Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Hafiz Hamdullah Saboor vs Government Of Pakistan through Secretary2021 PLD Islamabad 305 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions challenging the arbitrary cancellation or blocking of Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs) by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) based on allegations of non-citizenship. The core legal question is whether NADRA possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate citizenship status or cancel CNICs on the basis of intelligence reports. The Court held that NADRA is a registration authority and lacks the jurisdiction to determine or adjudicate citizenship, which is a matter exclusively governed by the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951. The Court ruled that NADRA cannot unilaterally cancel or block a CNIC on grounds of citizenship eligibility without a prior, final determination by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act. The judgment establishes that citizenship is a fundamental right and that the state cannot render a person stateless through perfunctory or arbitrary administrative actions. Consequently, the Court ordered the restoration of the petitioners' CNICs, affirming that any deprivation of citizenship must strictly adhere to the statutory safeguards and due process requirements prescribed by law.
Questions settled- Does the National Database and Registration Authority have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the citizenship status of a person?
- Can a Computerized National Identity Card be cancelled or blocked on the ground of citizenship eligibility without a prior determination by the competent authority under the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951?
- Is the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 a self-contained statute for determining citizenship status?
- Does the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority have the power to restrain media channels from projecting a person without legal justification?
- Hafiz Fayyaz Samoo and another vs Special Court, Sindh Public Property2021 PLD Sindh 173 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application challenged a trial court order that enhanced the surety amount for the applicants from Rs. 100,000 to Rs. 1,000,000 after initially granting them pre-arrest bail. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in increasing the surety amount without demonstrating that the initial surety had become insufficient, and whether such an enhancement effectively deprived the accused of their right to bail. The Court held that while it has the power to demand sufficient surety, any such demand must be reasonable and justified by changed circumstances or evidence of insufficiency. It ruled that bail should not be used as a punitive measure, and imposing excessive, unaffordable surety amounts frustrates the object of granting bail, particularly when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the Court set aside the enhancement, confirming the bail on the original terms of Rs. 100,000. The key principle laid down is that surety requirements must be reasonable, and courts cannot arbitrarily enhance bail amounts without valid legal justification, as doing so infringes upon the accused's liberty.
Questions settled- Can a court enhance the surety amount of an accused after bail has already been granted without demonstrating that the initial surety has become insufficient?
- Does the imposition of an excessive and unaffordable surety amount violate the legal principle that bail should not be used as a form of punishment?
- Is the court required to provide reasonable justification when exercising its power under Section 501 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to demand sufficient bail?
- Hafeez ur Rehman vs Province of Sindh & 02 others2021 SHC 380, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 524 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Deputy Director (Finance & Accounts) in the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA), challenged his suspension order dated 22.03.2021 before the Sindh High Court. He contended that the suspension was passed by an incompetent authority without a show-cause notice, charge sheet, or personal hearing, and was motivated by personal vendetta. The Court examined whether a public servant could challenge a suspension order via a constitutional petition under Article 199. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that disciplinary proceedings fall within the terms and conditions of service, which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution, thereby barring the High Court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court clarified that suspension is not a punishment but a temporary, intervening arrangement to facilitate an inquiry. Finding no prejudice to the petitioner and noting that the final decision was pending, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, directing the authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within two months and disburse the petitioner's salary during the suspension period.
Questions settled- Whether a suspension order of a public servant can be challenged through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does the expression 'terms and conditions of service' include disciplinary proceedings and suspension, thereby attracting the jurisdictional bar of Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Is suspension from service considered a punishment or a temporary intervening arrangement under service law?
- Hafeez Machi vs The State2021 SHC 1134 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on night-time identification and police-only witnesses. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, finding the evidence unreliable and contradictory. Specifically, the court determined that identification based solely on torchlight or vehicle headlights, where the accused were not previously known to the witnesses, constitutes weak evidence insufficient for a capital conviction. Furthermore, the court emphasized that unexplained delays in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, coupled with material contradictions regarding the crime scene and witness testimony, undermined the prosecution's narrative. The court reaffirmed the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellants.
Questions settled- Is identification by torchlight or vehicle headlights sufficient to sustain a conviction when the accused were not previously known to the witnesses?
- Does an unexplained delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the prosecution's case unreliable?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
- Hafeez Bibi vs The State & another2021 PLD Lahore 392, 2021 LHC 477 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
- Hafeez Ahmad and 3 others vs Province Of Punjab through Secretary2021 PLJ Lahore 778 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Hadi Bakhsh vs Muhammad Arif and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 502 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Judicial Magistrate in connection with FIR No. 90 of 2019, registered under Sections 337-F(i), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the bail granted to the accused should be cancelled. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the application, holding that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making bail the rule and refusal the exception. The Court emphasized that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage and that cancellation of bail requires strong, exceptional grounds, such as evidence of tampering with prosecution evidence or hindering the complainant, which were absent in this case. The key principle laid down is that once bail is granted based on a tentative assessment of evidence, it cannot be cancelled without demonstrating that the accused has misused the concession of bail.
Questions settled- Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail as a rule?
- Is deeper appreciation of evidence permissible during the consideration of a bail cancellation application?
- What specific grounds are required to justify the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Hadayat Ullah etc. vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2021 SCP 434, 2022 SCMR 1691, 2022 PSC 1216, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1603, 2022 PLC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These review petitions concerned the constitutionality of the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010. The Supreme Court, by a majority, dismissed the petitions, holding the Act to be violative of Articles 25, 18, 9, and 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and thus void under Article 8. Exercising jurisdiction under Articles 184(3) and 187, the Court ordered the restoration of certain re-instated employees from the date of the judgment under review. This restoration was conditional: employees whose posts did not require aptitude/skill tests were restored on original terms, and those whose posts did require such tests were also restored on original terms. However, employees terminated for absence, misconduct, corruption, misappropriation, or medical unfitness, if such termination was not set aside by a court, were excluded from this relief. The judgment emphasized the protection of fundamental rights and the limits of legislative power under Article 8 of the Constitution.
- Hadayat Begum widow of Mirza Muhammad Rafique, caste Mirza Mughal2021 SC AJK 2 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
- Habibullah vs Sessions Judge, Tharparkar Mithi and 3 others2021 YLR 312 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application challenges the order of the Sessions Judge, Tharparkar Mithi, which upheld the trial court's decision to refuse the release of seized 'Roheero' trees to the applicant following his acquittal in a theft case. The core legal question was whether the court could order the release of prohibited, illegally cut trees to an accused person after their acquittal, particularly when the accused had previously denied ownership of the property during the trial. The Court held that the prohibited trees could not be released to the applicant. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that the trial court possesses discretion under Section 517, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to order the disposal, confiscation, or destruction of property used in the commission of an offense. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that an accused cannot 'approbate and reprobate' by denying ownership during trial proceedings and subsequently claiming ownership for the purpose of property restoration. Additionally, the Court noted that returning prohibited trees would facilitate the repetition of environmental crimes, thereby endangering the ecosystem of the desert region.
Questions settled- Can an accused person claim ownership of case property after having denied such ownership in their statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a trial court have the discretion to order the confiscation or destruction of prohibited trees used in the commission of an offense under Section 517, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should prohibited trees seized as case property be released to an accused person following their acquittal?
- Habibullah Panhwar vs The State2021 SHC 1150 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Qamber, which convicted the appellant for murder and house trespass, sentencing him to death. The appellant challenged the conviction, and the trial court referred the matter for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court's failure to examine the medical officer and the denial of the appellant's right to cross-examine the Investigating Officer constituted a violation of the right to a fair trial. The High Court held that the trial court's procedural lapses, specifically the failure to examine the medical officer and the improper handling of the Investigating Officer's testimony, violated the appellant's constitutional right to a fair trial. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case for a de novo trial, directing the trial court to examine the medical officer and provide the appellant with the opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer. The judgment reaffirms the principle that strict adherence to procedural fairness and the right to cross-examination are essential components of a fair trial under the Constitution.
Questions settled- Does the failure to examine a medical officer in a murder trial violate the right to a fair trial?
- Is a trial court's decision to copy and paste cross-examination from one witness to another a valid ground for setting aside a conviction?
- Can a conviction be upheld if the accused was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer?
- Habibullah Bhungar vs Khuwaja Khairuddin Dero2021 SHC 1336 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application arises from a case where the applicant was charged with rape. Following the refusal of post-arrest bail by the trial court, the applicant approached the High Court under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, asserting innocence and false implication. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the merits of the case and the complainant's subsequent stance. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a one-day delay, the medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape, and the DNA profile of the victim did not match the applicant's blood sample. Furthermore, the complainant filed an affidavit stating no objection to the bail and affirming the applicant's innocence. Relying on the principle that such circumstances warrant further inquiry, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety, thereby resolving the matter in favor of the applicant.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of a DNA match between the victim and the accused constitutes grounds for further inquiry in a rape case?
- Does a complainant's affidavit stating no objection to bail and asserting the accused's innocence provide valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
- Can a delay in lodging an FIR, combined with contradictory medical evidence, entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Habibullah and others vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 1350 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-21Read full judgment →
- Habib Construction Services Limited vs LDA through its Chief Engineer, etc2021 MLD 1109, 2021 PLJ Lahore 529, 2021 LHC 293 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-08Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited vs Saqib Mahmood and another2021 PLC (C.S.) 1495, 2021 LHC 1538 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal challenges a single bench judgment that ordered the reinstatement of a dismissed employee of Habib Bank Limited. The core legal questions concern whether an employee of a privatized bank, governed by non-statutory service rules, can invoke constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the Federal Service Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to impose a mandatory time-line for completing disciplinary inquiries. The Court held that the appeal must be allowed, as the bank, following its privatization, does not perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, rendering it a private entity outside the scope of Article 199. Consequently, the relationship between the bank and its employees is governed by the rule of master and servant, precluding constitutional remedies. Furthermore, the Court established that time-lines set by Tribunals for administrative inquiries are generally directory rather than mandatory, absent specific statutory penalties for non-compliance. The single bench erred in fact and law by failing to recognize the bank's private status and the directory nature of the inquiry time-line.
Questions settled- Can an employee of a privatized bank governed by non-statutory rules invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to impose a mandatory time-line for the completion of administrative disciplinary inquiries?
- Is a direction by a court or tribunal to complete an inquiry within a specified period directory or mandatory in the absence of a prescribed penalty for non-compliance?
- Does a privatized bank qualify as a person or authority performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation for the purposes of constitutional jurisdiction?
- Habib Bank Limited vs Common Traders (Pvt.) Limited and others2022 CLD 229, 2022 PCTLR 1443 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-06Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited vs Aijaz Ali Khaskheli2021 KLR Civil Cases 255 · Sindh High Court · 2014-02-24Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited vs Aijaz Ali Khaskeli and another2021 P C T L R 1113 · Sindh High Court · 2014-02-12Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited through authorized persons/attorneys vs Mst. Neelofar2021 MLD 1905 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-05Read full judgment →
- H.S. Goutham vs Rama Murthy and Anr. Etc2021 SCInd 80 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-12Read full judgment →
- Gulzar vs The StatePLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 202, 2021 SCMR 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the appellant was sentenced to 10-1/2 years of rigorous imprisonment following the recovery of a significant cache of cannabis. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the prosecution had established a secure chain of custody regarding the transmission of the seized contraband to the Chemical Examiner. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that the prosecution witness responsible for the transmission failed to provide testimony confirming the delivery of the entire cache to the examiner's office. The Court held that in the absence of evidence proving safe transmission, the narcotic character of the recovered substance could not be legally established. Consequently, the appellant could not be held culpable for possession without resorting to conjecture. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the integrity of the chain of custody is essential for a conviction in narcotics cases.
- Gulzar Shah vs The State2021 MLD 169 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court upon the appellant for the rape of a minor girl under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the contradictions in the victim's testimony, the absence of forensic evidence, and the lack of eyewitnesses. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet the requisite standard of proof. Specifically, the Court noted significant inconsistencies between the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and her testimony in court, the lack of a DNA match, and the absence of physical evidence at the alleged scene. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the heinous nature of an offense does not absolve the prosecution from proving its case through cogent, reliable, and admissible evidence, and that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Questions settled- Does the heinous nature of an offense relieve the prosecution of the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the victim's testimony in court contradicts their earlier statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be convicted solely on hearsay evidence in the absence of corroborating forensic or eyewitness testimony?
- Does the absence of a DNA match and physical evidence at the scene of the crime entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Gulzar Sanghro vs The State2021 SHC 726 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns multiple criminal appeals and a revision application arising from a judgment of the Sessions Court, Kambar-Shahdadkot, which convicted three appellants for murder and acquitted a fourth. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, the appropriateness of the death penalty where the alleged motive was unproven, and whether the acquittal of a co-accused was legally sound regarding the principle of common intention. The High Court upheld the convictions of the three appellants, finding the ocular and medical evidence reliable. However, the Court reduced the death sentence of the primary appellant to life imprisonment, holding that the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive warrants caution in capital sentencing. The Court further dismissed the appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused, ruling that mere presence at the scene without evidence of an overt act is insufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The principle laid down is that while natural witnesses are credible, the failure to prove motive necessitates a reduction of the death penalty to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive in a murder case warrant the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Is the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the testimony of natural witnesses be discarded solely due to their blood relationship with the deceased?
- What is the scope of appellate interference in an acquittal judgment?
- Gulzar Hussain vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore2021 LHC 7706, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 57 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal challenges the removal from service of a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, imposed following allegations of misconduct, including harassment, trial delay, and receipt of illegal gratification. The core legal question concerns whether the established interaction between the judicial officer and a litigant warranted the major penalty of removal from service, given that the specific charges of corruption and intimidation remained unproven. The Court held that while the prosecution failed to substantiate the allegations of illegal gratification and criminal intimidation, the evidence confirmed the appellant maintained improper contact with a litigant, constituting misconduct under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999. The Court emphasized that judicial officers must avoid any liaison with litigants to preserve the appearance of propriety. Finding the extreme penalty of removal disproportionate to the proven misconduct, the Court converted the punishment to a reduction to three lower stages in the appellant's pay scale. The judgment affirms that disciplinary penalties must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct and the officer's service record.
Questions settled- Does maintaining contact with a litigant by a judicial officer constitute misconduct under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999?
- Is the major penalty of removal from service proportionate when charges of illegal gratification are unproven but improper contact with a litigant is established?
- What criteria must a competent authority consider when determining the severity of a disciplinary penalty for a civil servant?
- Gulzar Firoz, Member, Nominee Of Pakistan Tanners Association, Karachi vs Director General Of Trade Organizations and others2021 PLJ Islamabad 90 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Gulzar Ahmad, etc vs Ayesha Naz Sarwar, etc2021 LHC 5299, 2022 CLC 675, 2022 PLJ Lahore 14 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-11Read full judgment →
- Gulshan Shah vs The State2021 SCMR 1456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition arises from a conviction for the murder of two brothers, Safdar Shah and Iqbal Shah, in 2003. The petitioner, Gulshan Shah, was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to death, which the High Court subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained despite the acquittal of a co-accused and the alleged lack of corroboration for interested witnesses in a family dispute. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of one co-accused did not undermine the prosecution's case against the petitioner, as the ocular evidence, supported by medical evidence, clearly established the petitioner's specific role in the fatal assault. The Court affirmed that the testimony of natural witnesses, when credible and corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient for conviction even in cases of family animosity. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's abscondence was a factor reflecting against his innocence. The petition for leave to appeal was declined, and the concurrent sentences were maintained.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically invalidate the prosecution's case against the remaining accused?
- Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of ocular testimony from interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
- Does the abscondence of an accused person serve as a factor relevant to the assessment of their innocence?
- Gulraiz vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 145 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the dishonor of a cheque. The core legal question concerns whether a conviction can be legally sustained when the prosecution relies solely on photocopies of the cheque and dishonor slip, without producing the original documents or satisfying the statutory requirements for the admissibility of secondary evidence. The Islamabad High Court held that the trial court improperly admitted these photocopies into evidence without the original documents being tendered or the conditions for secondary evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 being met. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision after excluding the inadmissible evidence. The judgment affirms the principle that primary evidence is mandatory for proof, and the mere failure of the defense to object to the admission of inadmissible secondary evidence does not cure the defect if the evidence is crucial to the conviction.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained based on photocopies of documents when the original documents were never produced in evidence?
- Does the failure of the defense to object to the admission of secondary evidence validate its use if the evidence is otherwise inadmissible?
- What are the requirements for the admissibility of secondary evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Can a document not supplied to the accused under Section 241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as evidence against them?
- Gull Tabassum alias Wairi vs Inspector General (Prisons), Punjab, Lahore2021 KLR Civil Cases 425, 2021 PLD Lahore 479 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-24Read full judgment →
- Gul-e-Nargis vs Principal Secretary to Prime Minister, etc2021 IHC 216 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-17Read full judgment →
- Gul Zarin and others vs Fazal Khaliq and another2021 SCMR 1461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a petition assailing the acquittal of the respondent by the Peshawar High Court vide judgment dated 03.05.2014, which overturned his conviction for murderous assault and two counts of homicide recorded by the trial court on 10.10.2011. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondent despite ocular testimony, an injured witness, a dying declaration, and evidence of absconsion, notwithstanding the absence of an autopsy due to local custom. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case warranted a reappraisal of the prosecution evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The key principle laid down is that where an appellate acquittal relies on artificial and illusory reasoning overlooking strong circumstantial and direct evidence including dying declarations and injured witnesses, the Supreme Court will grant leave for reappraisal of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondent in the face of an injured witness and a dying declaration?
- Does the non-performance of an autopsy due to local custom adversely affect the prosecution case where homicidal death is undisputed?
- Whether the acquittal based on artificial and illusory reasoning warrants interference and reappraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court?
- Gul Shah Peeri vs The State and another2021 PHC 100 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-09Read full judgment →
- Gul Sahib Khan & 39 others vs Abdul Rashid Khan and 23 others2021 PHC 290, 2022 CLC 308 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-16Read full judgment →
- Gul Roz vs The Government Of Pakistan through Secretary Safron and others2021 SCMR 1527, 2021 PSC 1676, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a service dispute regarding the promotion and retirement of a Subedar in the Malakand Levies. The petitioner challenged his premature retirement, which was based on the application of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) Levies Force Service (Amended) Rules, 2013, following an interim order that had suspended his promotion to the rank of Subedar Major. The core legal question was whether an interim suspension of a promotion order constitutes a final annulment of that promotion, thereby affecting the officer's tenure and retirement eligibility. The Supreme Court held that an interim suspension order merely postpones the implementation of a promotion and does not equate to its cancellation or reversal. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner's retirement, based on the assumption that his tenure as a Subedar had expired during the period of suspension, was illegal. The principle laid down is that service rendered under the shadow of an interim suspension order cannot be counted towards the exhaustion of tenure for retirement purposes, and such an order does not validate the premature retirement of an officer.
Questions settled- Does an interim order suspending a promotion constitute a final reversal or cancellation of that promotion?
- Can service rendered while a promotion is under interim suspension be counted towards the exhaustion of tenure for retirement purposes?
- Is a retirement order based on the assumption that a suspended promotion is equivalent to a cancelled promotion legally sustainable?
- Gul Rehman vs The State through Ag, KP, Peshawar2021 PLD Supreme Court 795, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 827, 2021 SCP 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, for possessing unlicensed weapons. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the prosecution's failure to submit the investigation report (challan) within the statutory timeframe mandated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the fact that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497. The Supreme Court held that the delay in submitting the challan, which prevented the commencement of the trial, coupled with the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause, entitled the petitioner to bail. The Court emphasized that the persistent failure of law enforcement agencies to comply with the mandatory timelines for investigation reports undermines the rule of law and results in unnecessary incarceration or delayed justice. Consequently, the Court granted bail and issued a directive to the Chief Secretary of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to convene a high-level meeting to resolve the endemic issue of delayed investigation reports and submit a compliance report to the Court.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the police to submit an investigation report within the statutory period justify the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What are the obligations of the officer in charge of a police station regarding the submission of an interim report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Gul Nazir vs Riasat alias Saeen and 6 others2022 MLD 13, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 292 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the acquittal of respondents by the trial court in a robbery case. The core legal question was whether the acquittal could be set aside based on the evidence presented, specifically extra-judicial confessions made to police and joint recoveries of stolen property. The Islamabad High Court held that the appeal must be dismissed. The Court reasoned that confessions made to police while in custody are inadmissible in evidence. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that joint recoveries of stolen items are legally inadmissible and insufficient to connect an accused to a crime. Emphasizing that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, the Court held that such a judgment can only be reversed if it is found to be perverse, arbitrary, or shocking, which was not the case here. The principle laid down is that in the absence of independent, cogent evidence—such as identification parades or forensic reports—joint recoveries and police-recorded confessions are insufficient to warrant setting aside an acquittal.
Questions settled- Is a confession made by an accused person before the police in its custody admissible in evidence?
- Is a joint recovery of stolen property admissible in evidence to prove the guilt of an accused?
- What are the legal parameters for setting aside an order of acquittal in a criminal case?
- Gul Nazar vs The State2021 IHC 182 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an offense under Section 9-C and Section 15 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question revolves around whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused where the recovered narcotic substance marginally exceeds the threshold of one kilogram, falling within the borderline criteria. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and held that since the recovered quantity of 1260 grams of Charas marginally exceeded the borderline limit, the accused was a first offender, the investigation was complete, and further incarceration would serve no useful purpose, the case was fit for grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where a recovered narcotic substance marginally exceeds the statutory threshold and falls within borderline criteria, and the accused is a first offender with completed investigation, the concession of post-arrest bail should be extended, as bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted where the recovered quantity of narcotics marginally exceeds one kilogram?
- Does the recovery of 1260 grams of Charas bring the case within the borderline criteria for the grant of bail?
- Can bail be withheld as a punishment when investigation against the accused is complete and he is a first offender?
- Gul Nawaz & others vs Rashid Ahmed & others2021 PLJ SC 295, 2021 P SC 878, 2021 SCMR 529, 2021 SCP 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition against three concurrent judgments dismissing the petitioners' suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The petitioners failed to lead evidence despite multiple opportunities granted by the Trial Court and sought to rely on a document described alternatively as an agreement or a decision issued by the 'Emarat-e-Islami Taliban'. The core legal question concerns the admissibility and legality of relying upon purported decisions or agreements issued by unauthorized militant groups within the territory of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the Taliban had no legal authority to decide cases and that any physical occupation or decision by them contravenes the Constitution of Pakistan and is unconstitutional, unlawful, and of no legal effect. Furthermore, the Court held that the purported agreement was forbidden, unlawful, and opposed to public policy under section 23 of the Contract Act 1872. The key principle laid down is that parallel systems or decisions by unauthorized entities within Pakistan's territory violate state sovereignty and the Constitution, rendering any related agreements void and incapable of forming the basis of a legal suit.
Questions settled- Whether a decision or agreement issued by an unauthorized militant group within the territory of Pakistan has any legal effect?
- Can an agreement or document emanating from an unconstitutional parallel system form the basis of a suit for specific performance?
- Is a purported agreement issued by the Taliban forbidden and unlawful as being opposed to public policy under section 23 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Gul Murrad and 2 others vs The State and others2021 MLD 362 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment disposes of criminal appeals and a revision arising from a murder trial concerning the death of one Syed Junaid Shah, who was caught trespassing in the cattle shed of the main accused, Gul Murrad, and subsequently beaten to death. The trial court had convicted Gul Murrad, Jan Khan, and Saleh Aman under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment, while acquitting two juvenile co-accused. The core legal questions involved evaluating the right of private defence of property and privacy against an intruder, the applicability of common intention, and the proper legal categorization of the offense under Section 302. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the deceased's unannounced intrusion into the cattle shed justified the occupants in defending their privacy, and that the fatal blow was dealt by Gul Murrad individually without common intention linking the other convicts. Consequently, the court acquitted Jan Khan and Saleh Aman, upheld the acquittal of the juveniles, and altered Gul Murrad's conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence to ten years rigorous imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether the unannounced intrusion into a private cattle shed justifies the exercise of the right of private defence of property and privacy?
- Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 302(c) under peculiar mitigating circumstances?
- Whether co-accused can be convicted with the aid of common intention when their specific presence and participation are not established by the site inspection report or recoveries?
- Gul Muhammad vs Chairman, Federal Board Of Revenue / Secretary2021 PLJ Islamabad 152, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 513 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a retired Commissioner Income Tax, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse the expenses incurred on his liver transplant in China. The core legal questions involved whether a government servant could claim reimbursement for medical treatment abroad without prior governmental approval, and how the executive discretion exercised in granting funds for medical treatment abroad should be regulated in the absence of a formal policy. The court held that since the petitioner failed to obtain prior sanction from the competent authority before proceeding abroad for medical treatment, his claim for reimbursement could not be processed or allowed. However, the court also held that where the formal policy regarding medical treatment abroad had been revoked, leaving unbridled and unstructured discretion with the executive, the defunct policy guidelines must serve as a guiding framework to ensure non-discriminatory treatment until a fresh policy is formulated by the government. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a government servant claim reimbursement for medical treatment abroad without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority?
- Does the exercise of unbridled and unstructured discretion by the executive in granting funds for medical treatment abroad violate the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- What guidelines must the Prime Minister follow when deciding applications of government servants for medical treatment abroad in the absence of a formalized current policy?
- Gul Muhammad and another vs The State through Prosecutor-General BalochistanPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 203, 2021 SCMR 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition against the conviction and life imprisonment of the petitioners for murder under Section 302(b)/34 PPC. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, including 'last seen' testimony, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries of the deceased's belongings. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions made in police custody and the necessity of a formal autopsy to establish the cause of death. The Court observed that the extra-judicial confessions were recorded while the petitioners were in handcuffs and in the presence of police, rendering them a nullity in law. Furthermore, the Court found that the medical evidence was insufficient as only a provisional external examination was conducted without a full post-mortem, making the cause of death speculative. Applying the principle that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain incompatible with innocence, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, the convictions were set aside, and the petitioners were acquitted.
- Gul Manan vs The State2021 SCMR 1804, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 733 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition challenges the Peshawar High Court's order refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a narcotics case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was a passenger and not the driver of the vehicle from which narcotics were recovered, could be held to have conscious knowledge of the contraband, thereby disentitling him to bail. The Supreme Court observed that the narcotics were recovered from secret cavities, and the State conceded that nothing was recovered from the petitioner's personal possession or on his pointation. The Court held that the petitioner's mere presence in the vehicle did not conclusively establish conscious knowledge, and the issue required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where there is no evidence of personal possession or pointation, the mere presence of an accused as a passenger in a vehicle containing narcotics constitutes a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an accused as a passenger in a vehicle containing narcotics establish conscious knowledge of the contraband?
- When does a case of narcotics recovery fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a passenger in a vehicle entitled to bail when narcotics are recovered from secret cavities and not from the passenger's personal possession?
- Gul Hassan S/O Muhammad Hassan vs The State2021 SHC 512 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Gul Hassan, in connection with Crime No. 324/2021 registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought pre-arrest bail after his initial application was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and was allegedly not present at the scene, was entitled to pre-arrest bail. The High Court observed that the FIR did not nominate the applicant, and his alleged involvement or abetment remained a matter requiring further inquiry, dependent on evidence to be produced at trial. Additionally, the Court noted a 24-hour delay in lodging the FIR. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not nominated in the FIR and their presence at the scene is disputed, the question of their involvement constitutes a matter of further inquiry, justifying the confirmation of pre-arrest bail pending trial.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when they are not nominated in the FIR and their presence at the crime scene is disputed?
- Does a 24-hour delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can the question of an accused's involvement or abetment be determined at the bail stage without evidence?
- Gul Hassan Alias Gul and an Others vs The State2021 SHC 264 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
- Gul Farooq S/O Parosh Khan vs The State2021 SHC 1006 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Gul Farooq, who was implicated in an FIR registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including charges of abduction, theft, and criminal intimidation. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of a delayed FIR, lack of specific role attribution, and the absence of incriminating evidence. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, observing that the prosecution failed to connect the applicant to the alleged offences with any specific material. The Court noted that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of one month and lacked material particulars regarding the stolen property and the alleged extortionate threats. Emphasizing that the case required further inquiry and that mala fide on the part of the complainant could not be ruled out, the Court confirmed the interim bail. The key principle laid down is that where allegations are vague, specific roles are not ascribed, and no incriminating material exists, a case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a pre-arrest bail application?
- Is pre-arrest bail warranted when the FIR lacks specific role attribution and incriminating material against the accused?
- Can the possibility of mala fide on the part of the complainant justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Gul Bahar Jatoi vs The State2021 MLD 1943 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal matter arose from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant/accused in Crime No. 90/2019, registered under Sections 15, 17, 24, and 2(s) of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, following the dismissal of his earlier bail plea by the Sessions Judge, Sukkur. The core legal questions before the High Court of Sindh were whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the evidentiary material collected, the scope of tentative assessment at the bail stage, and whether the alleged offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that prima facie evidence implicated the applicant, including the recovery of gas theft apparatus (generator, gas kit, pipes) from his hotel and corroborative statements of official witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The Court reaffirmed that at the bail stage only a tentative assessment of the material is permissible and that the prescribed punishment attracts the prohibitory threshold.
Questions settled- Whether recovery of gas theft apparatus from the premises of the accused provides sufficient reasonable grounds to decline post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the offences under Sections 15, 17, and 24 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act 2016 attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused claim bail based on lack of independent mashirs where the recovery is attested by official functionaries without any demonstrated animus or malice?
- Gul Bahar Bano vs Federation of Pakistan & another2021 SHC 194 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
- Gul Ayaz Plastic Industry vs Tribal Areas Electric Supply Company, Wapda2021 PTD 795 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court by the owner of a manufacturing industrial unit situated in the erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA), now part of Khyber District, seeking a declaration that electricity consumed by the unit is not subject to Sales Tax and advance Income Tax. The core legal question was whether industrial units located in erstwhile FATA are exempt from the impost of Sales Tax and advance Income Tax on electricity consumption following the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2018. The Court held that individuals and corporate entities domiciled and operating within the territorial limits of erstwhile FATA enjoy explicit statutory exemption from Income Tax and Sales Tax on electricity consumption until June 30, 2023, pursuant to relevant S.R.O.s and the Finance Act of 2019. Consequently, the demand for advance income tax and sales tax through electricity bills was declared illegal. The key principles laid down are that Chapter XII of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 does not apply to erstwhile FATA due to specific second schedule exemptions, relieving taxpayers from obtaining section 159 exemption certificates, and that electricity supplies to qualifying industries in those areas are exempt from sales tax.
Questions settled- Are industrial units located in the erstwhile FATA exempt from Sales Tax and advance Income Tax on electricity consumption following the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2018?
- Is a taxpayer whose business is exclusively located in the erstwhile FATA required to obtain an exemption certificate under Section 159 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to claim tax immunity?
- Does Section 235 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 empower the Revenue to collect advance income tax through electricity bills from consumers protected by tribal area exemptions?
- What is the legal effect of Clause 152 of the Second Schedule to the Sales Tax Act, 1990 regarding electricity supplies to industries in tribal areas?
- Gul Ahmed vs Ld CJ & JM & Ors2021 SHC 90 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by the Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I (MCTC) Dadu, which disposed of a First Information Report (FIR) under 'C' Class. The applicant, who alleged that a loan extended to his brother-in-law was dishonoured via a bounced cheque issued by his wife, sought to set aside the magistrate's order and requested that the court take cognizance of the incident. The core legal question was whether the magistrate erred in disposing of the case under 'C' Class rather than proceeding with the prosecution. Upon review, the Court found that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of over one month, following unsuccessful proceedings under Section 22-A & B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the dispute appeared to be a matrimonial conflict involving the misuse of a blank cheque. Consequently, the Court held that the magistrate had actually favoured the applicant by opting for 'C' Class disposal instead of 'B' Class, which would have exposed the applicant to prosecution for filing a false case. The application was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a magistrate's order disposing of an FIR under 'C' Class is liable to be set aside when the underlying dispute appears to be a matrimonial conflict?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR justify the dismissal of a criminal miscellaneous application seeking to challenge the cancellation of that FIR?
- Is a complainant entitled to challenge a magistrate's decision to dispose of a case under 'C' Class when the alternative 'B' Class disposal would have exposed the complainant to prosecution for a false case?
- Gujranwala Electric Supply Company Limited (GEPCO) through CEO vs NEPRA through Chairman and 2 others2021 PLJ Lahore 855 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-21Read full judgment →
- Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others vs Sher Ali etc2021 SCMR 494, 2021 SCP 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service matter concerns the regularization of contract employees serving at the Rehman Baba Shrine and the Khushal Khan Khattak Library, which were subsequently transferred to the Archives and Libraries Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal question was whether these employees were entitled to regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization Act 2009. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision to regularize the respondents. The Court held that the respondents satisfied the three pre-conditions under Section 3 of the 2009 Act: they were employed on a contract basis before the Act's promulgation, held their posts at the relevant time, and possessed the requisite qualifications. The Court emphasized that the government, having previously issued notifications recognizing the respondents as civil servants, could not subsequently deny their regularization status without valid legal justification. The judgment establishes that administrative transfers of entities to government departments do not extinguish the acquired service rights of employees who otherwise meet statutory criteria for regularization, and the government cannot adopt contradictory positions regarding the employment status of its staff.
Questions settled- Are contract employees who were employed prior to the promulgation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization Act 2009 entitled to regularization under Section 3 of the Act?
- Does the administrative transfer of a project or entity to a government department negate the existing service rights of contract employees?
- Can the government deny the regularization of employees when it has previously issued notifications recognizing them as civil servants?
- Govind Ram vs The Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 2 others2022 PTD 634 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
- Govind Ram vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 1118 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-17Read full judgment →
- Government of the Punjab, through Secretary, Schools Education2021 SCP 394, 2022 SCMR 25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arose from a dispute regarding the recruitment of Assistant Education Officers (AEOs) under the Punjab Recruitment Policy 2016-17. The respondents, whose candidatures were initially rejected, successfully obtained a favorable order from the Complaints Redressal Cell (CRC). However, the Chief Executive Officer of the District Education Authority bypassed the review mechanism and filed a direct appeal to the Secretary of Schools Education, who overturned the CRC's decision. The High Court subsequently set aside the Secretary's order as being without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that under Clauses 21 and 22 of the Recruitment Policy, filing a review petition before the CRC was a mandatory prerequisite before invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the Secretary. The Court emphasized that the right of appeal is a statutory creation and must be exercised strictly within the prescribed hierarchy. It further held that the Secretary's order was coram non judice due to the failure to exhaust the primary remedy of review.
- Government of the Punjab & others vs M/s Muhammad Asad & Co.2021 CLC 2135, 2021 LHC 1853 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-08Read full judgment →
- Government of the Punjab & 3 others vs Muhammad Kamran Jamil2021 [M] CLR 1522 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
- Government of Punjab through Secretary Cooperative Societies2022 SCMR 739, 2023 PLC (C.S) 763, 2022 PSC 1599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order directing the appointment of the respondent as a Sub-Inspector (BPS-11) in the Punjab Cooperatives Department. The core legal question was whether a candidate on a waiting list can be denied appointment due to the alleged expiry of the merit list, despite vacancies existing and other candidates above the respondent having declined the position. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that the department’s failure to timely process the appointment or request a substitute should not prejudice a qualified candidate. The Court established that when vacancies remain unfilled, the department must consider available candidates on the waiting list rather than leaving posts vacant. Furthermore, denying appointment in such circumstances violates the principle of equality before the law under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that administrative lethargy cannot be used to deprive a qualified candidate of their right to employment when the post remains vacant and un-advertised.
Questions settled- Can a government department deny appointment to a candidate on a waiting list solely due to the department's own failure to timely request a substitute?
- Does the expiry of a merit list preclude the appointment of a candidate from the waiting list if vacancies remain unfilled and the post has not been re-advertised?
- Is it a violation of the right to equality for a department to deny an appointment to a qualified candidate on a waiting list when vacancies exist?
- Government Of Pakistan through Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-2022 YLR 698, 2022 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 82 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-08-03Read full judgment →
- Government Of Pakistan through Collector_Settlement Officer, Gilgit and another vs Mohammad Azam and 9 others2022 YLR 716 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
- Government of KPK through Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education, Peshawar & Others vs Latif Ullah Khan2021 PLC (C.S.) 1120, 2021 PLJ SC 256, 2021 P SC 1082, 2021 SCMR 829, 2021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a civil suit filed by the Respondent, a candidate for the post of Primary School Teacher (PST), challenging his non-selection by the Appellants. The Respondent claimed entitlement to the post based on his R.I.T.E. diploma, which he argued should be preferred over other diplomas, and sought five additional marks for his teaching experience. The Trial Court and the appellate courts ruled in favor of the Respondent. The core legal questions were whether the Respondent was entitled to preference based on his diploma despite lower merit scores, and whether he was entitled to additional marks for experience in the absence of an implemented policy. The Supreme Court held that preference for specific diplomas only applies when candidates have equal merit scores, not when a candidate's score is significantly lower. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of an implemented policy granting extra marks for experience. The Court established that discretionary revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 must be exercised lawfully, and that courts cannot grant relief based on non-existent or unimplemented policies.
Questions settled- Does a preference for a specific educational diploma in a recruitment policy apply when a candidate's merit score is significantly lower than other applicants?
- Can a court grant relief based on a recruitment policy that is merely a proposal and has not been implemented?
- What is the scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Government of KPK through Chief Secretary and others vs Syed Sadiq2021 PLC (C.S.) 643, 2021 SCMR 747, 2021 SCP 116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a Peshawar High Court judgment that struck down a Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa notification. The notification granted a 5% ad-hoc relief allowance to employees in BPS-17 to BPS-19 but excluded those already receiving special allowances, such as the Special Judicial Allowance. The High Court had deemed this exclusion discriminatory under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined whether the classification was based on 'intelligible differentia' and whether the executive could sub-classify employees for financial benefits. The Court held that Article 25 does not forbid reasonable classification based on substantial distinctions related to the object sought. It found that the government's aim to reduce salary disparity and manage financial constraints constituted a rational nexus. The Court ruled that grouping low-paid and high-paid employees differently for monetary benefits is a permissible classification. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, affirming that judicial review should not interfere in policy matters where the classification is logical and not arbitrary.
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Asif Bacha and others2021 PHC 254 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-25Read full judgment →
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Public Health2021 PSC 1470, 2021 SCMR 1871, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arose from Peshawar High Court judgments directing the regularization of various employees appointed on contract or project bases. The Supreme Court examined whether project employees and those appointed without prescribed competitive processes could claim regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2005, and the KP (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009. The Court held that Section 2(b) of the 2009 Act explicitly excludes project employees from the definition of 'employee' eligible for regularization. Furthermore, regularization under Section 19(2) of the 2005 Act requires appointment in the 'prescribed manner,' involving open competition and transparency, which the respondents lacked. The Court also clarified that the High Court cannot pre-date regularization against statutory cut-off dates or extend benefits to excluded classes, as doing so transgresses Article 199 and usurps legislative authority. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments, ruling that project and contract employees not meeting statutory criteria have no vested right to regularization.
- Hasnain Asghar vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 900 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise out of a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death, along with a conviction under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony, the effect of an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, the presence of material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence, and the proof of motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond a shadow of doubt due to an unexplained four-day delay in reporting the crime, dishonest improvements made by eye-witnesses, contradictions regarding the place of occurrence, and a direct conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence. Consequently, the court laid down that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient to entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt, leading to the acceptance of the appeal, the setting aside of the conviction and death sentence, and the acquittal of the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether an inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting a crime to the police damages the veracity of the prosecution version?
- Does an injury on the body of an eye-witness automatically make them a truthful and reliable witness?
- What is the legal effect when there is a direct conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence in a murder trial?
- Is the prosecution required to stand on its own legs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt without taking benefit from the weaknesses of the defence?
- Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Industries, Commerce and Technical Education, Manpower Training Department, Peshawar and others vs Shahzad Iqbal and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 747, 2021 SCMR 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges judgments of the Peshawar High Court whereby writ petitions filed by the respondents seeking regularization of their services were accepted. The respondents were initially appointed on a contractual basis in Skill Development Centers established by a federal subsidiary company under an agreement before the project was handed over to the Provincial Government. The core legal question was whether project employees of a federal subsidiary company subsequently transferred to the provincial government fall under the purview of the provincial regularization statute and are entitled to regularization. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that project employees recruited for a definite period by a company do not become employees of the provincial government and are explicitly excluded from the purview of the provincial regularization act by virtue of their employment status. The Court set aside the High Court judgments, establishing the principle that project-based contract employees hired by autonomous or federal bodies are not entitled to regularization under provincial civil service regularization acts designed strictly for direct government appointees.
Questions settled- Whether project employees recruited by a federal subsidiary company for a specific project can be considered provincial government employees for the purpose of regularization?
- Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 extend to persons appointed on project posts?
- Whether employees hired on a contract basis for a time-bound development project are entitled to the benefit of service regularization upon transfer of the project to the provincial government?
- Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health, Civil2022 SCMR 673, 2022 PLJ SC 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a service appeal concerning the removal of a government employee from service due to wilful absence after the expiry of his deputation period in Saudi Arabia. The core legal question is whether the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal is justified in modifying a penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement merely on the ground of long service length without strong and justifiable reasons. The Supreme Court held that the quantum of punishment falls within the domain of the competent authority, and courts or tribunals should not arbitrarily interfere with or mitigate penalties without assigning strong, legally sound reasons. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and restored the penalty of removal from service. The key principle laid down is that the authority's discretion regarding the quantum of punishment for misconduct is final unless interfered with for robust, well-reasoned justifications.
Questions settled- Whether the service tribunal can modify the penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement solely on the ground of length of service?
- Is the quantum of punishment within the exclusive domain of the competent authority?
- Under what circumstances can a court or tribunal interfere with the penalty imposed by a competent authority for misconduct?
- Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Excise and Taxation Department, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others vs Sarfraz Khan and another2021 PLJ SC 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment that set aside the seizure of a vehicle with a tampered chassis. The core legal question was whether a vehicle with a welded and refitted chassis frame, where such alteration was not reported or approved by the registering authority, could be lawfully seized, and whether the purchaser could claim bona fide status despite the non-compliance. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the seizure was lawful because the mandatory requirements of Section 33 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, regarding the reporting and approval of vehicle alterations, were not met. The Court established that any alteration to a motor vehicle, including chassis tampering, must be reported to the registering authority within fourteen days. Furthermore, a purchaser of a vehicle with a tampered chassis cannot claim to be a bona fide purchaser if they failed to exercise due care in verifying compliance with statutory registration requirements, as the liability for such alterations rests with the owner.
Questions settled- Does the welding and refitting of a chassis frame constitute an alteration requiring reporting under Section 33 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965?
- Can a purchaser of a vehicle with a tampered chassis claim to be a bona fide purchaser if the vehicle's alteration was not reported to the registering authority?
- Is the seizure of a motor vehicle lawful when the owner fails to comply with the statutory requirements for reporting vehicle alterations?
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Communication &2021 SCP 432, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1284, 2022 PSC 903, 2022 SCMR 718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which allowed a writ petition directing the consideration of respondent No.1 for appointment to the post of Draftsman (BPS-11). The petitioner-Government challenged the recommendation on the grounds that respondent No.1 possessed a 3rd Division in Secondary School Certificate (SSC), whereas the advertisement required a 2nd Division, notwithstanding his higher qualification of DAE (Civil). The core legal question was whether a candidate possessing a higher qualification in the relevant field could be considered eligible under the applicable service regulations despite lacking the exact basic academic division prescribed in the advertisement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Regulation 19(f)(ii) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations 2017, candidates possessing higher qualifications than prescribed in the relevant field of studies are eligible. The Court laid down the principle that Public Service Commission recommendations made in accordance with express statutory regulations permitting higher qualifications are valid and binding upon the competent authority absent justifiable or justiciable reasons for rejection.
Questions settled- Whether a candidate possessing a higher qualification in the relevant field of study can be considered eligible when the advertisement prescribes a specific lower academic division?
- Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission have the power to recommend candidates with higher qualifications under its regulations?
- Can the competent authority discard the recommendations of the Public Service Commission without justifiable or justiciable reasons?
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Agriculture, Livestock & Cooperative Department Peshawar & Others vs Saeed-ulHassan & Others2021 SCP 292, 2021 PSC 1576, 2021 SCMR 1376, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard Civil Appeals challenging Peshawar High Court judgments that directed the reinstatement and regularization of contract and project employees whose services were terminated upon project completion. The core legal questions involved whether project employees had an automatic right to regularization, if they were covered by the KP Regularization Act 2009, the effect of their appointment terms, and the application of the "similarly placed" principle. The Court held that long or satisfactory contractual service does not confer a vested right to regularization without statutory support, and project employees are specifically excluded from the KP Regularization Act 2009. It ruled that the creation of regular posts does not automatically grant regularization rights, as such posts must be filled through prescribed procedures (KPPSC/DSC). The High Court erred in interfering with executive policy and in indiscriminately applying the "similarly placed" principle, which cannot override specific legal exclusions or appointment terms. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court judgments set aside.
- Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Administration2021 PLC (C.S.) 721, 2021 SCMR 630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment directing the regularization of the respondent, a contract employee in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Benevolent Fund Cell. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent qualified as an "employee" under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, whether he satisfied the conditions for regularization under Section 3 of said Act, and whether his alleged overage status precluded such relief. The Supreme Court held that the respondent fell within the statutory definition of an employee and fulfilled the pre-conditions of Section 3, as he was appointed on a contract basis prior to the Act's promulgation. The Court further ruled that the government could not rely on the respondent's age to deny regularization after having extended his contract for years without objection. The judgment establishes that statutory regularization provisions override contractual disclaimers and that the government cannot benefit from its own administrative defaults regarding age eligibility. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's directive for regularization.
Questions settled- Does a contract employee appointed before the promulgation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 qualify for regularization under Section 3 of the Act?
- Can the government deny regularization to an employee on the grounds of being overage if the government previously extended the employee's contract for years?
- Do statutory provisions for regularization override contractual disclaimers in an appointment order?
- Does an employee appointed by the Benevolent Fund Cell qualify as an employee under Section 2(b) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009?
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary (E&S) Education2021 PHC 288, 2022 CLC 100 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
- Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through District Collector/District2022 PLJ SC 60, 2022 SCMR 277, 2022 PSC 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Review petitions were filed by the Government of KPK against a consolidated order of the Supreme Court dismissing civil appeals relating to land acquisition compensation. The petitioner contended that Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, as amended by the North-West Frontier Province Land Acquisition (Amendment) Ordinance 2001, omitted the explicit mention of 6% interest on enhanced compensation and thus barred any interest award for the period between taking possession and actual payment. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, interpreting the distinction between 'sum' (the enhanced compensation) and 'amount as determined by it' under the amended Section 28. The Court held that the amendment retained the Referee Court's power to grant interest for delay in payment after taking possession. Furthermore, the Court noted that Section 34 of the Act remained intact, providing for interest on the original award, and both sections must complement each other. The Court established that under the KPK amendment, courts are no longer capped at 6% interest and may determine any just rate.
Questions settled- Does the omission of a specific percentage rate of interest in Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended in KPK deprive landowners of interest on enhanced compensation?
- How does the distinction between 'sum' and 'amount' in Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 impact the court's power to award interest?
- Can a Referee Court award interest on enhanced compensation beyond or below the 6% rate under the amended Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in KPK?
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar2021 PLC (C.S.) 848, 2021 PLJ SC 271, 2021 P SC 1094, 2021 SCMR 816, 2021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a Peshawar High Court judgment that allowed constitutional petitions filed by government employees (Caretakers) seeking to participate in the Provincial Management Service (PMS) competitive examination under a 10% quota reserved for in-service candidates. The core legal question was whether the respondents, whose specific posts were not enumerated in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Management Service Rules, 2007, were entitled to the benefits of the reserved quota. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by expanding the scope of the Rules, which specifically identified eligible posts and excluded others. The Court emphasized that determining eligibility criteria for service appointments is an administrative function within the exclusive domain of the executive. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, ruling that courts cannot read in categories not provided by the rules or interfere with policy decisions regarding service structure without compelling legal grounds. The principle established is that service rules defining specific classes of employees for quota benefits are exhaustive and must be interpreted strictly according to their plain language.
Questions settled- Can a court expand the scope of a service rule to include categories of employees not explicitly mentioned in the rule?
- Is the determination of eligibility criteria for government service appointments an administrative matter within the exclusive domain of the executive?
- Does a government employee have a vested right to be included in a promotion quota not specifically applicable to their post?
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others vs Hizbullah Khan and another2021 SCP 212, 2021 PSC 1422, 2021 SCMR 1281, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a service dispute where the respondent, a Senior Scale Stenographer (BPS-16), challenged the failure of the provincial government to consider his promotion to Superintendent (BPS-17), despite his seniority and the existence of applicable promotion rules. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal had directed the department to grant the respondent ante-dated promotion with back benefits. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the department's refusal to promote the respondent, citing pending new service rules, was legally justified. The Court held that the department's inaction was illegal, as existing rules mandated the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to decide on promotion cases based on seniority-cum-fitness. However, the Court ruled that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering direct promotion and back benefits, as the determination of fitness involves subjective evaluation by the competent authority. The Court set aside the Tribunal's direction for automatic promotion and instead ordered the DPC to consider the respondent's case for promotion on its merits within three months, emphasizing that such decisions must be fair, just, and non-arbitrary.
Questions settled- Can a department refuse to consider an employee for promotion on the ground that new service rules are pending finalization when existing rules are already in force?
- Is a Service Tribunal empowered to direct the grant of ante-dated promotion and back benefits, or must it remand the matter to the competent authority for consideration?
- Does the determination of an employee's fitness for promotion fall within the jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal or the departmental competent authority?
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary etc vs Muhammad Khurshid2021 SCP 32 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of a land acquisition process for a police station, challenged by the respondent whose land was notified for acquisition after previous notifications regarding other lands were withdrawn. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly set aside the acquisition notification on the grounds of mala fides and restored a previous notification without hearing the affected parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding of mala fides lacked evidentiary support and legal foundation. Furthermore, the Court held that the High Court erred by restoring a previous acquisition notification affecting third parties without providing them an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principle of audi alteram partem. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing that the acquiring authority possesses the competence to select land for public purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provided the process is free from extraneous considerations and adheres to due process requirements, including the right to a fair hearing for all affected entities.
Questions settled- Can a High Court set aside a land acquisition notification based on allegations of mala fides without sufficient evidentiary material?
- Is it permissible for a court to restore a previous land acquisition notification that affects the rights of third parties without providing them an opportunity to be heard?
- Does the principle of audi alteram partem require that all affected parties be heard before a court restores a previously withdrawn land acquisition notification?
- Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others vs Muhammad Khurshid2021 PLJ SC 191, 2021 P SC 1102, 2021 SCP 32, 2021 SCMR 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a challenge to a High Court judgment that set aside land acquisition notifications issued by the provincial government for the construction of a police station. The High Court had invalidated the acquisition of the respondent's land and restored an earlier notification for acquiring other parties' land, primarily citing mala fides and political influence. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's findings on mala fides were supported by the record and whether the principles of natural justice were followed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding of mala fides lacked evidentiary foundation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred by restoring a previous acquisition notification affecting third parties without providing them an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principle of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision, mandating that all affected parties be given a proper opportunity of hearing in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can a High Court restore a previous land acquisition notification that affects third parties without providing them an opportunity of hearing?
- Is a finding of mala fides in land acquisition proceedings sustainable without evidentiary support?
- Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply when a court order potentially affects the rights of entities not party to the proceedings?
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary 36 Others vs Muhammad Younas2021 SCMR 1045, 2021 SCP 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that ordered the regularization of a project-based employee, Muhammad Younas, who had been appointed on a contract basis. The core legal questions were whether project employees appointed to a project converted to the regular budget after the cut-off date of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization of Services Act 2009 were eligible for regularization, and whether the respondent's employment was dependent on the project's lifespan. The Supreme Court held that the respondent did not qualify for regularization under the 2009 Act, as the Act explicitly excludes project employees and sets a cut-off date of October 24, 2009, which the respondent's 2014 conversion date exceeded. The Court emphasized that judicial interpretation cannot rewrite statutes or extend cut-off dates based on subjective sympathy. Furthermore, the Court held that the respondent’s appointment terms clearly stipulated that services would terminate upon project completion or conversion, granting no right to absorption. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, establishing that project employees have no inherent right to regularization against regular budget posts.
Questions settled- Are project employees appointed to a project converted to the regular budget after the cut-off date of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization of Services Act 2009 eligible for regularization under said Act?
- Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regularization of Services Act 2009 include project employees within its definition of 'employee' for the purpose of regularization?
- Can a court extend the cut-off date prescribed by a statute based on sympathetic grounds?
- Do ex-project employees have a vested right to adjustment against regular posts upon the conversion of project posts into regular budgetary posts?
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others vs Sher Ali etc2021 P SC 1009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeals were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging judgments of the Peshawar High Court which allowed constitutional petitions and directed the regularization and reinstatement of contractual employees working at a shrine and library subsequently transferred to the Archives and Libraries Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal questions were whether the respondents met the statutory conditions for regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, and what impact the departmental takeover had on their employment status. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court's judgments, holding that the respondents satisfied all three conditions under Section 3 of the 2009 Act, having been appointed on contract prior to the statutory cutoff date with prescribed qualifications. The Court further laid down that where the provincial government converted contractual staff into civil servants through unrevoked notifications and formally endorsed their eligibility through departmental orders, the executive cannot resile from its position or arbitrarily dispense with civil servants without following due process of law.
Questions settled- Whether contractual employees appointed prior to the statutory cutoff date under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act 2009 are entitled to deemed regularization?
- Does the administrative transfer of an institution to a provincial department disentitle its existing contractual employees from regularization against sanctioned posts?
- Can the government resile from a valid and unrevoked notification conferring civil servant status on contractual employees?
- Gohar Zaman and another vs The State2021 YLR 2160 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, rendered by the trial court. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery and analysis of the alleged explosive substances beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether procedural mandates regarding investigation were duly followed. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious flaws, including material contradictions in the testimony of the bomb disposal commander regarding the date of inspection, failure to prepare samples at the spot for forensic analysis, lack of evidence linking the appellants to any proscribed organization, and violation of the statutory requirement that the investigation be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Inspector. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants, and ordered their immediate acquittal. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether contradictions regarding the date of inspection of recovered explosive material by the bomb disposal commander vitiate the prosecution's case?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prepare and send samples to the forensic science agency from the spot create a fatal dent in the recovery story?
- What is the legal effect of an investigation conducted by an officer below the rank mandated under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused person?
- Gohar Nawaz Sindhu vs Govt. of the Punjab, etc2021 [M] C L R 256 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-25Read full judgment →
- Gohar Manzoor Fca vs Ica Of Pakistan through Secretary of Institute2021 PLJ Karachi 190, 2022 CLD 302 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-21Read full judgment →
- GM HBFCL vs Muhammad Fayaz Khan2021 PHC 406 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-15Read full judgment →
- Ghulfam Ali and 3 others vs Secretary Government Of The Punjab, Irrigation And Power Department, Lahore and 6 others2021 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 76 · Punjab Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This labour appeal challenges an order passed by the Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, which dismissed the appellants' grievance petition for want of evidence. The appellants, claiming entitlement to regularization of service, had filed a petition under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The trial court closed their right to lead evidence due to their failure to produce witnesses on the scheduled date. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in closing the appellants' evidence. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the impugned order was unsustainable. The Tribunal observed that the appellants' conduct was not contumacious, noting that previous adjournments were often due to administrative reasons or lawyer strikes rather than the appellants' fault. The Tribunal established the principle that the power to close evidence under Order 17 Rule 3 is discretionary and should be exercised leniently, particularly regarding low-paid employees, and should only be invoked where a party contumaciously fails to produce evidence. The appeal was allowed, and the case remanded for fresh adjudication.
Questions settled- Is the power to close the right of evidence under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory or discretionary?
- Under what circumstances can a court properly close a party's right to lead evidence?
- Should a court exercise leniency when dealing with procedural defaults of low-paid employees in labour disputes?
- Ghulam Yasin Bhatti vs Federation of Pakistan & another2021 PLD Lahore 605, 2021 PLJ Lahore 687, 2021 LHC 1038 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Yaseen Jalbani vs Secretary Ministry Of Science And Technology, Islamabad and 3 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 951 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions against the respondents to release his outstanding salary from 01.07.2006 to 30.01.2007 along with associated benefits by extending the ratio of a prior judgment dated 06.02.2013 passed in an identical matter. The respondents resisted the petition on grounds of unexcused long absence during the stated period and raised preliminary objections regarding laches and disputed facts. The High Court observed that the petitioner was not a party to the earlier writ petition and invoked constitutional jurisdiction after an unexplained delay of over nine years from the cause of action and three years from the prior judgment. Furthermore, whether the petitioner actually performed his duties during the disputed period constituted a serious factual controversy. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that relief under constitutional jurisdiction is barred by laches when a party fails to act vigilantly, and disputed questions of fact requiring evidence cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 199.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner can claim the benefit of a previous High Court judgment in an identical matter if they were not a party to the original proceeding and filed their writ petition after an inordinate delay?
- Whether an unexplained delay of nine years in invoking constitutional jurisdiction for the release of salary attracts the principle of laches?
- Can a disputed question of fact regarding attendance and performance of duties be adjudicated under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Ghulam Umer Gopang vs The State2021 YLR 710 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Ghulam Umer Gopang, under sections 302(b) and 148 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether an accused whose name was omitted from the initial First Information Report and whose identity was introduced belatedly without specific role attribution could be legally convicted, and whether in-court identification without prior identification proceedings carries evidentiary weight. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the appellant was neither named in the FIR nor in the initial police statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the delayed disclosure and weak in-court identification without a designated role rendered the case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellant.
Questions settled- Does an in-court identification of an accused by eye-witnesses carry sufficient evidentiary value without prior test identification proceedings or assigned roles?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding their guilt?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the accused's name is omitted from the First Information Report and introduced only through belated further statements without explaining the source of information?
- Ghulam Ullah deceased through L.Rs vs Ghulam Hassan and others2021 LHC 6847, 2022 CLC 404 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir vs The State Etc2021 KLR Criminal Cases 104 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to Respondent No. 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, for an offence under section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether a sentence can be enhanced after the convict has served out the full term of imprisonment, and whether the trial court exercised its discretion perversely in sentencing. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that while an appellate or revisional court has the power to enhance a sentence and serving out a sentence does not inherently violate the doctrine of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, enhancement is a matter of judicial discretion depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the juvenile status of the offender at the time of the offence. The court established that the trial court's discretion in awarding a ten-year rigorous imprisonment to a juvenile offender was judicious and not perverse.
Questions settled- Whether the enhancement of a convict's sentence after they have served out the original sentence is barred by the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does an appeal or revision seeking sentence enhancement constitute a fresh prosecution or a continuation of the trial?
- Can the sentence of a juvenile offender convicted of rape be enhanced when the trial court exercised its sentencing discretion judiciously based on the offender's age?
- What are the relevant principles and factors to be considered by an appellate or revisional court when deciding whether to enhance a sentence?
- Ghulam Shabbir vs The State and others2021 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition was filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of a ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded to the respondent for rape under section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent, a juvenile at the time of the offense, had already served the full sentence and been released from jail. The core legal question was whether the court could enhance a sentence after the convict had already served the full term imposed by the trial court, and whether such enhancement would violate the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that while an appellate or revisional court possesses the legal power to enhance a sentence, and the serving of a sentence does not per se constitute a bar to enhancement or violate the doctrine of double jeopardy, the exercise of this discretion depends on the facts of each case. Finding that the trial court exercised its discretion appropriately given the respondent's juvenile status, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the sentence was not perverse or wrong in principle.
Questions settled- Does the serving of a sentence by a convict during the pendency of an appeal or revision constitute a legal bar to the enhancement of that sentence?
- Does the enhancement of a sentence by an appellate or revisional court violate the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is the principle of expectancy of life applicable in cases where the state or complainant seeks to enhance a sentence of imprisonment for life to death?
- Can a revisional court enhance a sentence if the trial court's sentencing discretion was not exercised perversely?
- Ghulam Shabbir vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2021 SHC 388 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-01Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir vs Mst. Abbas Bibi and others2022 CLC 963 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenged concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts enforcing a condition under Clause 19 of the Nikah Nama, wherein the petitioner husband had mutually agreed to provide gold ornaments and financial compensation to his wife in the event of an unreasoned divorce. The petitioner contended that such a financial condition was contrary to law, Islamic injunctions, and amounted to an illegal clog on his right to divorce. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the terms settled in a Nikah Nama constitute a valid civil contract between the parties. The Court determined that financial support stipulated under Clause 19 possesses the attributes of spousal support or alimony aimed at ensuring the ex-wife lives a dignified life post-separation. Such a condition does not restrict or encumber the husband's statutory or religious right to divorce, nor is the concept of alimony alien to Islam. Consequently, the condition was lawful, binding, and fully enforceable.
Questions settled- Whether a condition in Clause 19 of a Nikah Nama requiring the husband to pay financial compensation upon an unreasoned divorce is legally valid and enforceable?
- Does a mutual agreement in a Nikah Nama providing financial support or alimony to a wife upon divorce constitute an illegal restriction or clog on the husband's right to divorce?
- Is the concept of post-divorce financial support or alimony alien to Islamic law and the teachings of the Quran?
- Ghulam Sarwar vs Sain Bux & others2021 SHC 44 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar through LRs and others vs Ghulam Rasool through LRs and others2021 SHC 1326 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Samadani and 3 others vs Akbar Khan and 3 others2021 CLC 944 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-30Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasul vs Javed Ahmad & others2021 LHC 3212, 2022 CLC 1368 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs The State2021 SHC 796 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Ghulam Rasool in Crime No.45 of 2021 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question involves determining whether the recovery of 1020 grams of charas, falling near the borderline of the prohibitory clause, and the reliance solely on police witnesses without independent mashirs warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the applicant was no longer required for investigation, the case relied entirely on police witnesses without independent verification, and the complainant himself conducted the investigation, thus creating grounds for further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where a narcotics case relies on police witnesses without independent corroboration and the recovered quantity borders on the non-prohibitory threshold, the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the basis of further inquiry.
Questions settled- Does the recovery of 1020 grams of charas fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted on the ground that the prosecution's case rests solely on police witnesses without associating private independent mashirs?
- Does an investigation conducted by the complainant himself warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purpose of granting bail?
- Ghulam Rasool Phulpoto vs The State2021 SHC 1200 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for transporting 20.2 kilograms of opium. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated, citing the absence of independent witnesses, non-examination of the FIR author and the official who transmitted the narcotics to the chemical examiner, and alleged contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the appellant's conscious possession of the narcotics to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent testimony of police officials. The Court affirmed that in narcotics cases, technical procedural defects should be overlooked if the prosecution establishes physical custody or direct concern with the substance. Once physical possession is proven, the burden shifts to the accused to prove, by a preponderance of probability, that they did not knowingly possess the contraband. The Court further held that police witnesses are credible absent evidence of enmity, and minor contradictions are immaterial.
Questions settled- Does the failure to examine the official who recorded the FIR or the official who transmitted the narcotics to the chemical examiner automatically vitiate a conviction in a narcotics case?
- What is the effect of procedural technicalities on a narcotics case where the prosecution has otherwise established the accused's physical possession of the contraband?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused once the prosecution establishes that the accused had physical custody of a narcotic substance?
- Are police officials considered credible witnesses in narcotics cases in the absence of evidence of personal enmity?
- Ghulam Rasool Aamar vs The State through DPG & another2021 SHC 1174 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qasim through his legal heirs vs The Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 1276 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qasim and others vs Mst. Razia Begum and others2021 SCP 310, 2022 PSC 539, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 812 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from a dispute over the inheritance of Muhammad Yar, whose daughter (respondent No. 1) challenged a gift mutation (No. 88 dated 27 July 1986) in favor of her brothers. The petitioners argued the suit was time-barred and that the gift was validly made during the father's lifetime. The Supreme Court found that the petitioners failed to prove the gift, as witnesses admitted the deceased never appeared before revenue authorities. Crucially, the Court accepted a death certificate showing the father died on 15 May 1986, rendering the July 1986 gift mutation void as a posthumous fabrication. The Court held that under Islamic law, succession opens immediately upon death, and possession by one heir is constructive possession for all, meaning limitation does not run against a co-heir unless there is an express repudiation or ouster. The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the constitutional and Shari'ah obligation to protect female inheritance rights and criticizing the failure of the State to implement Principles of Policy under Article 29(3).