time-barred under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it was filed beyond the ninety-day limitation period, and the petitioner failed to file an application for condonation of delay. The key principle laid down is that the non-impleadment of necessary parties in an indivisible transaction or suit involving legal heirs renders the proceedings incompetent, and the limitation period for filing a revision commences from the date copies are prepared for delivery, not the date of collection.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to implead all legal heirs of a deceased party in an appeal render the proceedings incompetent?
  • From what date does the limitation period for filing a civil revision run when obtaining copies of a judgment?
  • Is a civil revision maintainable if filed beyond the ninety-day statutory period without an application for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Dost Muhammad Noonari vs Mir Ahmed Noonari and another2022 YLR 156 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-04
  criminal acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceappreciation of evidencemisreading of evidenceanti-corruptionenmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal, based on the prosecution's failure to prove the allegation of using a fake shorthand certificate for promotion, warranted appellate interference. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court’s decision was sound and not arbitrary or perverse. The court emphasized that an accused person, once acquitted, earns a double presumption of innocence. Consequently, appellate courts must be extremely cautious and should not interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is shown to be perverse, fanciful, or suffering from gross misreading of evidence. The court noted that the prosecution failed to provide independent corroborative evidence and that the case was marred by a significant delay in reporting and clear evidence of pre-existing murderous enmity between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances is a High Court justified in interfering with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  • Does the double presumption of innocence apply to an accused person who has been acquitted after a full trial?
  • Can an acquittal be overturned solely because a different conclusion could be reached upon re-appraisal of the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Chraguddin vs Province Of Sindh through Home Secretary and 52021 CLC 544 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Bashir Ahmed vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1348 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-10
  dishonoured chequenatural justiceappellate courtremandadditional evidenceright to be heardcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an appellate judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, which acquitted the respondent in a case under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his conviction by a Judicial Magistrate. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused without impleading the complainant as a party, failing to issue notice to him, and deciding the appeal in a hasty manner without allowing the production of the original cheque as additional evidence. The High Court held that the appellate court acted against the principles of natural justice by condemning the complainant unheard and failing to provide an opportunity to produce the original cheque, which had been previously withheld due to pending civil litigation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case to the appellate court with directions to allow both parties to adduce additional evidence and decide the appeal afresh. The judgment reaffirms the principle that no adverse order can be passed against a party without notice, and that courts should prioritize substantial justice over technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellate court required to implead and hear the complainant in a criminal appeal against conviction?
  • Can an appellate court decide an appeal without providing the complainant an opportunity to produce additional evidence?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contain a provision for summoning judicial records similar to Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Bashir Ahmad vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 1545 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-10
  dishonoured chequeacquittal appealnatural justiceadditional evidenceprocedural fairnessremandSection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, which acquitted the respondent in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused without notifying the complainant and without allowing the production of the original cheque as additional evidence. The High Court held that the appellate court acted in a hasty manner by deciding the appeal without impleading the complainant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, which mandate that no adverse order be passed without notice to the affected party. Furthermore, the court held that the appellate court should have provided an opportunity to produce the original cheque, especially given the ongoing civil litigation regarding the same instrument. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal, remanded the case to the appellate court, and directed that the parties be permitted to adduce additional evidence to ensure a fair adjudication. The principle established is that appellate courts must ensure procedural fairness and allow for the production of necessary evidence rather than dismissing cases on technical grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellate court required to implead and notify a complainant in an appeal against a conviction?
  • Can an appellate court in a criminal case allow the production of additional evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contain a provision for summoning judicial records similar to Order XIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Bashir Ahmad Ch vs Bashir Ahmad Deceased through L.Rs. Etc2021 CLC 1696, 2021 LHC 1380 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Adam Jokhio vs National Accountability Bureau & Others2021 SHC 588 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdur Rashid Arif vs Bank Of Khyber through Bank Manager and 72021 CLD 1224 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Haq, etc vs Abdul Latif, etc2021 [M] C L R 266 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Hakeem and 3 others vs Rabia and others2021 CLC 548 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-30Read full judgment →
• Haider vs The State2021 IHC 178 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-12
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsborderline criteriachemical analysis delayfirst offenderfurther inquirypunitive detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from an F.I.R. registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, involving the recovery of 1,164 grams of heroin from the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered, the delay in chemical analysis, and the petitioner's status as a first-time offender. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the 'borderline criteria' doctrine, where recoveries marginally exceeding one kilogram often warrant further inquiry. Additionally, the court emphasized that the five-day delay in sending the sample for chemical analysis—exceeding the 72-hour requirement—constituted a lapse making the case one of further inquiry. The court further established that bail should not be withheld as a punitive measure, particularly when the investigation is complete, the accused is a first-time offender, and there is no immediate prospect of trial conclusion. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending a narcotic sample for chemical analysis beyond 72 hours entitle an accused to further inquiry?
  • Is the recovery of narcotics marginally exceeding one kilogram considered a borderline case for the purpose of bail?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment when the investigation is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider Ali vs The State and others2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 240, 2021 SCMR 629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysupplementary statementunnamed accuseddivergent stancecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition impugning the order of the High Court declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 107 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Madina Town, Faisalabad. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the delayed identification and divergent stance taken by the complainant in the supplementary statement regarding an initially unnamed accused. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the divergent stance of the complainant regarding the identification of the accused makes the case one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that a divergent stance between the initial FIR, where the accused is unnamed, and a subsequent supplementary statement naming the accused creates a reasonable doubt warranting the grant of post-arrest bail under the purview of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does a divergent stance in a supplementary statement regarding the identification of an initially unnamed accused make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an accused not named in the initial FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail when subsequently identified in a supplementary statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Syed Muhammad Usman vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 1232 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-12
  post-arrest bailpolice encountermurderprohibitory clauseDolphin Forcecriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for post-arrest bail filed by police officials of the Dolphin Force seeking pre-trial release in case FIR No. 430 dated 13.03.2020 registered under sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Iqbal Town, Lahore, relating to the extrajudicial killing of the complainant's son. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail given the gravity of the accusations, prima facie connection to the crime, and recovery of matching weapons. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the material available on record sufficiently connects the petitioners to the commission of the alleged offense, which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that law enforcement personnel misusing official authority do not deserve leniency. The key principle laid down is that police officials involved in grave offenses acting outside the law are not entitled to bail when prima facie evidence and recoveries connect them to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Are police officials involved in an alleged staged encounter entitled to post-arrest bail when prima facie evidence and weapon recoveries connect them to the murder?
  • Does an offense falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the grant of bail under the circumstances of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Shahid Pervez Ahmad vs Director, Anti Corruption Establishment and others2021 KLR Criminal Cases 68 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-25Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Ashraf Advocate High Court vs Province Of Punjab, through Secretary Epo Punjab, and others2021 PLJ Lahore 358 · Lahore High Court · 2020-08-31Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Kaleem ud Din vs Province of Punjab etc2021 LHC 4838, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 999 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-13
  pro forma promotioncivil servicesuperannuationpending inquirydepartmental promotionpensionary benefitswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by a retired civil servant challenging the refusal of the respondent department to grant him pro forma promotion from BS-18 to BS-19. The petitioner’s promotion had been deferred during his service due to a pending inquiry and incomplete service record, despite his juniors being promoted. Although the inquiry was subsequently dropped and a cancellation report prepared, the department denied his request for pro forma promotion post-retirement. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, whose promotion was deferred due to pending allegations that were later cleared, is entitled to pro forma promotion after superannuation. The Court held that the department’s refusal was unjustified, as the mere pendency of an inquiry does not constitute a valid ground to deprive a civil servant of their lawful right to promotion. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner pro forma promotion from the due date and release all consequential pensionary benefits, establishing that an employee cannot be penalized by withholding promotion without established charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant be denied promotion solely on the basis of a pending inquiry that is subsequently dropped?
  • Is a retired civil servant entitled to seek pro forma promotion for the period they were in service?
  • Does the mere pendency of an FIR or departmental inquiry justify withholding a civil servant's promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 577 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-30
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clauserule of consistencydelay in FIRcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 294 dated 15.05.2020 registered under Sections 380, 354, 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 337L(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari, after his similar relief was declined by the subordinate court. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in view of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, attribution of injuries, rule of consistency with a co-accused, and the bailable or non-prohibitory nature of the alleged offences. The Court held that the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that several offences are bailable while others fall outside the prohibitory clause, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle established is that where a co-accused's bail has been confirmed and the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry without attracting the prohibitory clause, pre-arrest bail should be granted to protect the liberty of a person.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR constitutes grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when the case of a petitioner is not distinctly different from a co-accused whose bail has already been confirmed?
  • Are offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally considered fit for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Abdullah Ex-Assistant Director Nab Peshwar vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad etc2021 P Cr. L J 669, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 906, 2021 PLJ Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court
  resignation from servicewrit jurisdictiondisputed questions of factcoercion and duressNAB employeestermination of employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the acceptance of the petitioner's resignation from his position as an Assistant Director at the National Accountability Bureau. The petitioner contended that his resignation was submitted under duress and coercion due to personal circumstances and an unwanted transfer. The core legal questions were whether the resignation was validly accepted and whether the court could adjudicate claims of duress within its writ jurisdiction. The court held that the resignation was voluntary and became effective upon its acceptance by the competent authority, thereby terminating the employment relationship. Consequently, the petitioner had no vested right to withdraw the resignation post-acceptance. Furthermore, the court established the principle that allegations of duress and coercion involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be resolved while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, affirming that once a resignation is accepted, the employer-employee relationship ceases to exist.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding duress and coercion in a resignation under writ jurisdiction?
  • Does an employee have a right to withdraw a resignation after it has been accepted by the competent authority?
  • When does a resignation from service become effective for a government employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Jawad Ahmed vs The State2021 SHC 158 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18
  post-arrest bailrapefurther inquirydelayed FIRDNA reportno objection affidavit
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, Hafiz Jawad Ahmed, sought post-arrest bail from the Sindh High Court after being refused by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dadu, in a case involving allegations of rape. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail pending trial given the specific evidentiary circumstances of the case. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the significant, unexplained delay of over two months in lodging the FIR, the negative DNA report, and the fact that both the complainant and the victim had filed affidavits before the trial court expressing no objection to the grant of bail. The Court established the principle that where the prosecution's case is weakened by substantial unexplained delay and exculpatory forensic evidence, the case falls within the scope of 'further inquiry' under the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby justifying the grant of bail to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of two months in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can a negative DNA report be considered a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail in a rape case?
  • What is the legal effect of a complainant and victim filing affidavits of no objection to bail in a criminal proceeding?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor vs Government Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Imterior, Pak Secretariat, Constitutional Avenue, Islamabad and 2 others2021 PLJ Islamabad 354 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →