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.

• Bashir Printing Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad vs Commissioner Inland2021 PTD (Trib.) 831 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-02-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Bhayo vs The State2021 SHC 1158 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-03
  unlicensed weaponcriminal appealsentence reductionjudicial leniencyreformationrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, who was found in possession of an unlicensed Kalashnikov with ammunition and subsequently convicted by the trial court under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, receiving a seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The core legal question concerns whether the conviction and sentence should be maintained or modified in light of the appellant's request to not press the appeal on merits, provided the sentence is reduced to the period already served. The Court, upon reviewing the prosecution's evidence, found the recovery of the weapon proved beyond reasonable doubt, noting the lack of enmity between the witnesses and the appellant. However, considering the appellant's age, his genuine remorse demonstrated by not contesting the merits, his potential for reformation, and the fact that he had already served over five years in custody, the Court exercised leniency. The holding reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, including the default imprisonment for non-payment of fine, effectively disposing of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone if the appellant chooses not to press the appeal on merits?
  • Does the recovery of an unlicensed weapon, when supported by credible witness testimony, constitute sufficient proof for conviction under the Sindh Arms Act 2013?
  • Is a court justified in reducing a criminal sentence based on the appellant's potential for reformation and genuine remorse?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Muhammad Isa and others2021 MLD 698, 2021 PLJ Islamabad 165, 2021 IHC 44 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-05Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Soomro vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 632 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed & Others vs The State2021 SHC 78 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-11
  pre-arrest baildelayed FIRmalafide intentfurther inquirycriminal attemptmedical certificate validity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were accused of attempting to murder the complainant's witness, Muhammad Siddique, using iron rods and sticks. The applicants sought pre-arrest bail after being refused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Matiari, arguing that they were falsely implicated due to a property dispute, that the FIR was delayed by 20 days, and that the medical certificate's validity was in question. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the 20-day delay in lodging the FIR, which remained unexplained, could not be overlooked. Furthermore, the Court noted that the medical certificate's validity was in abeyance due to the injured party's failure to attend the medical board, and the admitted property dispute suggested potential malafide intent. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the case required further inquiry regarding the intent to commit murder and the veracity of the allegations.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained 20-day delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is a case of alleged attempted murder subject to further inquiry when the medical certificate's validity is in abeyance?
  • Can an admitted property dispute between parties be considered evidence of malafide intent in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Iqbal Ahmad2021 LHC 4185 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs District Police Officer etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1553 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-13
  illegal custodyhabeas corpusarbitrary arrestpolice excessesfundamental rightsright to libertydaily diary roznamcha
  Summary & questions settled

  This habeas corpus petition was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the recovery of the petitioner's son from the illegal custody of police officials. A court-appointed bailiff raided the police station and discovered the detainee confined in the lock-up without any entry in the daily diary (Roznamcha) and without being produced before a magistrate, despite allegations of torture and arrest days prior in an unrelated, unnamed FIR. The core legal question concerned balancing law enforcement powers with fundamental constitutional rights to liberty and protection against arbitrary arrest and detention. The Lahore High Court held that the police frequently abuse powers of arrest and must justify detentions beyond merely possessing statutory authority, emphasizing that suspects should not be arrested automatically upon registration of an FIR without sufficient incriminating evidence. The court laid down key principles reinforcing strict adherence to constitutional safeguards under Articles 4, 9, 10, 10A, and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, mandatory maintenance of police daily diaries, the requirement to inform detainees of grounds of arrest, and the prohibition of illegal detentions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police officer make an arrest solely on the basis of having the power to do so without showing sufficient grounds or justification?
  • Whether the police are bound to record all arrests in the daily diary (Roznamcha) immediately upon taking a person into custody?
  • Is a suspect to be arrested straightaway upon the registration of an FIR as a matter of course?
  • What are the constitutional and statutory safeguards available against illegal detention and arbitrary arrest by law enforcement agencies in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad etc vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 525 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-19
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidencedelayed FIRacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants, Bashir Ahmad and Munir Ahmad, for the murder of Mehmood Khan. The prosecution's case relied on delayed reporting, the testimony of witnesses who allegedly saw the appellants disposing of the body eight days after the incident, and circumstantial evidence including the recovery of personal items. The Court found the prosecution's case riddled with significant doubts, primarily due to the unexplained eight-day delay in reporting the incident, the lack of direct evidence, and the inability to conclusively identify the decomposed body. Furthermore, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, emphasizing that the prosecution must stand on its own merits without relying on the weaknesses of the defense. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellants by extending them the benefit of the doubt, as the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create sufficient doubt to warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence that is not corroborated by solid proof?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case independently without relying on the weaknesses of the defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Anjum vs Muhammad Raffique and others2021 PLJ SC 195, 2021 P SC 886, 2021 SCMR 772, 2021 SCP 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-25
  gift mutationpower of attorneysecondary evidenceinheritanceburden of prooffrivolous litigationabuse of processcosts
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose out of a suit filed by a legal heir challenging a gift mutation registered in favour of his brother based on a power of attorney executed by their deceased father. The trial court decreed the suit after finding that the alleged power of attorney in favour of the attorney was never produced in original, no permission for secondary evidence was obtained, and the Registrar's office denied its existence. The appellate and revisional courts dismissed the petitioner's appeals on procedural grounds without deciding on merits. The core legal question was whether a gift of land executed via an unproven, non-existent power of attorney in favour of a close relative could be sustained. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving a power of attorney rests strictly on the beneficiary claiming under it. The Court sustained the trial court's judgment, finding the power of attorney fictitious and structured to circumvent legal restrictions. The petition was dismissed with costs throughout.

  Questions settled

  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the validity and execution of a power of attorney when a gift mutation is made pursuant to it?
  • Can secondary evidence of a power of attorney be relied upon without obtaining prior permission from the court?
  • Is a gift mutation based on an unproven power of attorney valid in law when official records deny the existence of such power of attorney?
  Read full judgment →
• Basheer Ahmed vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1086 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-10
  unlicensed firearmrecoverymashirballistic reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appealprocedural lapse
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 23-A of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for the possession of an unlicensed firearm. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the recovery beyond reasonable doubt despite the absence of independent witnesses and a significant delay in forensic analysis. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that the failure to associate independent, local witnesses as mashirs, despite the availability of public spaces, violates the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby undermining the credibility of the recovery. Furthermore, the Court held that an unexplained delay in sending the recovered weapon to a ballistic expert creates a fatal doubt regarding the integrity of the evidence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, reaffirming the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt arising from procedural lapses must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality in a recovery proceeding violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a delay in sending a recovered firearm to a ballistic expert fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when the recovered weapons from co-accused are in different functional conditions?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody of case property before its submission to a forensic laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkha (Deceased) through Legal Heirs vs Aitezaz Ur Rasheed Khan2021 MLD 1374 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-23Read full judgment →
• Barkat Khan and 05 others vs Banaras Khan and 10 others2021 PHC 134, 2022 PLD Peshawar 15 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs Additional District Judge, Dadyal and 4 others2022 YLR 868 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali (Deceased), etc vs Member (Judicial. VI), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. etc2021 KLR Revenue Cases 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Baptist vs The State2021 YLR 1273 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-29
  police encountermaterial contradictionsbenefit of the doubtindependent witnessesAnti-Terrorism Actcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal appeal filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court under sections 353/324/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act 2013. The prosecution alleged that during a police encounter, the appellant was apprehended at the spot with a pistol after an exchange of fire, while his accomplices escaped. The core legal questions involve the credibility of police-only evidence, material contradictions in witness testimonies, non-association of independent public witnesses, and the principle of extending the benefit of the doubt. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring material contradictions in testimonies, lack of independent corroboration in a populated area, and the acquittal of a co-accused on the same set of evidence. The key principle laid down is that when prosecution evidence is contradictory and uncorroborated, and where a co-accused is acquitted on identical evidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to secure the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses are sufficient to create doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the same set of evidence upon which a co-accused has already been acquitted without independent corroboration?
  • Is it mandatory for the police to associate independent private witnesses from a thickly populated area during recovery proceedings?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Bank Of Punjab through Attorney vs Manzoor Qadir and another2021 CLD 1037 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-10
  Banking CourtLeave to DefendRecovery of FinancesCost of FundsSpecial ProcedureFinancial InstitutionDefaultStatutory Interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the Banking Court’s dismissal of a recovery suit filed by the Appellant-Bank. The core legal questions were whether a Banking Court can dismiss a suit without first adjudicating the application for leave to defend (PLA) and whether it can refuse to award the cost of funds under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The High Court held that the Banking Court erred by dismissing the suit without deciding the PLA, as the Ordinance mandates a specific procedure where the PLA must be accepted or rejected before further proceedings. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Banking Court is obligated to determine the date of default and award the cost of funds to the financial institution, even if the principal liability has been satisfied or is nil. The principle established is that the Ordinance is a special statute requiring strict adherence to its procedural framework; the Banking Court cannot bypass the statutory requirement to decide the PLA, nor can it deny the statutory entitlement to the cost of funds.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Banking Court dismiss a suit without first accepting or rejecting the application for leave to defend?
  • Is a Banking Court required to award the cost of funds to a financial institution even if the principal amount is fully paid or nil?
  • Does the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, require strict adherence to its procedural provisions over the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Can a Banking Court reject a plaint under the Code of Civil Procedure before deciding the application for leave to defend?
  Read full judgment →
• Bank Alfalah Limited vs Punjab Small Industries Corporation2021 LHC 5648 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-13Read full judgment →
• Bank Al-Falah Limited vs Shahid Riaz and another2021 CLD 823 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
• Bakht Anwar and two others vs Naik Muhammad and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C.1632, 2021 PHC 234 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-03Read full judgment →
• Bakhshal Abro vs The State2021 SHC 868 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-26
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabsconsionvicarious liabilityprohibitory clausecommon intentioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his alleged role in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the applicant, accused of ineffective firing and facilitating the principal accused, was entitled to bail despite his alleged absconsion and the nature of the charges. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, determining that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as no direct role in causing injury was attributed to him, no weapon was recovered, and he was elderly. The Court affirmed the principle that absconsion per se does not constitute a sufficient ground to refuse bail if the case has merit. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that for offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, a principle binding on all courts under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does absconsion per se constitute a sufficient ground to refuse bail if the accused has a strong case on merits?
  • When does a case fall within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan constitutionally binding on all courts under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahar Shah and others vs Manzoor Ahmad2022 SCMR 284, 2022 PLJ SC 10, 2022 PSC 1604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-14
  specific performancebona fide purchaseragreement to sellconstructive noticeburden of proofsecond appealgood faith
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The respondent (plaintiff) alleged that after executing an agreement to sell in his favour, the vendor (appellant No. 2) transferred the same property to her real brother (appellant No. 1) via an oral sale and mutation before the contract's completion date. While the Trial Court dismissed the suit, the first Appellate Court and the High Court decreed it, rejecting the plea of bona fide purchase. The Supreme Court examined whether appellant No. 1 qualified as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act. The Court held that the burden of proof lies on the subsequent purchaser to demonstrate good faith, payment of consideration, and lack of notice. Given the close relationship between the parties and the hasty transfer, the Court ruled that the appellants failed to exercise due diligence. The Court affirmed that wilful abstention from inquiry or gross negligence constitutes constructive notice, thereby dismissing the appeal.

  Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan vs The Vice-Chancellor, Balochistan University Of Medical2021 PLD Balochistan 84 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-26Read full judgment →
• Bahadar Hilal vs Shaukat Hayat and others2022 CLC 959 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• Bahadar Hilal vs Shaukat Hayat & others2021 PHC 142 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-15Read full judgment →
• Bahadar Hilal vs Anwar Hayat through legal heirs & others2021 PHC 282, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 11, 2022 PLD Peshawar 39 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-08-12Read full judgment →
• Badaruddin vs The State2021 SHC 246 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-22
  pre-arrest bailcheque dishonourfurther inquirymala fideprohibitory clausebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant seeking pre-arrest bail under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after being refused the same by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in a case concerning the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry and mala fide. The Sindh High Court held that since the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the parties have a property dispute, the applicant has joined the trial without misusing interim bail, and a case for further inquiry is made out, the pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed when the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause, mala fide is apparent from a property dispute background, and the accused has regularly participated in the trial without abusing the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry when a dispute over the sale of landed property exists between the parties?
  • Whether the confirmation of pre-arrest bail is justified when the accused has joined the trial and not misused the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Badar Din vs Province of Punjab and others2021 LHC 5065 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-05Read full judgment →
• Badal Bariro vs The State2021 SHC 892 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-06
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitytentative assessmentmurderbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Badal, who was denied bail by the trial court regarding his alleged involvement in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 114, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was accused only of aiming a pistol at the complainant party rather than firing the fatal shot, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court held that the applicant's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the deceased suffered only one bullet injury attributed to the main accused, and the applicant's alleged role was limited to aiming a weapon, which required further evidentiary determination. Additionally, the Court noted the applicant's acquittal in a related arms case. The key principle laid down is that where an accused's direct role in a fatal injury is absent and vicarious liability is contested, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a direct role in causing a fatal injury, where vicarious liability is alleged, constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be granted post-arrest bail if the evidence suggests their role was limited to aiming a weapon rather than inflicting the fatal injury?
  • Is a tentative assessment of the record sufficient for the High Court to grant bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Bad Shah Jamil vs Muhammad Janbaz Khan and another2021 YLR 1745 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-04
  murderbenefit of the doubtinterested witnesschance witnessmedical conflictabscondencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony, the presence of chance and interested witnesses, contradictions between medical evidence and the ocular account, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the evidentiary value of abscondence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring contradictions in the evidence, conflict between medical and ocular accounts, lack of independent corroboration for interested witnesses, and failure to establish the chain of events. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The key principles laid down include that the testimony of chance and interested witnesses requires strong corroboration, medical evidence must consistent with the ocular account, and abscondence alone cannot substitute for confidence-inspiring substantive evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance and interested witnesses requires strong corroboration to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when there is an open conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular account regarding the seat of injuries?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an accused's abscondence when the substantive prosecution evidence is found to be unreliable and unconvincing?
  • Does unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report dilute the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar Jahangir and another vs Nadir Ali2022 YLR 570 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-31Read full judgment →
• Babar Ali vs Muhammad Zaheer and another2021 YLR 301 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-11-18Read full judgment →
• Azmat Ali vs The State2021 SHC 670 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-08
  narcotics possessionillegal investigationsafe custody of case propertybenefit of doubtcriminal appealC.I.A. investigationchemical analysis
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 191 kilograms of charas. The core legal questions concerned the legality of the investigation conducted by C.I.A. staff and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the safe custody and transmission of the recovered narcotics to the Chemical Examiner. The Court held that the investigation conducted by the C.I.A. officer, without proper authorization from the Officer-in-charge of the police station or the S.S.P./S.P. as required under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was illegal and vitiated the trial. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the case property, creating reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The key principle laid down is that C.I.A. staff cannot investigate cognizable offences on their own motion without specific authorization, and the failure to prove the safe custody of narcotics from recovery to chemical analysis entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can C.I.A. staff investigate a cognizable offence on their own motion without authorization from the Officer-in-charge of a police station?
  • Does the failure to prove the safe custody and transmission of narcotics to the Chemical Examiner entitle an accused to an acquittal?
  • What is the legal status of an investigation conducted by a police officer not authorized under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz-Ur-Rehman vs Member (J.v), Board Of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore etc2021 PLJ Lahore 213 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-04Read full judgment →
• Aziz Khan vs The State2021 SHC 274 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsjoint recoverycharaspolice witnessesfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Aziz Khan, who was charged alongside a co-accused for the possession of 1700 grams of Charas, following a joint recovery of 7.7 kilograms of narcotics by police. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of alleged false implication, the absence of independent witnesses, and the contention that the recovery constituted a borderline case. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant was not entitled to bail at this stage. The Court reasoned that the applicant shared liability for the total joint recovery of narcotics, which is a significant quantity affecting society at large. While acknowledging the absence of independent witnesses, the Court found no justification to disbelieve the police version at the tentative stage of bail. The Court established the principle that in cases involving joint recovery of narcotics, the accused may be held liable for the entire quantity recovered, and the lack of independent witnesses does not automatically entitle an accused to bail when reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is guilty.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be held liable for the entire quantity of narcotics in a case of joint recovery for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a narcotics case automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Is a police witness's version sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for guilt at the bail stage in a narcotics case?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Sadiq Ch. Islamabad vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Islamabad2021 PTD (Trib.) 184 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-04-10Read full judgment →
• Azhar Manzoor etc vs The State etc2021 P Cr. L J 1212, 2021 LHC 558 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-23
  criminal revisioncompound chargeseparate chargesrecording of evidencestatement of accusedde novo trialprocedural illegality
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition calls in question an appellate court judgment whereby the petitioners' conviction and sentence were set aside and the case was remanded for a fresh decision after framing a proper charge and recording statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question revolved around whether serious procedural irregularities in framing a compound charge, improperly recording witness evidence through a court reader without mandatory memoranda, and vitiated examination of the accused under Section 342 rendered the trial illegal, warranting a retrial. The Lahore High Court held that the cumulative effect of these alarming procedural defects vitiated the trial, and although the appellate court rightly identified the illegality, it erred in only remanding the matter without formally setting aside the trial court's judgment. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the appellate judgment was modified, the trial court's judgment was deemed set aside, and a de novo trial was ordered. The key principle laid down is that compound charges violating separate-charge rules, improper recording of witness statements, and grave irregularities in recording the statement of the accused vitiate a criminal trial, necessitating a de novo trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does framing a compound charge contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 vitiate a criminal trial?
  • What are the mandatory requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 when recording witness evidence through a person other than the presiding judge?
  • What is the legal effect of serious procedural defects in a criminal trial, such as flawed charges and irregular examination of the accused?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case for retrial without formally setting aside the judgment of the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain vs The State & others2022 SCP 218, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 958, 2022 SCMR 1907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-16
  Section 302(b) PPCocular evidencerelated witnessmitigating circumstanceslife imprisonmentquantum of sentencenon-recovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from petitions filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by the convict seeking acquittal and by the complainant seeking enhancement of sentence, following the High Court's judgment modifying the convict's death sentence under Section 302(b) PPC to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal issues pertained to the reliability of related eyewitness testimony, the impact of minor discrepancies in evidence, the absence of blood at the crime scene, and whether non-recovery of the weapon and unproven motive affected conviction or sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, maintaining the conviction and life imprisonment sentence. The Court held that ocular evidence from interested or related witnesses cannot be discarded absent proof of previous enmity. Minor discrepancies that do not affect salient features of the case must be ignored. Furthermore, where ocular evidence is trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence, conviction can be sustained despite the non-recovery of the weapon or unproven motive; however, the absence of motive and recovery constitutes valid grounds for mitigating the sentence from death to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a prosecution witness be discarded solely on account of relationship with the deceased?
  • Whether minor discrepancies in eyewitness statements are sufficient to shatter the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on trustworthy ocular evidence when the weapon of offence is not recovered?
  • Does the absence of proven motive and non-recovery of weapon justify converting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain vs Qamar Ali2021 SHC 996 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain Solangi and others vs Province of Sindh & three others2021 SHC 426 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-21Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali vs The State2021 SHC 856 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabductiondelay in FIRcomplainant affidavittentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant, Azhar Ali, seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 36/2020 registered at Police Station Badeh under Sections 364-A and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged abduction and subsequent murder of a 9/10-year-old boy. The core legal question revolved around whether the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the delay in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies in statements, lack of recoveries, and an affidavit filed by the complainant stating the applicant was not his actual accused. The Sindh High Court held that the tentative assessment of the material on record revealed grounds for further inquiry into the applicant's culpability. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, laying down the principle that where the complainant files an affidavit disclaiming the applicant's involvement alongside unexplained delays and conflicting witness statements, a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) is made out.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is made out when the complainant files an affidavit stating the applicant is not the actual accused?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR warrant the grant of post-arrest bail on a tentative assessment?
  • Can bail be granted when statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 narrate a different story from the initial FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali vs Province Of Punjab and others2021 YLR 545 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-16Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali and another vs The State2021 YLR 2263 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-29
  extortionanti-terrorismbenefit of doubtcriminal appealunproved threatswithholding of witnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under section 384, P.P.C. and section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for alleged extortion. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the ingredients of extortion and terrorism beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether material contradictions, non-production of best evidence, and failure to prove specific threats vitiated the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the offense, notably lacking proof of specific threats, valid exhibition of case property, and a nexus to terrorism as required under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The court laid down that a conviction cannot be sustained where the prosecution's case is riddled with significant discrepancies, withholding of material witnesses, and a failure to meet the strict standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove specific threats vitiate a conviction for extortion under section 384 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 be sustained without establishing a nexus to terrorism or the objectives specified under section 6 of the Act?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to put recovered case property to the accused during their examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When may an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 for giving up material witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali and another vs Secretary, Ministry of Interior and others2021 IHC 328 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-12Read full judgment →
• Azhar Abbas and others vs Haji Tahir Abbas and another2021 CLC 1351 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-30
  specific performanceagreement to sellregular second appealmarked documentssecondary evidencemisreading of evidenceconcurrent findingsOrder XIII Rule 4 CPCArticle 76 Qanun-e-Shahadat Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land, which was decreed by the trial Court and affirmed in first appeal. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, dismissing the suit. The High Court held that the unregistered agreement to sell, written on plain paper by the plaintiff without revenue stamps, raised serious doubts regarding its authenticity and veracity, especially when execution was denied and no comparison of signatures/thumb impressions was sought. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to prove the payment of earnest money, and key evidence relied upon by the trial and appellate courts comprised photocopies marked as exhibits without secondary evidence permission under Article 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court reiterated that marked documents have no evidentiary value and cannot be considered unless legally proved. Finding clear misreading and non-reading of evidence, the High Court held that concurrent findings of fact are not sacrosanct under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Can a document merely marked as an exhibit without formal proof be taken into consideration as legal evidence by a court?
  • Does the admission of photocopies into evidence without satisfying the requirements of Article 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 render the reliance on such documents illegal?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when there is gross misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Azeem Weaving through Manager/Owner vs Muhammad Arshad and 22021 PLC 124 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-21
  constitutional petitionlabour lawcompensation in lieu of reinstatementemployer-employee relationshipconcurrent findings of factdismissal in limineindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by M/s. Azeem Weaving challenging a judgment of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (SLAT), which had modified a Labour Court order regarding the termination of a worker, Muhammad Arshad. The Labour Court had originally ordered reinstatement with back benefits, but the SLAT modified this to an award of Rs. 400,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The core legal questions were whether the Labour Courts erred in their factual findings regarding the employer-employee relationship and whether the SLAT possessed the legal authority to award monetary compensation instead of reinstatement. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine. It held that the question of the existence of an employer-employee relationship was a concurrent finding of fact by the lower fora, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate was based on misreading or non-reading of evidence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the SLAT has the statutory power to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, thereby validating the award of reasonable compensation for the severance of the employment relationship.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal have the legal authority to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding an employer-employee relationship in a constitutional petition?
  • Is a Labour Appellate Tribunal empowered to grant monetary compensation as full and final settlement for the severance of an employment relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Azee Securities (Pvt.) Limited vs Commissioner, (SMD), SECP, Islamabad2021 CLD 28 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-11-22Read full judgment →
• Azam Saleem vs The State, etc2021 P SC (Crl.) 832, 2021 SCP 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-06
  pre-arrest bailsecond bail petitionnon-prosecutionnon-appearanceabuse of processfraudleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioners' second pre-arrest bail petitions by the Lahore High Court in a case registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a second pre-arrest bail petition when the first such petition was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of the accused under Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court held that a fresh pre-arrest bail petition is only maintainable if the accused provides a satisfactory explanation for their absence on the date the first petition was dismissed; if the explanation is unsatisfactory, the petition must be dismissed for abuse of process without examining the merits. Applying this principle, the Court found the explanations lacking and the conduct of the petitioners amounting to playing hide and seek with the court, while also noting sufficient incriminating material on merits. Leave to appeal was accordingly declined.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second pre-arrest bail petition be entertained if the first pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed for non-appearance?
  • What is the effect of failing to provide a satisfactory explanation for absence in a previous pre-arrest bail hearing?
  • When can a court examine the merits of a second pre-arrest bail petition after the dismissal of the first for non-prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Secretary _7359aca72021 SC AJK 84 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Azad Government Of The State Of Jammu And Kashmir through Secretary2021 YLR 991 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-11-07Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir through Secretary2021 SC AJK 48 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-07-06Read full judgment →
• Ayub Khan vs The learned Member the Sindh Labor Appellate Tribunal and 03 others2021 SHC 36 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13
  constitutional petitionindustrial disputeworker definitiongrievance applicationson quotaretirement benefitslabour appellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition assailed the judgment of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal which had set aside the Labour Court's decision and dismissed the petitioner's grievance application. The petitioner, a retired employee of the Karachi Dock Labour Board, sought the appointment of his son under the son quota pursuant to a settlement agreement, or alternatively, monetary compensation. The core legal question was whether a retired employee who retired in the normal course and not in connection with an industrial dispute qualifies as a 'worker' entitled to file a grievance application under the Industrial Relations Act. The Sindh High Court held that a retired employee who left service in the normal course does not fall within the definition of a worker under Section 2(xxix) of the Industrial Relations Act and cannot maintain a grievance application before the Labour Court. The Court affirmed that industrial dispute remedies and grievance procedures under the Act are restricted to active workers or those specifically included by law, and dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retired employee who left service in the normal course qualifies as a worker under Section 2(xxix) of the Industrial Relations Act to maintain a grievance application?
  • Can a retired worker file a grievance application under Section 41 of the Industrial Relations Act for the enforcement of a settlement regarding son quota?
  • Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to interfere with concurrent factual findings of the Labour Appellate Tribunal without a showing of illegality or material irregularity?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayub Khan vs The District & Sessions Judge & 02 others2021 SHC 546 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-04
  public employmentson quotadeceased quotamerit-based appointmentsubordinate judiciaryconstitutional petitioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner's son to a post in the subordinate judiciary based on a 'son quota' policy for retired employees. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's son was entitled to such an appointment and whether the court could issue a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution to enforce it. The Court held that public appointments must be made through a competitive, transparent process on merit, or strictly in accordance with the 'deceased quota' provided under Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The Court clarified that there is no legal provision for a 'son quota' for retired employees. The key principles laid down are that public employment is a constitutional right subject to merit-based competition, and that special quotas, such as those for deceased or incapacitated civil servants, must be strictly construed under the applicable rules. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish a legal right to the requested appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a legal basis for a 'son quota' for the appointment of children of retired employees in the subordinate judiciary?
  • Does Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974, apply to the children of retired civil servants?
  • Can a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be issued to compel an appointment in public service outside of merit or established statutory quotas?
  • Are employees working under the administrative control of the District and Sessions Judge considered civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayesha vs Additional Sessions Judge, etc2021 LHC 2290, 2022 CLC 327 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-29Read full judgment →
• Ayesha S. Sheikh vs VIII-Additional District And Sessions Judge, Karachi2021 MLD 100 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-02
  inherent powers of High Courtquashing of proceedingsacquittal applicationrevisional jurisdictionalternative remedydouble jeopardyabuse of process of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for acquittal in a case involving offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002, and the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010. The core legal question was whether an order dismissing an acquittal application under section 265-K can be impugned directly before the High Court through an application under section 561-A. The High Court held that the inherent powers under section 561-A are extraordinary, are not meant to provide an alternative or additional remedy where an express remedy is provided by the Code, and cannot be used to circumvent the normal course of law. The court ruled that the appropriate remedy against the dismissal of a section 265-K application is a criminal revision under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application as incompetent and not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable against the dismissal of an application for acquittal under section 265-K?
  • Can the inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as an alternative or additional remedy where an express remedy is provided by the statute?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a person aggrieved by the dismissal of an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz vs The State2021 MLD 2019 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-04
  police encounterbenefit of doubtidentification paradeindependent corroborationcriminal appealstandard of proofanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, arising from an alleged police encounter. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence provided solely by police witnesses, the validity of identification without a parade, and the standard of proof required in police encounter cases. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the police failed to produce independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a populated area. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that identification of an accused for the first time before the trial court is generally unsafe without a prior identification parade. It was also established that in police encounter cases, the standard of proof is higher, and it is imperative that such cases be investigated by an independent agency rather than the police investigating their own cause.

  Questions settled

  • Is it safe to maintain a conviction based on identification of an accused for the first time before the trial court without a prior identification parade?
  • Does the testimony of injured police witnesses in an encounter case automatically warrant conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Should police officials be permitted to investigate cases involving their own alleged encounters?
  • Is the failure to produce independent witnesses in a public-place incident fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Hussain and another vs State through Advocate General of Azad2021 YLR 1503 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Ayaz alias Imran vs The State2021 YLR 1613 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-25
  narcotics controlcriminal appealFSL reporttest protocolsbenefit of doubtsealed parcelsrecovery witness contradictionsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and order of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to seven years of simple imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the recovery evidence, discrepancies concerning the seizing officer's monogram, the absence of the sample monogram inside the sealed parcel upon court de-sealing, and whether the Forensic Science Laboratory report complied with Rule 6 of the Government Analysts Rules, 2001, by failing to specify test protocols. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring contradictions, missing sample monograms, and a defective FSL report lacking required test protocols, which rendered it inconclusive and devoid of evidentiary value. The court established that the prosecution must prove its case through unimpeachable evidence, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Government Analyst report that fails to specify the test protocols applied comply with Rule 6 of the Government Analysts Rules, 2001?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained when the sample monogram is missing from the parcel upon being de-sealed by the trial court?
  • What is the effect of contradictions among prosecution witnesses regarding the handling of case property and recovery on the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right when the prosecution evidence is riddled with serious doubts and inconsistencies?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz alias Cotton Shah vs The State2022 MLD 150 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-03
  narcoticssafe custody of case propertychemical examiner reportbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealmalkhanarecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of narcotics, safe custody and safe transit of the case property to the chemical examiner, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of independent witnesses. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to unexplained delays in sending the sample to the chemical examiner, lack of evidence regarding safe custody in the malkhana, non-association of private independent witnesses despite a thickly populated locality, and material contradictions in the evidence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt, reinforcing the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to establish the safe custody and safe transit of recovered narcotics to the chemical examiner vitiates the conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered narcotics to the chemical laboratory render the chemical report unreliable?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to associate independent private witnesses for a recovery made in a thickly populated area under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ali vs The State2021 MLD 1501 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-27
  criminal appealunlicensed armsbenefit of doubtacquittaldelayed recoveryfirearms expert report
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant impugned his conviction and sentence under Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 for possessing an unlicensed weapon allegedly used in a murder case, resulting in five years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, considering delayed forensic analysis, lack of exclusive possession, and his acquittal in the main murder case. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from significant doubts, including unexplained delays in sending the weapon to the firearms expert and failure to put questions regarding the expert report to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in sending a recovered weapon to an expert creates a reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Is it mandatory to put questions to an accused person under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding an expert report?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  • What is the effect of the acquittal of an accused in a main murder case upon a subsidiary charge of possessing an unlicensed weapon allegedly used in that crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ali Rajpar, Zulfiqar Khushk and Ors vs Advocate General Sindh and Others, Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 490 · Sindh High Court
  civil service cadreultra viressubordinate legislationmerger of cadresconstitutional petitionprovincial management servicestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the Sindh Civil Servants (Provincial Management Service) Rules, 2018, which amalgamated the Ex-PCS and PSS cadres into a single service. The core legal question was whether the executive could, through subordinate legislation, merge distinct civil service cadres in violation of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, and constitutional mandates. The High Court held that the 2018 Rules were ultra vires, unconstitutional, and in conflict with the parent Act. The Court reasoned that the Civil Servants Act, 1973, establishes a compartmentalized service structure where cadres are distinct and not interchangeable. Subordinate rules cannot override the parent statute or defeat the legislative intent regarding merit-based progression. The Court affirmed that horizontal movement between distinct cadres without legislative amendment is impermissible. Consequently, the Court struck down the impugned notification and the 2018 Rules, emphasizing that rule-making power is incidental and must remain within the precincts of the parent statute, failing which the rules must yield to the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Can the provincial government merge distinct civil service cadres through subordinate rules without amending the parent Act?
  • Are the Sindh Civil Servants (Provincial Management Service) Rules, 2018, ultra vires the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the horizontal movement of civil servants between distinct cadres violate the principles of merit-based progression established under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can subordinate legislation override or contradict the provisions of the parent statute under which it was framed?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ali Lund & Others vs The State2021 SHC 1294 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-16
  criminal jail appealmurderdelay in FIRSection 161 CrPC statementbenefit of doubtvicarious liabilityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arose from the judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Dadu, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal questions before the High Court pertained to whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given doubts surrounding night-time identity, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, non-production of independent witnesses or medical proof of an unexamined witness's alleged mental illness, and lack of expert ballistic evidence. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that an unexplained delay of one day in lodging the FIR and four days in recording a key witness's statement reduces evidentiary value, and uncorroborated vicarious liability combined with absence of forensic/ballistic evidence creates a reasonable doubt. It reiterated the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create doubt regarding consultation and deliberate false implication?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a witness statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded with unexplained delay?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ahmed and Others vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 624 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-07Read full judgment →
• Awais and another vs The State2021 PLD Sindh 25 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-26
  compromisecompounding of offenceQisas and Diyatnon-Muslim legal heirsSection 345 CrPCmurderacquittal on compromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Additional Sessions Judge-I/Model Criminal Trial Court, Shahdadkot, sentencing them to life imprisonment. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants submitted applications under Section 345(5) and Section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking acquittal based on a compromise reached with the deceased's legal heirs. The State opposed the compromise on the ground that the legal heirs were non-Muslims while the convicts were Muslims. The High Court considered whether a valid compromise under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be effected between Muslim convicts and non-Muslim legal heirs. Relying on precedent, the High Court held that the scheme of Section 345 contains no religious restrictions or disqualifications concerning who may compound an offence. Having verified the voluntary waiver of Qisas and Diyat by all legal heirs, the High Court accepted the compromise and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compoundable offence be lawfully compounded between Muslim convicts and non-Muslim legal heirs under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impose any religious restrictions on the competence of parties entering into a compromise?
  • Whether the waiver of Qisas and Diyat by all legal heirs without claiming Badl-e-Sulh entitles convicted persons to acquittal under Section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzaib vs Federation of Pakistan and 03 others2021 SHC 414 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-05
  disciplinary proceedingsmajor penaltyterms and conditions of serviceregular inquirynatural justiceaudi alteram partemservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the imposition of major penalties of removal from service against the petitioners without conducting a regular inquiry or providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The core legal questions addressed are whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain petitions regarding disciplinary proceedings of civil servants, and whether a major penalty can be imposed without a formal inquiry. The Court observed that disciplinary proceedings fall within the terms and conditions of service, which are generally subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunals under Article 212 of the Constitution. However, noting that the respondents had already withdrawn the impugned removal orders, the Court set aside the penalties and remanded the cases to the competent authority. The Court laid down the principle that while departmental authorities have discretion in awarding penalties, the imposition of a major penalty without a regular inquiry and a fair opportunity to explain one's position is arbitrary, violates the principles of natural justice, and constitutes a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition regarding the disciplinary proceedings of a civil servant?
  • Can a major penalty of removal from service be imposed upon a civil servant without conducting a regular inquiry?
  • Does the imposition of a major penalty without providing an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses violate the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Augustine Eric Wilson and another vs Mrs. Daisy through Legal2021 MLD 64 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-29Read full judgment →
• Attique Ahmad vs The State and another2021 MLD 4 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-15
  pre-arrest baildishonest issuance of chequemala fidecivil liabilitycriminal breach of trustpartnership dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail concerns an allegation under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged dishonest issuance of a cheque for Rs. 6,200,000. The core legal question was whether the ingredients of Section 489-F were prima facie met, given that the cheque was issued in the context of a disputed partnership termination and a pending civil suit for specific performance, rather than for the repayment of a loan or fulfillment of a clear monetary obligation. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the offence at this stage, as the underlying liability and the total value of the business remained undetermined. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the complainant's remedy for civil recovery lies in civil proceedings rather than criminal prosecution. The judgment reaffirms the principle that at the pre-arrest bail stage, mala fide intent may be deduced from the facts and circumstances of the case, even without direct, solid evidence, and that the liberty of citizens must be jealously guarded.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the underlying liability and the amount due are not clearly established?
  • Is a dispute regarding the termination of a partnership and the valuation of business assets a matter to be resolved through criminal proceedings or civil litigation?
  • How can the element of mala fide be established at the stage of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaullah Khan vs Ali Azam Afridi and others2021 SCMR 1979, 2022 PSC 375, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-11
  writ of quo warrantoupgradation policypersonal upgradationcronyismlocus standicivil serviceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from a High Court judgment in a writ of quo warranto that declared the petitioner's third personal upgradation from BPS-20 to BPS-21 void and without lawful authority. The core legal questions were whether multiple personal upgradations of an employee violated the applicable Upgradation Policy of the Provincial Assembly Secretariat of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and whether a writ of quo warranto was maintainable against such unlawful promotion. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that when a statute or policy requires an act to be done in a specific manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all. The petitioner's repeated personal upgradations directly contravened the Assembly's policy permitting personal upgradation only once during service. The Court emphasized that cronyism violates meritocracy and that a writ of quo warranto lies to prevent persons from illegally holding public offices.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant or public employee be granted personal upgradations multiple times in violation of an express statutory upgradation policy?
  • Whether a writ of quo warranto can be filed by any person to challenge an individual holding a public post without lawful authority?
  • Does the principle that a thing required by law to be done in a particular manner must be done in that manner or not at all apply to administrative personal upgradation policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaullah and 9 others vs Zainullah and 20 others2021 PLJ Quetta 201, 2021 CLC 592 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad & anothe vs Mst. Farrukh Batool2021 LHC 6881 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-02Read full judgment →
• Atlas Khan vs The State2021 PHC 246 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-14
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsAmphetamineIceprohibitory limbKP Control of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused/petitioner Atlas Khan sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.249 dated 08.03.2021 registered under Section 11(B) of the KP Control of Narcotic Substances Act at Police Station Urmar, District Peshawar, following the recovery of 520 grams of Amphetamine (Ice) from his direct and immediate possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the quantity and nature of the recovered contraband. The Peshawar High Court held that Amphetamine is a lethal and expensive contraband with devastating effects primarily on the younger generation, and the recovered quantity of 520 grams—supported by an affirmative FSL report—was huge and connected the accused to an offence falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court ruled that the accused was disentitled to bail and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of 520 grams of Amphetamine (Ice) attracts the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused found in possession of a large quantity of Amphetamine entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does an affirmative FSL report regarding recovered narcotics prima facie connect the accused to the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Atlas Khan vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1736 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
• Atif-Ur-Rehman vs The State and another2021 SCMR 324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-12
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlfurther inquiryrecoverypointationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, Atif-ur-Rehman, challenging the Peshawar High Court's order that declined his post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery of narcotics. The Supreme Court observed that no narcotics were recovered from the vehicle driven by the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Anti-Narcotics Force officials already possessed knowledge regarding the narcotics found in a separate truck, meaning no new facts were discovered based on the petitioner's pointation. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted the petitioner post-arrest bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court, while leaving the determination of the applicability of section 15 of the CNSA to the trial court after evidence is recorded.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of recovery from a vehicle driven by an accused entitle them to bail in a narcotics case?
  • Does information already known to law enforcement officials constitute a 'new fact' discovered on the pointation of an accused?
  • When does a case fall under the scope of further inquiry pursuant to section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C. in narcotics offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Atif Zareef, etc vs The State2021 PLD Supreme Court 550, PLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 128, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 315, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-04
  rapetwo-finger testvirginity testingDNA evidenceright to dignitysexual historybenefit of doubtmedical jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard an appeal against the conviction of three appellants for gang rape under Section 376(2) PPC. The prosecution's case relied on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and DNA reports. The Court upheld the convictions of two appellants whose involvement was corroborated by DNA evidence, while acquitting the third appellant by extending the benefit of doubt due to his non-nomination in the FIR and a negative DNA report. Crucially, the Court addressed the legality of the 'two-finger test' (TFT) and 'virginity testing' in rape cases. The Court held that such tests have no scientific basis, are medically irrelevant to determining sexual assault, and violate the constitutional rights to dignity and privacy under Articles 4 and 14 of the Constitution. The Court further observed that the omission of Article 151(4) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, prohibits impeaching a victim's credibility based on 'general immoral character'. The judgment establishes that a victim's sexual history is irrelevant to the question of consent or the factum of rape.

  Read full judgment →
• Atif Mehmood Kiyani and another vs MIs Sukh Chayn Private Limited, Royal2021 SCP 288, 2021 SCMR 1446, 2021 PSC 1669, 2021 CLD 946, KLR 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-16
  bank guaranteeinsurance guaranteetemporary injunctionstay of suitSection 10 CPCSection 151 CPCconsolidation of suitsbreach of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from two civil petitions for leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the High Court involving cross-suits between property buyers and sellers. The Supreme Court examined two primary legal questions: whether a temporary injunction can be granted to restrain the encashment of an unconditional guarantee, and whether a subsequent suit can be stayed under Section 10 CPC when only some matters in issue are common. Dismissing both petitions, the Supreme Court held that an insurance or bank guarantee containing an absolute, unconditional undertaking is an independent contract that must be honoured upon demand, regardless of underlying contractual disputes between the principal parties. Consequently, no prima facie case exists to restrain encashment. Furthermore, Section 10 CPC applies only when all matters in issue are directly and substantially the same; where a subsequent suit includes additional claims such as damages, Section 10 CPC cannot be invoked to stay the proceedings. Instead, courts should consolidate cross-suits under Section 151 CPC to prevent conflicting decisions and avoid multiplicity of litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant a temporary injunction to restrain the encashment of an unconditional insurance guarantee pending resolution of an underlying contract dispute?
  • Does a bank or insurance guarantee constitute an independent contract from the underlying agreement between the parties?
  • Can proceedings in a subsequent suit be stayed under Section 10 CPC if only some, but not all, matters in issue are common to both suits?
  • May a court consolidate cross-suits under Section 151 CPC to prevent conflicting findings when Section 10 CPC is inapplicable?
  Read full judgment →
• Atharuddin Ahmed vs Superintendent Engineer Sukkur Barrage and others2021 SHC 1204 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Ateeq-Ur-Rehman vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 747 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-01
  criminal appealnarcotics possessioncharasreduction of sentencefirst offenderquantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and sentenced to four years and six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether the conviction was sustainable and whether a case was made out for reduction of sentence considering mitigating circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent evidence and a positive forensic report, maintaining the conviction. However, considering that the appellant was a first offender, had already undergone a substantial portion of his sentence, and faced the agony of a protracted trial, the court reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while keeping the fine and default sentence intact. The key principle laid down is that while a conviction for narcotics possession is maintained upon solid proof, appellate courts may temper the quantum of sentence based on mitigating factors such as first-offendedness and time already served.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of narcotics possession beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can the appellate court reduce the quantum of sentence for a first-time offender under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Whether the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to the period already undergone in view of mitigating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Associated Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. through authorized person and another vs Province Of Balochistan through Chief Secretary Balochistan and 4 others2021 PLD Balochistan 157 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-15Read full judgment →
• Associated Agencies Limited and another vs The District Judge Karachi2021 CLC 196 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-30Read full judgment →
• Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd vs Gillapukri Tea Company2021 SCInd 38 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-28Read full judgment →
• Assadullah vs The State2021 MLD 1351 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-03
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealpolice witness reliabilitychain of custodychemical examiner reportControl of Narcotic Substances Actrecovery of contraband
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court, which convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of a large quantity of heroin and charas. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of police witnesses in the absence of independent private witnesses, the impact of alleged delays in sending samples for chemical analysis, and the defense plea that the narcotics were planted. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody and that the forensic report corroborated the police testimony. It affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses whose evidence carries the same weight as private individuals, provided there is no evidence of personal animus. Furthermore, the court ruled that minor discrepancies in testimony do not undermine the prosecution's case and that the recovery of a substantial quantity of narcotics renders the defense of 'foisting' highly improbable, particularly when the chain of custody remains secure.

  Questions settled

  • Are police officials competent witnesses in narcotics cases in the absence of private witnesses?
  • Does a delay in sending contraband samples to the chemical examiner automatically invalidate a conviction?
  • Can the defense of 'foisting' be accepted when a large quantity of narcotics is recovered from the accused?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the testimony of police witnesses regarding the weighing of narcotics invalidate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 889 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-11
  concurrent sentencesmultiple trialssentencingcriminal revisioninherent powersinterpretation of statutes
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner, Asmatullah, seeking the concurrence of his sentences awarded in two separate cases, namely FIR No. 107 of 2017 and FIR No. 108 of 2017 of Police Station Shalkot Quetta, under sections 392 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 respectively. The core legal question involves the interpretation and application of sections 35 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding whether multiple sentences arising from separate trials can be ordered to run concurrently. The Balochistan High Court held that while section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to multiple offences tried at one trial, section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empowers the court to consolidate sentences awarded in different trials. Furthermore, invoking its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court can direct separate sentences to run concurrently, particularly adhering to the principle that penal provisions restricting liberty must be construed strictly in favour of the accused. The petition was accepted, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial, appellate, or revisional courts have the power to order separate sentences awarded in different trials to run concurrently?
  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct sentences from separate trials to run concurrently?
  • How should provisions of criminal law curtailing personal liberty be interpreted when multiple constructions are possible?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah and another vs The State2021 YLR 1368 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-17
  court witnessescriminal proceduresummoning of witnessesSection 540 CrPCjust decisioncriminal trialevidencejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Loralai, which dismissed the petitioners' application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon specific medical records and an eye-witness as court witnesses. The core legal question concerned the scope and mandatory nature of the court's power to summon material witnesses at any stage of a trial. The High Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the application on the grounds of delay and the potential for filling lacunae. The Court emphasized that Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 consists of two parts: a discretionary power and a mandatory obligation. When evidence is essential for a just decision, the court must summon the witness regardless of the stage of proceedings or the risk of filling gaps in the prosecution or defense case. The key principle laid down is that the primary objective of Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is to discover the truth and prevent the punishment of innocent persons, rendering technical objections like delay irrelevant when the evidence is necessary for a just conclusion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court dismiss an application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the ground of delay?
  • Is the power of the court under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon witnesses limited by the stage of the trial?
  • Does the court have a mandatory duty to summon witnesses under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if their evidence is essential for a just decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Asma Parveen vs The Secretary School Education, Civil Secretariat Lahore2022 PLC (C.S.) 1021 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-25
  contractual employmentmaster and servantsuppression of factsconstitutional jurisdictionabuse of processwrit petitionequitable relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges a Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition filed by a contract employee seeking relief regarding her employment termination. The core legal questions were whether a contract employee can invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction for reinstatement and whether the appellant’s suppression of material facts regarding previous litigation warranted the dismissal of her petition. The Court held that the appeal lacked merit and upheld the dismissal. It affirmed that employment under a contract is governed by the principle of master and servant, meaning such employees cannot seek specific performance or reinstatement through constitutional petitions; their sole remedy for wrongful termination is a suit for damages. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 is discretionary and equitable. A petitioner who suppresses material facts or misleads the Court abuses the judicial process, which is sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court reiterated that litigants must approach the bench with clean hands, and the failure to disclose prior proceedings constitutes a reprehensible attempt to thwart the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract employee invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for reinstatement?
  • Does the suppression of material facts in a writ petition justify its dismissal without considering the merits?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a contract employee alleging wrongful termination?
  • Is the principle of master and servant applicable to contractual government employment in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Aslam Parvez (deceased) through legal heirs vs Javed Akhtar & others2021 LHC 2146, 2022 CLC 1628 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
• Aslam Khan vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1018 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-17
  narcotics recoverychain of custodybenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportcriminal appealprosecution evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the possession of 18 kilograms of Charas under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically regarding the chain of custody, the integrity of the recovery process, and the validity of the chemical analysis report. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions between the seizing officer and the marginal witness, the failure to produce the alleged fuel tank used for concealment, and the unexplained delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Furthermore, the Court found the chemical examiner's report defective for failing to provide independent test details for each sample as required by law. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution witnesses contradict each other on material points and procedural protocols—such as the separate analysis of narcotic samples—are not followed, the resulting doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a chemical examiner to provide independent test details for each sample violate the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when prosecution witnesses contradict each other on material aspects of the recovery proceedings?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory create a reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited vs M/s. Fatima Enterprises Limited and others2021 PLJ Lahore 442 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
• Asim Khan and others vs The State through Collector of Customs, Model2021 PTD 1617 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-06
  customs fraudfake E-Formsexport goods declarationforeign exchange remittancecriminal appealacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of several criminal appeals filed against the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under Section 156(I)(14)(14-A) of the Customs Act, 1969 for allegedly exporting goods using fake and fabricated E-Forms, resulting in a failure to remit foreign exchange. The core legal questions pertained to whether the prosecution successfully proved the use of forged E-Forms, whether the trial court had jurisdiction, and whether the essential ingredients of the offense were established. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to bring on record cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the E-Forms were fake, noting significant unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, lack of banker testimony or State Bank verification, and crucial admissions by the investigating officer and complainant undermining the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that mere allegations unsupported by primary documentary proof, independent verification, or the examination of essential witnesses cannot sustain a criminal conviction, rendering it a case of no evidence. The appeals were allowed and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can secure a conviction for the use of fake E-Forms under the Customs Act without producing primary evidence or examining bank officials to prove the forgery?
  • Does a delay of several months in lodging an FIR without plausible explanation prove fatal to the prosecution's case in customs-related offenses?
  • Are customs authorities competent to initiate criminal proceedings for non-remittance of foreign exchange under the Customs Act when verification from the State Bank of Pakistan is lacking?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim Murtaza Khan vs The State through Chairman NAB, Islamabad2021 SCP 354, 2021 PSC 1666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  admissibility of evidencecriminal trialdocumentary evidencerebuttable presumptionaccountability courtwitness authorizationSection 94 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment affirming the dismissal of the petitioner's application under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner, an accused in a corruption reference, objected to the production of documents by a witness (PW-1) from Pakistan Petroleum Limited, arguing the witness lacked proper Board of Directors authorization, rendering the evidence inadmissible. The core legal question was whether such authorization is a mandatory prerequisite for the admissibility of documents produced by a witness in a criminal trial involving a non-banking entity. The Supreme Court held that the admissibility and veracity of evidence, including the necessity of authorization, are matters to be determined by the Trial Court during the proceedings. The Court emphasized that while investigators must collect material, the presumption of genuineness under Article 91 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 is rebuttable. The Court directed the Trial Court to hear and decide the petitioner's objections regarding admissibility in accordance with the law, ensuring that inadmissible evidence does not prejudice the trial, without expressing a final opinion on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a formal authorization from a Board of Directors a mandatory prerequisite for the admissibility of documents produced by a witness in a criminal trial involving a non-banking company?
  • Does the presumption of genuineness under Article 91 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply to documents produced by a witness in a criminal proceeding?
  • Must a Trial Court decide objections regarding the admissibility of evidence immediately when raised by a party during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim Ahmed Afzal vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman2021 PLD Islamabad 323 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-03Read full judgment →
• Asif vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 219 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-07
  test identification paradeocular evidenceforensic evidencecriminal appealacquittalreasonable doubtrecovery evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their convictions and sentences for various offences, including murder and robbery, following a trial court judgment. The prosecution's case rested on an ocular account of an incident where five unknown armed persons allegedly trespassed into a house, committed robbery, and caused fatal and non-fatal firearm injuries. The appellants were identified through a test identification parade. Upon review, the Court found that the complainant had nominated the appellants in an application prior to the identification parade, rendering the parade proceedings legally irrelevant and lacking credibility. Furthermore, the complainant failed to disclose the source of his knowledge regarding the appellants' identities, despite claiming no prior acquaintance. The Court also noted significant discrepancies in the forensic evidence, specifically regarding the handling and transmission of recovered weapon empties to the forensic agency, which undermined the recovery evidence. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The convictions were set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted. The complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a prior nomination of accused persons by the complainant in an application render subsequent test identification parade proceedings irrelevant?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish a clear chain of custody for forensic evidence?
  • Is an ocular account credible when the complainant fails to disclose the source of his knowledge regarding the identity of previously unknown assailants?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Shahzad vs The State2022 YLR 669, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 831 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-10
  benefit of doubtchance witnessesocular accountmedical evidencemurder referencecriminal appealrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the ocular account, the motive, and the recovery of the weapon. The Court held that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case. The ocular account was deemed unreliable as the witnesses were 'chance witnesses' whose presence was not satisfactorily explained and whose testimony conflicted with medical evidence. Furthermore, the motive was unsubstantiated, and the recovery of the weapon was invalidated due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements regarding independent witnesses. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits and that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitting the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account is in direct conflict with medical evidence?
  • Does the testimony of chance witnesses require cautious scrutiny and a satisfactory explanation of their presence at the crime scene?
  • Is a recovery of a weapon valid if the prosecution fails to associate independent witnesses as required by law?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Raza and others vs National Police Foundation (Security Services), Islamabad and another2021 IHC 306 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-23Read full judgment →
• Asif Nasir vs The Deputy Director Nab (R) Sub-Office Gilgit2021 MLD 413 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →
• Asif Mushtaq vs Government of the Punjab, etc2021 [M] CLR 1367, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 324, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 157 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-10
  ad hoc appointmentregularization of serviceconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunalvested righttermination of servicelegitimate expectancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the rejection of the petitioner's claim for regularization as a Hospital Pharmacist (BS-17). The petitioner, initially appointed on an ad hoc basis, was terminated in 2010. Although the Punjab Service Tribunal subsequently deleted the stigma attached to his termination, it upheld the termination itself, a decision that attained finality. The petitioner argued that but for the stigma, he would have been regularized alongside similarly placed employees under the Muhammad Sheraz case. The Court held that the petitioner, having been terminated and not being in service, could not claim regularization. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that it cannot sit as an appellate forum over the Service Tribunal, whose decision regarding the termination remained unchallenged before the Supreme Court. The Court reaffirmed the principle that ad hoc employees possess no vested right to regularization, particularly when they were not in service at the relevant time and failed to meet the established criteria for such relief. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal entitlement to the relief sought.

  Questions settled

  • Can an ad hoc employee claim a vested right to regularization?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to set aside an order of the Service Tribunal via a writ petition?
  • Can an ad hoc employee who was terminated prior to the regularization of similarly placed employees seek reinstatement and regularization?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Masih vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 167 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-17
  unsound mindmental retardationrelease of lunaticpostponement of trialcriminal revisionsafeguard as to arrest and detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Wazirabad, which dismissed the petitioner's application under section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for release from custody during the pendency of his trial under section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an accused suffering from mental disorder or mild mental retardation is entitled to release under section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and postponement of trial when found incapable of making a defense. The Lahore High Court held that since medical boards confirmed the petitioner was suffering from mild mental retardation and incapable of making his defense, keeping him in jail indefinitely violates the principles of natural justice, Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the release of the petitioner upon furnishing sufficient security, or alternatively, detention in safe custody in a hospital for treatment and rehabilitation if security is not provided.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused suffering from mild mental retardation is entitled to release under section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial be postponed when an accused is found incapable of making a defense due to mental unsoundness?
  • What procedure must a court follow when an accused appears to be of unsound mind at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Khan vs The State and others2021 MLD 1192 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-26
  narcoticsrecovery discrepancychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtstandard of proofcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged recovery of 40 Kgs of charas. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt and whether the Chemical Examiner's report met the mandatory procedural requirements. The Court found significant discrepancies between the recovery memo and the physical evidence produced in court, noting that the weight and quantity of the contraband differed substantially from the initial seizure. Furthermore, the Court held that the Chemical Examiner's report was legally deficient for failing to detail the protocols and tests applied, violating the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. Emphasizing that stringent punishments under the Act require strict standards of proof, the Court held that these evidentiary lapses created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release, establishing that a failure to adhere to prescribed chemical analysis procedures renders such reports unreliable for conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant discrepancy between the recovered contraband and the case property produced in court create reasonable doubt?
  • Is a Chemical Examiner's report valid if it fails to specify the protocols and tests applied as required by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Does the failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure for chemical analysis render a report inadmissible for the purposes of conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Khan vs Sher Shah and others2021 P SC (Crl.) 859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-30
  criminal appealmurderacquittalreappraisal of evidenceocular accountleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges relating to murder and connected offences. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in overturning the trial court's conviction based on minor narrative variations in the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the reasons advanced by the High Court were artificial and ran counter to settled principles of criminal justice administration, warranting the Court's intervention to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave and directed the issuance of bailable warrants for the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether narrative variations in evidence are sufficient to overturn a conviction for murder?
  • Does an acquittal based on subjective reasoning warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • How should ocular testimony corroborated by injured witnesses be evaluated in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Iqbal and others vs The State2021 MLD 1783 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-20
  criminal appealanti-terrorismidentification paradeeye-witness testimonybenefit of the doubtacquittaldelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, resulting in a death sentence and imprisonment terms. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was one of the perpetrators who shot and killed the victims. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily because the sole eye-witness testimony suffered from an unexplained delay in recording statements, lack of prior description, and a deeply flawed identification parade. Furthermore, corroborative evidence such as weapon recovery and pointation was found insufficient or legally inadmissible. The court laid down the principle that uncorroborated, delayed eye-witness testimony coupled with defective identification parades creates insurmountable doubt, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt and subsequent acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a belatedly surfaced eye-witness whose identification parade suffers from legal and procedural defects?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in recording a section 161 statement renders an eye-witness's testimony unsafe for reliance?
  • Is a confession made before the police admissible in evidence to secure a conviction?
  • Can incriminating evidence such as a recovered weapon be used against an accused if he was never questioned about it during his section 342 Cr.P.C. examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Hussain and another vs Mst. Bakho alias Bakhto (deceased) through Legal heirs2021 YLR 573 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-09Read full judgment →
• Asif Hussain and 10 others vs Abdul Wali through L.Rs. and 11 others2021 CLC 168 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-24Read full judgment →