Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Fayyaz Khan & others vs Hassan Zada & another2021 SHC 410 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-29Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Hussain vs Executive District Officer (Education), City District2021 SCMR 1358, 2021 PLJ SC 370, 2022 PSC 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-10
  service lawmisconductwilful absencemajor penaltyremoval from servicedepartmental inquiryservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the removal of an EST Teacher from service due to misconduct and prolonged unauthorized absence. The core legal questions were whether a regular inquiry is mandatory when absence is admitted, and whether the competent authority is bound by the inquiry officer's findings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the removal. The Court held that the petitioner's absence was admitted and established, and he had been afforded sufficient opportunity for personal hearing. The Court laid down the principle that where an employee's absence from duty is admitted, there is no legal requirement to hold a regular inquiry, as there are no disputed facts to adjudicate. Furthermore, the findings of an inquiry officer are not binding on the competent authority. Finally, the Court reiterated that leave to appeal under Article 212(3) is only granted if a substantial question of law of public importance is raised.

  Questions settled

  • Is a regular inquiry necessary when the fact of absence from duty is admitted by the employee?
  • Are the findings of an inquiry officer binding upon the competent authority?
  • Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 in the absence of a substantial question of law of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ahmed Janjua, Advocate, Supreme Court Of Aj&K and 2 others vs Legislative Assembly Of Azad Jammu And Kashmir through Speaker Legislative Assembly and 3 others2021 PLD High Court (AJK) 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-11-05Read full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Limited vs M/s. Wahid Sons Manufacturing Corporation (Pvt.)2021 P C T L R 440, 2021 [M] C L R 322 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Limited vs Government Of The Punjab etc2021 PLJ Lahore 929 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-02Read full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Limited through Authorized Attorneys vs The Government Of Punjab through Chief Secretary and 8 others2021 PLD Lahore 746 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-02Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Hussain Jatoi vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 1346 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-21Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Hussain & Others vs The State2021 SHC 902 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Ali Mastoi vs Assistant XEN Irrigation Shahdadkot & others2021 SHC 678, 2022 PLD Sindh 131 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-03Read full judgment →
• Fawwad Salim Malik vs Mrs. Samina Ansari and others2021 SHC 1270, 2022 YLR 2304 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
• Fawad Khan vs The State2021 SCMR 162, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-09
  abduction for ransomkidnappingcriminal petitionillegal arms possessionconcurrent findingsappreciation of evidenceanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Fawad Khan impugning the dismissal of his appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with connected matters under Section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act 2013 and Section 7(2)(i) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the abduction for ransom, the evidentiary value of recovery from exclusive possession, and the proof of unlawful arms possession. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal, holding that the concurrent findings showed no misreading or non-reading of evidence, that the abductee was validly recovered from the petitioner's custody while chained, and that the prosecution successfully proved both the kidnapping and the illegal possession of a weapon without a license. The key principles established relate to the sufficiency of direct eyewitness and recovery evidence in kidnapping-for-ransom cases and the immateriality of non-payment of ransom where the intent and overt acts of abduction and captivity are proven.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-payment of the demanded ransom affects the conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the purpose of abduction is established?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts be interfered with in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Is the recovery of an unlicenced weapon from the exclusive possession of the accused sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act 2013?
  Read full judgment →
• Fawad Fazal vs Habib Bank Limited and 11 others2021 MLD 1336 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-11Read full judgment →
• Fawad Ahmad Mukhtar and others vs Commissioner Inland Revenue2022 PTD 454, 2022 SCMR 426, 2022 PTCL 327, 2022 PSC 434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-09
  dividend in speciewithholding taxretrospective effectdeduction at sourcetaxable incomeSecond Schedule exemptioncharging provision
  Summary & questions settled

  These cross-appeals arose under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, relating to the tax year 2008 concerning the taxability and withholding of a dividend in specie distributed in the form of shares. The core legal questions were whether a dividend in specie constituted taxable income, whether a distributing company had an obligation to deduct withholding tax under Section 150, and whether Clause (103B) of Part I of the Second Schedule had retrospective application as beneficial, remedial, or clarificatory legislation. The Supreme Court held that 'income' is an inclusive concept covering money or money's worth, including dividends in specie under Section 5. However, Section 150 did not apply to dividends in specie because withholding deductions contemplate monetary amounts payable to the Treasury, not deductions in kind. Furthermore, Clause (103B) was a deferred exemption without express or implied retrospective operation. The Court laid down that each tax year constitutes a distinct unit of assessment, substantive chargeability under Section 5 is independent of withholding machinery provisions under Section 150, and beneficial exemptions do not automatically operate retrospectively.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dividend distributed in specie constitute taxable income within the meaning of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Was a distributing company obligated under Section 150 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to deduct withholding tax on a dividend paid in specie?
  • Does Clause (103B) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 apply retrospectively to prior tax years?
  • Does the failure of a specific withholding or collection mechanism invalidate the substantive chargeability of income under Section 5 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Fauji Oil Terminal & Distribution Company Limited vs Port Qasim Authority2021 SHC 662 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-19Read full judgment →
• Fauji Cement Company Limited through constituted attorney vs Deputy2021 PTD 949 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
• Fatima Fertilizer Company Limited through Duly authorized Officer vs Commissioner-II, Sindh Revenue Board2021 PTD 484 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-22
  withholding agentsales tax on servicesprospective application of fiscal statutesdefault surchargetax liabilitySindh Revenue Boardreference application
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application arises from a judgment of the Appellate Tribunal, Sindh Revenue Board, which held the applicant liable as a withholding agent for un-deposited sales tax on advertising services for periods spanning between July 2011 and February 2014. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether a withholding agent could be held personally liable to pay tax under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 for periods prior to the specific statutory incorporation of such withholding liability via section 13(3) by the Finance Act, 2019, and whether default surcharge could be levied. The court held that fiscal statutes operate prospectively and that personal liability for withholding agents was not legally sanctioned prior to the 2019 amendment; generic definitions of 'person' cannot override charging provisions. Consequently, the court answered the reframed questions in the negative, ruling in favor of the taxpayer, setting aside the principal tax liability and default surcharge for want of pre-existing statutory obligation during the relevant tax periods, while affirming principles of strict interpretation of fiscal statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the applicant as a withholding agent was a person liable to tax in respect of the period under deliberation prior to the Finance Act, 2019?
  • Whether the subsequently added provision of section 13(3) of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 could be construed to have retrospective effect?
  • Whether the imposition of default surcharge was warranted in the absence of a pre-existing statutory obligation to pay tax during the relevant period?
  • Whether generic definitions of a person within a fiscal statute can be applied to create a charging liability without explicit statutory backing?
  Read full judgment →
• Fatima Abdul Wadood vs Additional District Judge Khanewal etc2021 PLJ Lahore 849 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-05Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and 9 others vs Pervaiz Ali and 15 others2021 CLC 1644 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-09Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan and others vs The State and others2021 P Cr. L J 969 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-23
  murdervicarious liabilityunlawful assemblyinjured witnesscommon objectocular accountcriminal appealplea of alibi
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals and revision petitions arising from a shooting incident that resulted in the murder of one person and injuries to two others. The core legal questions involved the credibility of injured and related eye-witnesses, the effect of minor discrepancies and delays in lodging the FIR and sending incriminating articles to the forensic laboratory, the application of vicarious liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the burden of proof regarding defence pleas. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular testimony of injured witnesses, medical evidence, and corroborative material. The court ruled that minor contradictions do not shatter otherwise credible eye-witness accounts, that related and injured witnesses are natural witnesses whose testimony carries high probative value, and that proof of a specific overt act is unnecessary when a member shares the common object of an unlawful assembly. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals and revision petitions, upholding the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured witness can be discarded merely on account of minor discrepancies or delays in recording statements?
  • Is proof of a specific overt act mandatory to convict an accused as a member of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a mere relationship between the complainant or eye-witnesses and the deceased render their testimony untrustworthy without independent corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a site plan in criminal trials when it omits certain details or the specific positions of accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Nawaz Bhatti vs Prime Minister Of Pakistan, Islamabad and 182021 PLD Islamabad 123 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Mahtab Ahmed and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1615 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-08
  pre-arrest bailembezzlementbank fraudrule of consistencycriminal breach of trustpost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second pre-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioners under Sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an FIR concerning offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 409, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail when they were not the beneficiaries of the alleged financial embezzlement, lacked a forensic report connecting them to the crime, and co-accused who were primary beneficiaries had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioners did not gain monetary benefit, no forensic evidence linked them to the offense, and similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail, sending the petitioners to jail would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners, laying down that personal liberty cannot be curtailed on bald allegations without supporting material.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second pre-arrest bail petition maintainable if the earlier one was withdrawn due to the investigating officer finding the accused not connected with the crime?
  • Does the lack of monetary benefit and absence of forensic reports support the grant of pre-arrest bail in a white-collar crime case?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed on the rule of consistency when co-accused who are primary beneficiaries of the alleged scam have already been admitted to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Imtiaz Khokhar vs Government Of Pakistan through Secretary2021 MLD 40 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-04
  Fourth ScheduleAnti-Terrorism Actproscriptionmens reaterrorismfundamental rightscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the notification issued by the Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory, placing the appellant's name in the Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the subsequent rejection of his review petition. The core legal question revolves around whether ordinary criminal cases or unsubstantiated allegations can legally justify the proscription of an individual and the inclusion of their name in the Fourth Schedule under Section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, without proof of involvement in terrorism or sectarianism. The Islamabad High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the notification, holding that ordinary crimes committed out of personal enmity or vendetta do not constitute terrorism, and that the state must demonstrate proper grounds and mens rea regarding acts of terrorism. The key principle laid down is that public functionaries must exercise statutory powers reasonably and in good faith under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and that mere registration of criminal cases wherein an accused stands acquitted or unconvicted cannot form the basis for proscription under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, thus safeguarding fundamental liberties enshrined in Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person be placed in the Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 on the basis of ordinary criminal cases where they have not been convicted?
  • Does the commission of ordinary crimes due to personal enmity fall within the scope of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What are the mandatory pre-requisites for placing an individual's name in the Fourth Schedule as a proscribed person?
  • Are public functionaries bound by Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to exercise powers reasonably and in good faith while issuing notifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Arfeen vs G.M. HR Officer & others2021 SHC 117 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
• Farrah Ayyub d/o Muhammad Ayyub caste Awan resident of Naliyan2021 SC AJK 68, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 109 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-11-11
  chain of custodycontrol of narcotic substancesbenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportdelayed dispatch of samplesdiscrepancy in weightnarcotics trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from criminal appeals filed against the judgment of the High Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellants were charged with the alleged transportation of 3 kilograms of charas concealed in a vehicle. The core legal questions pertained to whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody for the narcotic samples, whether unexplained delay in dispatching the samples to the chemical examiner vitiated the trial, and whether material discrepancies in the weight and color of the recovered substance and contradictions in witness testimonies warranted an acquittal. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the courts below, and acquitted the appellants. The court held that a broken chain of custody, unexplained delays in sample transmission, and material discrepancies in evidence severely impair the reliability of the chemical examiner's report and create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must establish safe custody and secure, unbroken transmission of narcotics from seizure to testing, and any cumulative discrepancies or gaps must be resolved by extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in dispatching narcotic samples to the chemical examiner vitiate the trial and impair the reliability of the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect of a broken chain of custody regarding the transmission of seized narcotic substances from the local police station to the forensic laboratory?
  • Whether material discrepancies between the weight and color of the contraband recorded at the time of recovery and that received by the laboratory are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt in narcotics cases where the contraband is recovered from a vehicle occupied by multiple persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooque son of Siddique vs State2021 SHC 800 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-23
  criminal appealrobberybenefit of doubtrecoveryindependent witnessesadverse inferenceSection 103 CrPCacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the material contradictions in the evidence and the failure to associate independent witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden. Key flaws included the non-examination of a material eye-witness, significant contradictions regarding the time of the incident, and the failure to associate independent witnesses for the recovery of the weapon, which violated the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court drew an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 due to the non-production of available witnesses. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, affirming the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery violate the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 for failing to produce a material eye-witness?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq vs The State2021 PHC 390 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-07
  criminal appealmurder convictioninterested witnessjuvenile offenderocular evidenceappreciation of evidencesentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for the murder of a thirteen-year-old boy, alongside a criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of eyewitness testimony from relatives of the deceased, the impact of minor evidentiary discrepancies, the necessity of proving motive, and the sentencing limitations for a juvenile offender. The Court upheld the conviction, finding that the eyewitnesses provided a consistent, confidence-inspiring account of the daylight occurrence, and that their relationship to the deceased did not inherently render them unreliable absent evidence of animosity or a motive to falsely implicate. The Court held that minor discrepancies in testimony are natural and do not undermine the prosecution's case, and that the failure to prove motive does not invalidate otherwise reliable ocular evidence. Regarding the revision, the Court affirmed that under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2018, a juvenile offender cannot be awarded the death penalty, thereby dismissing the request for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive invalidate otherwise reliable eyewitness testimony?
  • Can a juvenile offender be awarded the death penalty under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2018?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses warrant the rejection of the entire prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Shah vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 713 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-06
  acid attackcorrosive substanceanti-terrorismsite-planocular evidencecriminal appealconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Farooq Shah, who was found guilty by the Anti-Terrorism Court of causing acid burn injuries to the victim, Mst. Shaista Bibi, and her father, Ashiq Hussain. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's identity, whether the medical evidence regarding the substance used was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the site-plan discrepancies warranted acquittal. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prompt registration of the FIR, the consistent ocular testimony of the victims, and the corroborating medical evidence proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that the term 'corrosive substance' under Section 336-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is broad, encompassing any chemical causing such harm. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a site-plan is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be used to impeach witness credibility unless the witnesses are specifically confronted with its contents during cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Is a site-plan a substantive piece of evidence that can be used to impeach a witness without confronting them with it?
  • Does the definition of 'corrosive substance' under Section 336-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require specific identification of the chemical used?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony of victims who suffered acid burn injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmad vs Rashid Ahmad etc2021 LHC 174, 2021 YLR 1184, 2021 [M] CLR 1132 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-08Read full judgment →
• Farman Ullah vs The State and another2022 YLR 144 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-11
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquirytheft of motorcyclerecoverystatutory concession
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition arising out of case FIR No. 729/20 registered under sections 381-A and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Koral, Islamabad, concerning the alleged theft and recovery of a motorcycle. The core legal question before the Islamabad High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail when the charged offense fell outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the case warranted further inquiry. The Court held that since the offense under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code carried a maximum punishment of three years and did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and because the circumstances presented a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the grant of bail was the rule and refusal the exception. The key principle laid down is that in non-bailable offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail should be granted liberally as a rule, and denial is restricted to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted as a rule when an offense falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what exceptional circumstances can bail be refused in cases not falling within the prohibitory limb of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an offense punishable under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Farman Ullah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2021 PHC 10, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 635 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-25
  seniority-cum-fitnesspromotioncivil servantconstitutional jurisdictionvested rightdepartmental promotion committeetyping test
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated constitutional petitions filed by Class-IV employees challenging their non-promotion to the post of Junior Clerk. The petitioners alleged that the fitness criteria applied by the Department were unjust and that they were unfairly superseded by a junior colleague. The core legal questions were whether the Department's fitness criteria were arbitrary and whether the petitioners had a vested right to promotion. The Court held that while the petitioners had a right to be considered for promotion, they possessed no vested right to be promoted. It clarified that 'seniority-cum-fitness' allows for the selection of a junior candidate who is demonstrably more fit, provided the process is objective. Crucially, the Court found that the petitioners failed the mandatory typing test, which was a sine qua non for the post. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that departmental promotion committees have the authority to assess fitness, and judicial interference is unwarranted absent proof of malice or jurisdictional error. The judgment reinforces that promotion is not automatic and depends on meeting all prescribed qualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to be promoted to a higher post?
  • Can a junior employee be promoted over a senior employee under the principle of seniority-cum-fitness?
  • Is a typing test a valid and mandatory requirement for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to interfere in matters regarding the determination of fitness for promotion where no appeal lies before a Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Farida Azam Ali vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 754, 2022 CLC 395 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-17Read full judgment →
• Faraz Ahmed Qureshi vs Jahanzeb Khan etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 770 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-01
  acquittal appealcircumstantial evidencedouble presumption of innocenceperverse judgmentcriminal appealburden of proofmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving charges of kidnapping, rape, and murder. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence, and whether the prosecution had successfully established a continuous chain of circumstantial evidence to overcome the double presumption of innocence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting significant discrepancies: the complainant’s unexplained delay in reporting the abduction, the recovery of the deceased's personal belongings from the residence, and the fact that the funeral was conducted openly rather than secretly. The Court reiterated that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain to sustain a conviction. Furthermore, it affirmed that an acquittal order carries a double presumption of innocence, and appellate interference is only warranted if the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, which was not established in this instance.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • What is the evidentiary standard required for a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does an acquittal by a trial court create a double presumption of innocence for the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad Rana vs Commissioner Lahore Division Lahore and 32021 PLJ Lahore 380 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-10Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad and 3 others vs The State2021 YLR 503 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-29
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausehurtitlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udwheinousness of crimebail as punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Balochistan High Court through a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, Faqir Muhammad and others, seeking release in case FIR No. 109 of 2019 registered under Sections 336, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 354, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Dera Murad Jamali, District Naseerabad. The core legal question involves determining whether reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused to an offense falling within the prohibitory clause, specifically concerning the applicability of Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the medico-legal certificate. The court held that since the tentative assessment of the medical evidence showed no permanent impairment of any organ, the applicability of the penal provision required further inquiry, bringing the case within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the key principle that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment merely due to the heinousness of the crime or because an offense falls within the prohibitory clause, and that tentative assessment of record warranting further inquiry entitles an accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be withheld merely on the ground that the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the tentative assessment of a medico-legal certificate showing no permanent destruction or impairment of an organ bring a case under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for further inquiry?
  • Is mere heinousness of a crime a sufficient ground to keep an accused person in jail during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Dad vs The State2021 YLR 2230 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-05-28
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabscondancetentative assessmentacquittal of co-accusedmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Faqir Dad, in relation to a murder case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that he was not nominated in the FIR, his arrest was based on a delayed supplementary statement, and co-accused had already been acquitted. The Court held that the case against the applicant required further inquiry, as the evidence was merely based on a disclosure statement lacking corroboration. Furthermore, the Court noted that the acquittal of co-accused persons on similar charges was a relevant factor in favor of the applicant. The Court also rejected the prosecution's argument that the applicant's ten-year abscondance barred him from bail, affirming that abscondance is not an absolute bar if the case is otherwise fit for bail on merit. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing that where a case calls for further inquiry, bail is a right rather than a concession.

  Questions settled

  • Is the abscondance of an accused an absolute bar to the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused persons on similar charges provide grounds for the grant of bail to the remaining accused?
  • Is bail a right or a concession when a criminal case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Ali and others vs Samna Bibi and others2022 PLD Supreme Court 85, 2022 PSC 1498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-29
  Oral giftGift validityFraudCollusionLimitationRevisional jurisdictionInheritanceFemale heirsMutation cancellationProof of gift
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, decreeing a suit for declaration and cancellation of gift mutations. The suit was filed by daughters against their brothers, alleging fraud and collusion to deprive them of their inheritance. The core legal questions concerned the High Court's revisional jurisdiction to upset concurrent findings, the strict requirements for proving a valid oral gift, and the applicability of limitation when fraud and collusion are established. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. It held that the High Court was justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction where lower courts misread evidence and misapplied the law. The Court affirmed that beneficiaries must strictly prove the three ingredients of a valid oral gift (declaration, acceptance, delivery of possession). It further ruled that fraud vitiates even solemn transactions, making the question of limitation irrelevant when fraud and collusion are proven, especially when gifts are a device to deprive female heirs of their Sharia-mandated inheritance.

  Read full judgment →
• Faqeer Muhammad vs The State, etc2021 LHC 829, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 69, 2022 [M] CLR 126 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• Famous Brands (Pvt.) Limited vs The Customs Appellate Tribunal Bench, Lahore and others2022 PTD 569, PTCL 2022 CL. 608 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
• Famous Brands (Private) Ltd. through Authorized Signatory vs Samsonite Ip2021 CLD 1008 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-19Read full judgment →
• Famous Brands (Private) Limited vs Samsonite Ip Holdings S.a.r.l.and others2021 CLD 107 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-28Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 335 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-02
  criminal revisionquantum of sentenceocular accountfirst offenderhurtdamanarsh
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court regarding an incident of physical assault. The petitioners were convicted under Sections 337-A(i) and 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injuries to the complainant party. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the charges against the petitioners through ocular and medical evidence, and whether the sentences imposed were proportionate given the circumstances. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the petitioners through consistent testimony from injured witnesses and medical corroboration, which remained unshaken during cross-examination. While maintaining the convictions, the Court exercised judicial discretion regarding the quantum of sentence. Considering that the petitioners were first-time offenders with no prior criminal record and had already served a substantial portion of their imprisonment, the Court reduced the sentences to the period already undergone, while upholding the requirement to pay the imposed daman and arsh. The principle established is that in cases of minor injuries where the accused are first-time offenders, the period of incarceration already served may suffice to meet the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can the sentence of a first-time offender be reduced to the period already undergone if the injuries caused were not serious?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused in the same incident automatically invalidate the conviction of other accused persons?
  • Is the testimony of injured witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Falak Jan and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2022 PTD 512 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
• Fakhar Zaman vs The State through D.A.G. and another2021 SCMR 1815, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-17
  post-arrest bailPrevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016cyber crimesexual harassmentprohibitory clausepersonal liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from the refusal of post-arrest bail to the petitioner by the Peshawar High Court in a case registered under Sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 and Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The allegations concerned causing sexual harassment by posting photographs of the complainant on social media. The Supreme Court examined the material collected during investigation and observed that while certain photographs were close to nudity, they were not recognizable, and other photographs showed full attire with no element of immorality. Noting that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over three months, the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and personal liberty is a precious right, the Supreme Court held that the case warranted post-arrest bail so that the trial court could determine the allegations after recording evidence. The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail may be granted where the social media photographs alleged to constitute sexual harassment under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 are unidentifiable or lack explicit immorality?
  • Whether incarceration exceeding three months for offences outside the prohibitory clause justifies the grant of post-arrest bail pending trial?
  • Whether the Supreme Court may convert a leave to appeal petition into an appeal and grant bail to safeguard fundamental personal liberty?
  Read full judgment →
• Fakhar Islam vs Superintendent District Jail & another2021 [M] C L R 1296 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-10Read full judgment →
• Fakhar alias Fakhro vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 697 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-19
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtchance witnessdelayed FIRforensic evidencemotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for murder, alongside a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the implications of an inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting the crime, the status of chance witnesses, the substantiation of motive, and the evidentiary value of forensic weapon matching when the crime empty and weapon are dispatched together after the accused's arrest. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to delayed FIR registration, doubtful presence of chance witnesses, unproven motive, and compromised forensic recovery. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted the appellant on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate delay in reporting a crime to the police without plausible explanation vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses be relied upon without convincing explanations for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a positive forensic report lose its evidentiary value if the crime empty is sent to the forensic laboratory together with the alleged weapon of offense after the arrest of the accused?
  • Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Fajjar Din vs Federation of Pakistan & 04 others2021 SHC 438 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-26
  Airport Security ForcePakistan Army Actcompulsory retirementconstitutional jurisdictionconstitutional barservice tribunaldisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by an Inspector of the Airport Security Force (ASF) challenging his compulsory retirement order and subsequent appellate order. The core legal questions involved whether ASF employees are subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 to review such disciplinary actions in light of constitutional and statutory bars. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that by operation of Section 7-A of the Airports Security Force Act, 1975 and the terms of his appointment, the petitioner was subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The Court laid down that under Article 199(3) and Article 8(3) of the Constitution, read with Section 7-A of the Airports Security Force Act, 1975, the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred from interfering with terms, conditions, and disciplinary actions concerning members of forces subject to laws relating to the Armed Forces, absent proof of malice, lack of jurisdiction, or being coram non judice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Airport Security Force are subject to the provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 to set aside disciplinary orders passed against members of the Airport Security Force who are subject to the Pakistan Army Act?
  • Whether the bar contained in Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 precludes a High Court from entertaining service-related petitions of ASF personnel?
  • Whether a regular departmental inquiry is mandatory for imposing a major penalty where undeniable material exists against an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Faizan vs The State2021 YLR 629 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-05
  post-arrest baildacoityidentification paradefurther inquiryunnamed accusedcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed before the Sindh High Court arising from Crime No.368 of 2019 registered at Police Station Eidgah, Karachi, under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail where the accused was not named in the FIR, no identification parade was properly conducted, no recovery was made from him, and the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the applicant made out a case for further inquiry because the accused was unnamed in the FIR, the identification parade failed to follow settled legal guidelines, and no incriminating material was recovered. The Court laid down the principle that while examining bail, the minimum sentence provided for the alleged offense must be considered, and procedural lapses in conducting an identification parade strongly support a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not named in the FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail when an identification parade is improperly conducted?
  • Does the absence of incriminating recovery from an accused warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should the minimum sentence provided for an offense in the schedule be considered while examining the question of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Faizan Rehmat vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1235 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-04-13
  post-arrest bailbank guaranteeestoppelbail conditionscriminal revisionadmission by counsel
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to the legality of a bail condition requiring a bank guarantee of Rs. 10,000,000/- imposed by a Judicial Magistrate and upheld by an Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner, accused in two criminal cases involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought to set aside the condition of the bank guarantee on the grounds of illegality. The court examined the record and observed that the petitioner's counsel had explicitly consented to furnishing the bank guarantee at the time the bail was originally granted. The court held that the petitioner, having consented to the condition to secure his release, could not subsequently resile from that admission or challenge the condition. The court applied the principle of estoppel by conduct, determining that the petitioner was bound by his earlier statement made before the trial court. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the challenge to the orders passed by the courts below.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused challenge a bail condition to which their counsel previously consented?
  • Is an accused estopped from challenging a bail condition if they agreed to it to secure release?
  • Does a court have the authority to impose a bank guarantee as a condition for bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Faizan Raza & Others vs Federation of Pakistan & Another2021 SHC 1222 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ur Rehman @ Abdul Rehman vs The State2021 SHC 314 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-13
  post-arrest bailAnti-Terrorism Act 1997proscribed organizationterror financingmoney trailreceipt bookfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application was filed under Section 21-D of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 read with Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of FIR No. 42/2020 registered under Sections 11-H, 11-N, and 11-F(i)(ii) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The applicant was accused of being a member of a proscribed organization and collecting donations to finance terrorism, based on an intelligence report. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution failed to produce evidence establishing a nexus between the recovered receipt book and actual terror financing. The High Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that in the absence of any material demonstrating a money trail connecting the applicant to the proscribed organization or establishing his involvement in financing terror, a case for bail was made out, leaving the evidentiary value of the receipt book to be determined at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 where the prosecution fails to establish a money trail linking the accused to a proscribed organization?
  • Does the mere recovery of a receipt book without corroborative evidence of terror financing justify the continued detention of an accused prior to trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ullah vs P.P.S.C., etc2021 PLC (C.S.) 1091, 2021 PLD Lahore 284, 2021 LHC 153 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-03
  transgender rightspublic service commissionlecturer recruitmentdiscriminationconstitutional petitionequal treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an advertisement and subsequent order by the Punjab Public Service Commission rejecting the petitioner's application for the post of Lecturer (Female) on the ground that the posts were earmarked exclusively for male and female candidates, excluding transgender persons. The petitioner, a transgender person, applied under Section 3 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018. During the proceedings, the respondents conceded to the petitioner's claim and agreed to allow participation in the recruitment process. Consequently, the Lahore High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned rejection order, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application. Additionally, the Court expressed grave concern over discriminatory practices against transgender persons and directed the relevant authority to formulate a comprehensive policy for the strict implementation of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018.

  Questions settled

  • Can a transgender person apply for a public service post designated for male or female candidates under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018?
  • Whether the exclusion of transgender persons from public recruitment processes violates constitutional guarantees and statutory protections?
  • Is a government department obligated to implement the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018 in letter and spirit?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Rasool vs Province of Sindh and 05 others2021 SHC 34 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs The ANF2021 IHC 156 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-08
  post-arrest bailstatement of co-accusedconfession to policenarcotics controlincomplete investigationevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition arises from a bail application filed by the petitioner, Faiz Muhammad, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of narcotics from a co-accused. The core legal question addressed is whether an accused can be kept in custody solely on the basis of an uncorroborated statement of a co-accused made to the police. The Islamabad High Court held that the confession or admission of an accused made to a police officer has no evidentiary value against a co-accused under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and where no other incriminating material or evidence links the petitioner to the alleged crime, further detention is unwarranted. The court established the principle that an accused cannot be incarcerated indefinitely based solely on a co-accused's statement, particularly when the investigative chain of transmission is incomplete and the petitioner has no prior criminal record, thereby entitling him to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused to the police?
  • Whether a confession made to a police officer is admissible against a co-accused under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the absence of corroborative material and an incomplete investigative chain regarding the transmission of narcotics make a case for further inquiry under post-arrest bail considerations?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad & another vs The State2021 SHC 582 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-16
  pre-arrest bailcounter versioncross casesuppression of injuriesfurther inquirybail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous matter arises from an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants Faiz Muhammad and Ali Hassan in respect of Crime No. 30/2020 registered under Sections 324, 506(2), 504, 114, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Khahi, along with a connected application for bail cancellation. The core legal question concerns the grant of pre-arrest bail in a case involving a counter-version where injuries sustained by both parties were suppressed in the respective FIRs and the determination of the aggressor remains a matter for trial. The Sindh High Court held that where both parties sustained injuries not disclosed in the initial FIRs and challans have been submitted in both cross-cases, determining the aggressor is a question of evidence for the trial court, bringing the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail of the applicants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted in a criminal case involving a counter-version where both parties sustained injuries that were suppressed in their respective FIRs?
  • Does a case where the determination of the aggressor depends upon recording evidence at trial fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad vs Haji Abdul Sattar2021 LHC 7993 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-09Read full judgment →
• Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Limited vs The Federation Of Pakistan2021 SCMR 1463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-27
  sales taxlimitation periodshow cause noticejudicial reviewFBRstatutory interpretationtime-barred proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a power distribution company, challenged the Federal Board of Revenue's (FBR) decision to extend the limitation period for tax proceedings under Section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Previously, the Appellate Tribunal had determined that certain tax periods were time-barred under Section 36(2) of the Act. Instead of challenging this judicial finding, the tax authorities sought and obtained an extension from the FBR to reopen these time-barred periods. The core legal question was whether the FBR could lawfully use its powers under Section 74 to circumvent a judicial determination regarding limitation. The Supreme Court held that the FBR’s resort to executive remedies to bypass a judicial finding of time-bar is impermissible. The Court ruled that once a judicial forum has determined a matter is time-barred, the tax authorities cannot use Section 74 to frustrate that outcome. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, declaring the FBR's order and the subsequent show cause notice legally invalid and striking them down.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Board of Revenue use Section 74 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 to extend limitation periods for proceedings already declared time-barred by a judicial forum?
  • Is it permissible for tax authorities to circumvent a judicial finding of a time-bar by seeking an executive extension of time?
  • Can a show cause notice issued pursuant to an unlawful order of the Federal Board of Revenue be challenged via a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal vs The State etc2021 LHC 4466, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 211 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-20
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionwajtakkarres gestaeacquittal of co-accusedbenefit of doubtmurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, while acquitting five co-accused. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, including wajtakkar (res gestae), extra-judicial confession, medical testimony, and recoveries, as well as the principle of applying the same evidence against a convict when co-accused similarly situated have been acquitted. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case through an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, noting that the wajtakkar evidence was weak, the extra-judicial confession lacked material particulars and credibility, and the recoveries were inconclusive. The Court laid down that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be connected without gaps from the dead body to the accused, and that evidence disbelieved against acquitted co-accused cannot be utilized against a remaining accused without strong and independent corroboration. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence when links in the chain of evidence are missing?
  • Can an extra-judicial confession lacking specific details of time, date, and manner of the offense form the basis of a capital conviction?
  • Whether evidence disbelieved against acquitted co-accused can be relied upon to convict another co-accused without independent and strong corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value of wajtakkar or res gestae in an unseen crime where the report to the police suffers from inordinate delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Sultan vs The State, etc2021 IHC 168 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-21
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausestatutory punishmentrecovery of amounthabitual offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition arising out of F.I.R. No. 331 dated 08.09.2020 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sihala, Islamabad, concerning the alleged dishonour of a surety cheque given for an outstanding business amount. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, investigation was complete, and bail could not be used as a punishment. The Islamabad High Court held that since the maximum punishment for the offence is three years, it falls outside the prohibitory clause, the petitioner was no longer required for investigation, and bail ought to be granted as a rule rather than withheld as a punitive measure. The key principles laid down are that Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is designed to determine guilt rather than effect monetary recovery (which is the domain of civil action under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908), that mere involvement in other cases without conviction is no bar to bail, and that bail cannot be withheld as a strategy for punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be withheld as a measure of punishment for an accused person?
  • Is Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 intended to be used as a mechanism for the recovery of outstanding financial amounts?
  • Does the mere involvement of an accused in other cases of a similar nature, without a conviction, serve as an absolute bar to the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Shahzad vs The State, etc2021 IHC 170 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-23
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecivil disputebail as rule refusal as exception
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused-petitioner in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonouring a cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, investigation is complete, and the dispute also has a civil background. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, pre-trial incarceration cannot be used as a punishment or a strategy for recovery, grant of bail is the general rule with refusal as an exception, and Section 489-F is meant to determine guilt rather than act as a tool for financial recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld as a measure of punishment or used as a mechanism for the recovery of civil amounts?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when investigation is complete and the trial is not likely to conclude soon in a non-prohibitory offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Shahzad vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1033 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-23
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecivil recoverycriminal liabilitySection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by an accused charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the investigation was complete, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the complainant had already initiated civil proceedings for recovery. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the offence carries a maximum punishment of three years and does not attract the statutory bar against bail. The court affirmed the principle that in non-prohibitory offences, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Furthermore, it established that criminal provisions like Section 489-F are intended to determine guilt and award sentences, not to serve as a tool for civil recovery, which is the province of civil courts. Consequently, the court ruled that detention should not be used as a punitive measure prior to the conclusion of the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized as a mechanism for civil recovery?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Riaz, etc vs The State, etc2021 KLR Criminal Cases 73 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-25
  post-arrest bailcybercrimecredit card fraudwhite-collar crimefurther inquirycorroborationforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications arising from FIR No. 67/2014, involving allegations of credit card hacking and financial fraud under the Electronic Transaction Ordinance, 2002, and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence collected during the investigation. Regarding the petitioner Rashid Bashir, the Court held that bail should be refused because forensic analysis of seized devices provided substantial incriminating evidence linking him to the crime, establishing reasonable grounds to believe he committed the offense. Conversely, regarding petitioners Faisal Riaz and Aakash Patrick, the Court granted bail, holding that their implication rested solely on the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused. The Court emphasized that while courts must adopt a pragmatic approach toward white-collar crime, bail decisions require a tentative assessment of evidence. Where independent corroboration is absent, the involvement of an accused may constitute a matter of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused in cybercrime cases where forensic evidence provides reasonable grounds to connect the accused to the offense?
  • Is the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused sufficient to deny bail to other accused persons?
  • Does the absence of independent corroborative evidence regarding an accused's involvement constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Rafique vs Saeed Mumtaz Durrani, etc2021 [M] C L R 882 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-28Read full judgment →
• Faisal Rafique vs Saeed Mumtaz Durrani and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 1558 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-28
  recall of witnesscross-examinationcode of criminal procedurefill lacunaefair trialrevisional jurisdictiondiscretion of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal writ petition arises from a trial under sections 324, 452, and 337-F(D) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the accused filed an application under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination after a delay of ten months. The trial court dismissed the application, but the revisional court allowed it. The core legal question is whether a witness can be recalled for further cross-examination under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to fill in lacunae or merely because a new counsel has been engaged. The Islamabad High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the revisional court's order and upholding the trial court's dismissal. The court held that section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not permit recalling a witness for further cross-examination to fill gaps or when the accused was already afforded a proper opportunity to cross-examine, and that the discretionary power must be exercised strictly for the just decision of the case without allowing misuse of the right of cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused recall prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely on the ground that a new counsel has been engaged?
  • Whether section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allows a party to recall a witness for cross-examination to fill gaps or lacunae in its case?
  • Is recalling a witness for further cross-examination permissible under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused was already provided a full opportunity to cross-examine?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Durrani vs National University of Modern Languages (Numl), etc2021 IHC 146 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-26Read full judgment →
• Faisal Amin & two others vs The State2021 PHC 386 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-06
  post-arrest bailunnatural offencenon-compoundable offenceabductionprohibitory limbtransgender rightstentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by three accused persons charged under FIR No. 2086 for offences including abduction, unnatural offence, and criminal intimidation against a transgender victim. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail, particularly given their claim of a compromise with the complainant party. The Peshawar High Court, upon tentative assessment of the record, noted that the victim had consistently implicated the accused in her statements under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's version. The Court held that the offences charged were serious, affronted societal morality, and fell within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court established that a compromise between parties cannot be considered for bail in non-compoundable offences. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing that the accused were prima facie connected to the commission of the offence and thus disentitled to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between the parties be considered for the grant of bail in non-compoundable offences?
  • Does an offence falling under the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically disentitle an accused to bail?
  • Is a tentative assessment of the record sufficient to deny bail in cases involving serious offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Afzal through Attorney vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, (Residual2021 PLJ Lahore 491 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Faisal Afzal through Attorney vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, (Member2021 YLR 977 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-19Read full judgment →
• Faique Ali Jagirani vs Federation of Pakistan2021 SHC 350, 2022 CLC 2124 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• Faiq Ali and others vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 YLR 1406 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-12Read full judgment →
• Fahmeeda Younas through L.Rs vs Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura2021 [M] C L R 1248, 2021 YLR 1550 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-04Read full judgment →
• Faheemullah vs The State2021 SCMR 1795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-06
  narcotic possessionconcurrent findingsproof beyond reasonable doubtchemical examiner reportcriminal appealpolice misconduct allegations
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the Court of Session and the High Court of Sindh, which convicted the petitioner under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 5080 grams of cannabis. The petitioner contended that the prosecution case was fabricated, alleging that the police conducted an unauthorized raid on his house, stole valuables, and subsequently planted the narcotics to justify the incident. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt despite the petitioner's allegations of police misconduct. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was consistent, supported by contemporaneous records such as the daily diary entry, site plan, and chemical examiner's report. Finding no evidence to support the petitioner's claims of a planted case or police abuse, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a consistent prosecution account, supported by contemporaneous records and a positive chemical examiner report, satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in narcotics cases?
  • Can a conviction be overturned based on allegations of police misconduct when there is no material evidence on the record to support such claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem vs The State and another2021 YLR 1680 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-20
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybenefit of doubtmurderevidentiary contradictionsprohibitory clausetender age
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail petition arises from a murder charge under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being declined by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary material, specifically the delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of eyewitnesses, and contradictions between the statements of a key witness recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry because the witness had resiled from her earlier statement, and the recovered weapon belonged to an absconding co-accused rather than the petitioner. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the petitioner's tender age and the tentative nature of the evidence favored the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of doubt can be extended at the bail stage, and an accused should not be incarcerated as punishment when the case warrants further investigation, particularly when evidentiary contradictions exist.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
  • Does a contradiction between a witness's statement under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the recovered weapon of offense belongs to an absconding co-accused?
  • Should an accused be kept in jail as punishment merely because the offense falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem Ali Gambheer vs P.O. Sindh & others2021 SHC 594 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-31Read full judgment →
• Fahad Ullah Gul vs VC KMU etc2021 PHC 308, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 18, 2022 MLD 1259 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
• Fahad Nawaz S/O Gul Nawaz vs The State2021 SHC 500 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-23
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlprohibitory clausechemical examiner reportcharas recoverybail applicationstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Fahad Nawaz, in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 2,140 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered, the alleged delay in chemical examination, and the fact that a co-accused had been granted bail. The Court held that the quantity of narcotics recovered (2,140 grams) placed the case squarely within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Section 51 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, as it exceeded the one-kilogram threshold. The Court rejected the argument that the co-accused's bail set a precedent, noting the co-accused's recovery was marginal and distinguishable. Furthermore, the Court found the explanation for the delay in chemical examination satisfactory. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to conclude the proceedings within three months. The judgment reaffirms that the prohibition against bail in narcotics cases applies where the quantity exceeds statutory limits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of narcotics exceeding one kilogram trigger the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted in a narcotics case solely on the ground that a co-accused with a smaller recovery was released on bail?
  • Is the non-association of public witnesses in a police recovery memo sufficient grounds to grant bail in a narcotics case?
  • Does the prohibition contained in Section 51 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 apply to offences under Section 9(c) of the same Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahad Khan vs Mst. Farukh Tabbassum and others2021 MLD 109 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-15Read full judgment →
• Fahad Hussain and another vs State through Prosecutor General Sindh2022 SCP 424, 2023 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-28
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirytentative assessmentbenefit of doubtcriminal jurisprudencemurder trialpost-mortem report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged the High Court's order dismissing the petitioners' application for pre-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the conflicting evidence regarding the cause of death—alleged murder versus suicide—and the significant delay in lodging the FIR. The Supreme Court held that the case required further inquiry, as the medical evidence was inconclusive, the FIR was lodged with an unexplained nine-day delay, and the prosecution's account of the incident contained inconsistencies regarding the complainant's inaction at the scene. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and confirmed the petitioners' pre-arrest bail. The key principles laid down are that bail decisions require only a tentative assessment of the material on record, avoiding deeper appreciation of evidence; that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused at the bail stage; and that 'further inquiry' is warranted when the prosecution's case is not free from reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case require further inquiry when the cause of death remains undetermined by a medical board?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible when deciding a bail petition?
  • What is the standard for determining if reasonable grounds exist for denying bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Executive Engineer, Highways Division Moro and 4 others vs Nazeer Ahmed2021 CLC 915 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-27Read full judgment →
• Ex-Pa 43620 Lt. Asim Bashir vs Federation Of Pakistan and 3 others2021 SCMR 1176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-06
  Field General Court Martialhomicideconcurrent jurisdictionrevision of findingcoram non judicejudicial reviewmilitary law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the petitioner's conviction and life sentence for homicide by a Field General Court Martial. The petitioner, a lieutenant in the Pakistan Army, was initially convicted of fornication but acquitted of homicide. However, upon reconsideration directed by the Convening Authority, he was subsequently convicted of homicide as well. The petitioner contended that he was not subject to the Pakistan Army Act 1952, that the venue of the trial was improper, and that the revision of the finding was mala fide and coram non judice. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that under Section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Sections 94 and 95 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952, the military authorities had concurrent jurisdiction to try the officer. The Court further ruled that the statutory scheme of the Act permits the revision of findings before final confirmation under Section 119, and that judicial review of court-martial proceedings is restricted to cases of coram non judice, lack of jurisdiction, or clear mala fides, none of which were established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether military authorities have jurisdiction to try an Army officer for a civil offence under the Pakistan Army Act 1952 read with Section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Field General Court Martial be convened at any place under Section 93 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 without vitiating the trial?
  • Does the Pakistan Army Act 1952 permit a Convening Authority to return a finding to the Court Martial for reconsideration and revision prior to confirmation?
  • What are the parameters of judicial review by civil courts over the findings and sentences passed by a Court Martial?
  Read full judgment →
• English Biscuits, Manufacturers Private Limited (Ebm), Korangi Industrial2021 P SC 1451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  company petitionoppression and mismanagementright sharesshare valuationfiduciary powerssubsidiary company
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, which modified the Single Judge's order in a company petition filed under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 concerning allegations of oppression and mismanagement regarding share valuations and right share issues. The core legal questions involved the competency of the board of directors to issue right shares for acquiring subsidiary shares, the fairness of share valuation, and whether minority shareholders were oppressed. The Supreme Court held that the directors of a company exercise fiduciary powers and must act bona fide without self-enrichment or oppression. Since the appellants conceded to the revaluation of the subsidiary shares, the initial valuation and subsequent right share disposition were flawed and linked to the unfair valuation. The Court affirmed the High Court's judgment directing fresh valuation and dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellants could not rely on the forfeiture of right shares when the underlying valuation itself was disputed and conceded as unverified.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the board of directors exercises fiduciary powers when fixing share valuations and issuing right shares to acquire a subsidiary?
  • Can a company's board of directors enforce the forfeiture of right shares against a minority shareholder when the foundational valuation of the subsidiary shares is contested and subjected to revaluation?
  • Whether an appellate court is justified in upholding a revaluation order and modifying the deposit conditions for right shares in a petition under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• English Biscuits Manufacturers Private Limited (Ebm), Korangi Industrial2021 SCMR 1182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-11-11
  company petitionoppression and mismanagementfiduciary powers of directorsright sharesshare valuationconflict of interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of Sindh arising from a company petition filed under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 regarding alleged oppression and mismanagement by the majority directors of English Biscuits Manufacturers Private Limited (EBM). The core legal question concerned whether the board of directors acted bona fide in valuing shares of its subsidiary (CFL) and issuing right shares to dilute minority shareholding, particularly when self-dealing and conflict of interest were alleged by the respondent (ABIL). The Supreme Court held that directors exercise fiduciary powers and must act bona fide without causing oppression; since the appellants conceded to a revaluation of the CFL shares during proceedings, the initial valuation and subsequent right share disposal were tainted. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's modifications requiring fair revaluation and safeguarding the minority shareholder's rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether directors of a company can fix share values of a subsidiary in a manner that results in self-enrichment and dilution of minority shareholding without a fair and transparent valuation?
  • Does a failure by a minority shareholder to subscribe to right shares forfeit their remedy under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 when the underlying share valuation is flawed and disputed?
  • Are directors bound by fiduciary duties to act bona fide in the interest of the company and its members when issuing right shares and acquiring subsidiary assets?
  Read full judgment →
• English Biscuits Manufacturers Private Limited (Ebm), Korangi Industrial2021 SCP 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  company lawoppression and mismanagementfiduciary duties of directorsright sharesshare valuationsubsidiary company
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh concerning a corporate dispute over share valuation, right issues, and allegations of oppression under company law. The core legal question involved whether the board of directors of a parent company acted bona fide in issuing right shares to finance the acquisition of shares in its subsidiary from individual directors, thereby diluting a minority shareholder's interest, and whether the initial valuation of the subsidiary's shares was fair and transparent. The Supreme Court held that directors stand in a fiduciary capacity and must exercise their powers bona fide in the interest of the company and all members without causing oppression. The Court ruled that because the appellants tacitly conceded the unfairness of the original share valuation by submitting to revaluation proceedings, their subsequent actions regarding the disposal of un-subscribed right shares were vitiated. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's modifications requiring revaluation and permitting the minority shareholder to subscribe to the right issue.

  Questions settled

  • Whether directors of a company can exercise fiduciary powers to issue right shares for acquiring shares from themselves without a fair and transparent valuation?
  • Does a minority shareholder forfeit the right to subscribe to right shares when the underlying valuation of the company's shares is flawed and subjected to revaluation?
  • Whether the High Court was justified in modifying the Company Judge's order to allow a fresh valuation of shares and adjusting the deposit for right issues?
  • Did the conduct of the directors in failing to support their initial share valuation amount to a breach of fiduciary duty and oppression under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• English Biscuits Manufacturers Private Limited (Ebm) & 6 others vs Associated Biscuits International Limited (Abil) through its Attorney, Farrukh H. Junaidy2021 PCTLR 1357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  minority oppressionfiduciary duty of directorsright sharesvaluation of sharessubsidiary companyCompanies Ordinance 1984dilution of shareholding
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a company dispute under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, involving allegations of minority shareholder oppression. English Biscuits Manufacturers (EBM) sought to acquire the remaining 49% shares of its subsidiary, Coronet Foods (Pvt.) Limited (CFL), owned by EBM’s majority directors and their family, financed through a right issue that threatened to dilute Associated Biscuits International Limited’s (ABIL) 40% stake to 13%. ABIL challenged the Board's decision and the valuation of CFL shares. The High Court ordered a fresh independent valuation of CFL shares, set aside the Board's price determination, and permitted ABIL to subscribe to the right issue. EBM appealed to the Supreme Court.

  The Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench judgment, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that company directors hold a fiduciary duty to act bona fide and transparently in the interest of the company and all its shareholders. Attempting to force an unfair valuation for self-enrichment constitutes oppression, invalidating subsequent actions taken against affected shareholders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether company directors breach their fiduciary duties by approving an unfair share valuation for self-enrichment at the expense of minority shareholders?
  • Can a company declare a minority shareholder's entitlement to right shares forfeited when the underlying share valuation financing the transaction is challenged for lack of transparency and bona fides?
  • Does an oppression petition under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 empower the court to set aside illegal board decisions and order a fresh independent valuation of shares?
  Read full judgment →
• Enforcement of Fundamental Rights with regard to independence of Press_Media vs N_a2021 SCP 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-20
  freedom of the pressfundamental rightsArticle 184(3)journalist safetyjudicial independencepublic interest litigationmedia regulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed by journalists alleging widespread violations of Fundamental Rights, including harassment, intimidation, and attacks on media personnel, alongside claims that state agencies and media houses are suppressing independent reporting. The core legal question is whether the alleged actions by state authorities and the suppression of media freedom constitute a violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Court held that the application raises matters of public importance regarding the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, thereby invoking its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The Court observed that the Federal Investigation Agency’s actions, specifically a press release implicating the judiciary, potentially undermined public confidence in the judiciary and overstepped legal mandates. Consequently, the Court issued notices to various government ministries, regulatory bodies, and press associations to provide detailed responses regarding the allegations, the status of investigations into attacks on journalists, and the criteria for government advertising disbursements. The Court emphasized the judiciary's constitutional duty to protect Fundamental Rights, including freedom of the press and the right to a lawful profession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of independent journalism by state agencies constitute a violation of the right to enter upon any lawful profession under Article 18 of the Constitution?
  • Can the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution in matters concerning the safety and independence of the press?
  • Does a government agency's press release that implicates the judiciary without basis constitute an overstepping of legal mandate and an undermining of public confidence in the courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ullah vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1148 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-11
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesfurther inquirypossession of narcoticscriminal procedurebail in non-bailable offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from the refusal of the trial court to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner was apprehended alongside a co-accused in a vehicle from which a substantial quantity of narcotics (94.500 kilograms of Charas) was recovered. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was a passenger and not the driver, and from whose personal possession no narcotics were recovered, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish a direct nexus between the petitioner and the vehicle or the contraband. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Emphasizing that the investigation was complete, the petitioner was a first-time offender, and continued incarceration would serve no punitive purpose, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that mere presence in a vehicle carrying contraband, without evidence of exclusive possession or control, warrants the grant of bail for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is a passenger in a vehicle from which narcotics are recovered automatically liable for the offence of possession?
  • Does the absence of exclusive possession of contraband entitle an accused to post-arrest bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • When does a criminal case qualify for the grant of bail on the grounds of 'further inquiry' under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Shahid vs Muhammad Nawaz2021 CLC 1338 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-19Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad vs The State and another2021 KLR Criminal Cases 309, 2021 LHC 443, 2022 SCMR 1742 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-02
  recall of witnessSection 540 Cr.P.C.cross-examinationcriminal trial procedurere-examination of witnessQanun-e-Shahadatjust decision of the case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Model Criminal Trial Court, Multan, which allowed the prosecution's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to recall and re-examine a prosecution witness (PW-13) while the cross-examination was still pending. The core legal question was whether a trial court can invoke Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to recall a witness for re-examination before the initial examination process, including cross-examination, has been fully concluded. The High Court set aside the trial court's order, holding that the power under Section 540 cannot be exercised while the witness's testimony is still in progress. The court established the principle that the term 'already examined' in Section 540 implies that the entire sequence of examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination, as prescribed by Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, must be completed before a witness can be recalled under Section 540. Consequently, the trial court erred by interrupting the ongoing cross-examination to allow a recall.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court invoke Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to recall a witness before the conclusion of their cross-examination?
  • What is the legal meaning of 'already examined' in the context of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the order of examination prescribed by Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, preclude the use of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 during ongoing cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad Butt vs Samreena2021 LHC 4396, 2022 CLC 233 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-24Read full judgment →
• Ehtesham-Uddin vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 22 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Shah vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 569 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-01
  murder appealbenefit of doubtocular and medical conflictdishonest improvementscriminal jurisprudencedeath sentenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Ehsan Shah, awarded by the trial court under Sections 302(b)/149, 324/149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The prosecution case arose from an altercation involving a dispute where the appellant and co-accused allegedly opened fire, resulting in two deaths and injuries to others. Upon review of the record, the Lahore High Court noted major contradictions between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, as well as material dishonest improvements made by key eyewitnesses to align their court statements with medical reports. The court also held that the alleged motive was unproved and the weapon recovery was inconsequential without corroborative forensic reports. Emphasizing that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between ocular account and medical evidence create a doubt sufficient for the acquittal of an accused?
  • What is the legal effect of material improvements made by eyewitnesses during trial testimony when confronted with their previous police statements?
  • Is an uncorroborated weapon recovery sufficient to sustain a conviction without a positive forensic match report?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Efu General Insurance Ltd vs Jahangir Mughul2021 CLD 1334 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-09Read full judgment →
• Efu General Insurance Ltd vs Jahangir Moghul2021 SHC 370 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-09Read full judgment →
• Educators vs Shabbir Ahmed2021 PLJ Tr.C. (NIRC) 102 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2021-01-06
  wrongful terminationindustrial relationscommercial establishmentex-parte proceedingsreinstatementback benefitsdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which allowed a grievance petition filed by a former employee against the appellant establishment. The respondent, a Dispatch Clerk, was dismissed verbally without a show-cause notice or inquiry. The appellant failed to appear before the Commission, leading to ex-parte proceedings. The NIRC found that the respondent had successfully established his employment status and that the appellant establishment, being a registered private company, constituted a commercial establishment under the law. The Commission held that the termination was illegal due to the lack of due process and the absence of a show-cause notice. On appeal, the appellant argued that the respondent was an officer and the establishment was not a commercial institution, citing various precedents. The NIRC rejected these arguments, distinguishing the appellant from government institutions and affirming that the establishment fell within the scope of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the reinstatement order with back benefits was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does a private school registered as a company constitute a commercial establishment under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can a termination of service be upheld if it was executed verbally without a show-cause notice or inquiry?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction over a trans-provincial establishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Eduard Bilyayev through Attorney and 4 others vs M.V. "Figaro" (Ex-Free2021 CLD 1180, 2022 PLD Balochistan 21 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Durdana Bibi & 10 others vs Capital Development Authority through its2021 IHC 38 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dua Aneeqa vs Adnan Jahangeer, etc2021 LHC 2454 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
• Dragon Security Services (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2021 IHC 316 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-29Read full judgment →
• Dr.Aamir Zeb vs Chief Controller of Examination, CPSP & others2021 PHC 190, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 508 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-12
  constitutional petitionprinciples of natural justiceaudi alteram partemdisciplinary committeemedical examinationright of hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by a medical practitioner challenging the orders of a disciplinary committee and an appellate authority of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan (CPSP), whereby he was debarred from appearing in examinations for three years and directed to write a new dissertation due to allegedly submitting a fake certificate regarding the approval of his thesis. The core legal question was whether the imposition of a major penalty without affording a proper opportunity of hearing and violating the principles of natural justice was sustainable in law. The Peshawar High Court held that the rules of natural justice, including the maxim audi alteram partem, are deemed to be ingrained in every statute authorising the levy of punishment, and the mere informal interview of the petitioner during inquiry did not suffice as due process. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed that a fresh inquiry be conducted after confronting the petitioner with written allegations and granting him a personal hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principles of natural justice must be read into a statute or rule even if it does not explicitly provide for them?
  • Does a brief interview during an inquiry committee proceeding satisfy the requirement of a proper opportunity of hearing before imposing a major penalty?
  • Can disciplinary orders passed without providing written allegations and a personal hearing be sustained in a court of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zafar Sajjad through authorized attorney vs Commissioner InlandPTCL 2024 CL. 480, 2022 PTD 109 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-19Read full judgment →
• Dr. Wahid Bux and 6 others vs Province Of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh and another2021 PLC (C.S.) 329 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-29
  Public Service CommissionMedical Officer recruitmentConstitutional jurisdictionPost-test scrutinyVested rightEligibility criteriaCutoff dateFundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the rejection of the petitioners' candidatures for the post of Medical Officer (BPS-17) by the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC). The core legal question was whether the petitioners, having successfully passed the pre-interview written test, were entitled to participate in the interview process despite the SPSC's rejection based on the alleged failure to submit valid PMDC registration certificates by the specified cutoff date. The court held that while Regulation 0514 permits the SPSC to conduct post-test scrutiny and passing a written test does not automatically create a vested right, the record demonstrated that the petitioners had obtained the requisite PMDC registration certificates before the cutoff date. Consequently, the rejection was deemed unjustified. The key principle laid down is that while public service commissions maintain the authority to scrutinize eligibility after written examinations, candidates who possess the necessary qualifications by the cutoff date cannot be disqualified for minor procedural delays in documentation, and the court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to prevent arbitrary administrative actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does passing a pre-interview written test for a public post automatically create a vested right to be interviewed?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the rejection of candidature for a public post, or is it barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a candidate be disqualified from a public service recruitment process for failing to submit documents by a cutoff date if they possessed the required qualifications before that date?
  • Does Regulation 0514 of the Sindh Public Service Commission allow for the rejection of candidates after they have passed a written test?
  Read full judgment →