Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Asif Ali vs Zafar Iqbal alias Zafri, etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1576 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the respondents, accused of fabricating a fictitious case diary to facilitate the unlawful arrest of the complainant, were entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The High Court held that the bail granted to the primary accused, who was specifically implicated in the FIR for creating the fictitious record, was improperly granted as the lower court failed to exercise its discretion correctly. Consequently, the bail for the primary respondent was cancelled. However, the court maintained the bail for the remaining respondents, finding no evidence of misuse of the concession or specific allegations warranting cancellation. The judgment reinforces that considerations for granting bail differ from those for cancellation, and that specific allegations of forgery against an accused, absent evidence of mala fide by the complainant, necessitate a stricter judicial approach regarding pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Can pre-arrest bail be cancelled if the accused is specifically named in the FIR for fabricating official records?
- Does the standard for granting bail differ from the standard for cancelling bail?
- Is the concession of pre-arrest bail liable to be cancelled if the lower court failed to properly exercise its judicial discretion?
- Asif Ali vs The State & anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C.1649, 2021 PHC 131 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-07Read full judgment →
- Asif Ali Unar vs Province of Sindh and 03 others2021 SHC 552 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-10Read full judgment →
- Asif Ali Unar & 02 others vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2021 SHC 400 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, serving as civil servants, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to challenge a notification regarding their posting and transfer as District Food Controllers and Assistant District Food Controllers. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against the posting and transfer of civil servants in light of the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that matters of transfer and posting constitute terms and conditions of service, thereby ousting the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution in favor of the Sindh Service Tribunal. The court affirmed that transfer and posting are the prerogative of the department under Section 10 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973, while issuing directives to the provincial authorities to ensure transparent wheat disbursement and assign qualified officers.
Questions settled- Does Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants?
- Is transfer and posting considered part of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an order of transfer and posting under Section 10 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Asif Ali and another vs The Inspector General, Pakistan Railway Police, Lahore and others2021 PLJ SC 253, 2021 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the dismissal of service of two Pakistan Railway Police officials who were found guilty of raping a female passenger during their duty escorting a train. The appellants challenged their dismissal, relying on a subsequent statement by the complainant husband claiming his initial complaint was false. The core legal question was whether the departmental dismissal, based on a regular enquiry finding the appellants guilty of rape, could be overturned based on a subsequent pardon granted by the complainant after the appellants swore an oath on the Holy Quran. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, noting that the departmental enquiry had conclusively established the appellants' guilt. The Court held that a complainant's subsequent pardon, motivated by extra-judicial reconciliation, does not invalidate the findings of a properly conducted departmental enquiry into serious misconduct. The principle laid down is that departmental disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings, and findings of guilt in a regular enquiry regarding heinous misconduct cannot be negated by the complainant's subsequent withdrawal or pardon.
Questions settled- Can a departmental dismissal for serious misconduct be overturned solely based on a subsequent pardon by the complainant?
- Does a complainant's withdrawal of allegations after an oath on the Holy Quran invalidate the findings of a regular departmental enquiry?
- Are departmental disciplinary proceedings distinct from criminal proceedings regarding the effect of a complainant's pardon?
- Asif Abbas and 2 others vs State and 2 othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 975 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, who are accused in FIR No. 312/2020 registered at Police Station Tattlay Aali, District Gujranwala, for offences including attempted murder and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of specific firearm injuries attributed to them. The Court, upon reviewing the record, noted that the petitioners were nominated in the FIR, which involved a daylight occurrence, thereby ruling out mistaken identity. The prosecution's case was supported by statements recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and corroborated by medical evidence, establishing sufficient incriminating material on a tentative assessment. The Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect innocent individuals from harassment and false implication. Finding no evidence of malice behind the FIR and sufficient material against the petitioners, the Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming that pre-arrest bail is not a routine relief and requires a demonstration of mala fides or false implication.
Questions settled- Is pre-arrest bail a routine relief available to an accused in a criminal case?
- What is the standard for granting pre-arrest bail when the accused is nominated in the FIR and supported by medical evidence?
- Does the absence of evidence of malice or false implication justify the dismissal of a pre-arrest bail petition?
- Asia Bibi vs The State, etc2021 LHC 1158 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-18Read full judgment →
- Asi Sajjad Ali and 4 others vs The State2021 MLD 25 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal appeals challenge the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 343 and 220 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from an alleged wrongful confinement and illegal arrest at a police station uncovered during a habeas corpus raid. The core legal question is whether the appellants could be convicted when the primary complainant and a key witness turned hostile at trial and failed to identify the accused. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt because the material witnesses did not support the prosecution story, their evidence was unshaken during cross-examination, and significant investigative lacunas existed. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether an accused can be convicted of wrongful confinement and illegal arrest when the complainant and material witnesses turn hostile and fail to identify the accused at trial?
- Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
- Can the contents of an FIR be safely relied upon when the primary witnesses do not support the prosecution's version during trial proceedings?
- Ashraf @ Ashru vs The State2021 SHC 1038 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications filed by the applicant, who was charged with the possession of 1980 grams of Charas and an unlicensed 9mm pistol. The applicant sought bail, arguing innocence, false implication by the police, and the absence of independent witnesses to the recovery. The State opposed the applications, characterizing the applicant as a hardened and habitual offender. The Court examined the record and noted that the applicant was named in the FIR with specific allegations of recovery. The Court held that it would be premature to conclude the applicant was falsely implicated, noting that police officials are competent witnesses. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the duration of custody (three months) warranted bail, particularly given the applicant's status as a habitual offender. The Court concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty of the charged offences and dismissed the bail applications, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings within two months.
Questions settled- Are police officials considered competent witnesses in cases involving the recovery of contraband and unlicensed weapons?
- Does the absence of independent witnesses to a recovery incident automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Can a habitual offender be denied bail solely on the basis of their criminal history and the nature of the allegations?
- Ashok vs The State2021 SHC 66 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs & others vs Muhammad2021 LHC 4964, 2022 MLD 1203 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Masih vs Asghar Gill2021 KLR Civil Cases 61 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Hussain vs Central Depository Company (CDC), etc2021 [M] C L R 1480 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-26Read full judgment →
- Ashfaque alias Shaka vs The State2022 SCMR 915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of the petitioner's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the trial court awarded a death sentence that was subsequently commuted to imprisonment for life by the High Court. The primary legal questions centered on whether the defection of an injured prosecution witness dismantled the prosecution's case, whether the acquittal of co-accused required independent corroboration, and whether a purported delay in conducting the autopsy damaged the prosecution's narrative. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declined leave to appeal. The Court held that the subsequent departure of an injured witness, who had earlier supported the case during initial investigation, does not by itself destroy the prosecution case when other ocular witnesses named in the crime report provide consistent and unblemished testimony. Furthermore, the petitioner was specifically assigned the solitary fatal shot, corroborated by forensic ballistic matching, and the timing of the autopsy was justified as the deceased had survived for a period after the assault.
Questions settled- Does the subsequent defection of an injured witness alone destroy the prosecution's case when other reliable eyewitnesses consistently support the charge?
- Whether the conduct of an autopsy on the day following an occurrence can be treated as fatal prosecution delay where the injured victim survived for a period before succumbing to injuries?
- Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained on the consistent ocular account of eyewitnesses corroboratively supported by a matched weapon recovery despite the acquittal of co-accused?
- Ashfaq Hussain, etc vs Ministry of Human Resource Development, etc2021 IHC 222 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking adjudication of their claims regarding old-age benefits which were allegedly not addressed by the respondent Institution since 2018. During the proceedings, the counsel for the respondent Institution submitted that the petitioners had not filed formal complaints under Section 33 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, but stated that if such complaints were filed, they would be placed before the competent adjudicating authority in accordance with the law. The Court held that grievances must be considered and adjudicated upon in the manner prescribed under the relevant law. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to file their respective complaints under Section 33 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, and directed the competent authority to adjudicate them expeditiously within ninety days.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 be maintained without first exhausting the statutory remedy provided under Section 33 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
- Whether grievances regarding old-age benefits must be adjudicated in the manner prescribed under the relevant statute?
- Ashfaq alias Shaka etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 424 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences awarded by the trial court for offences including murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to establish a common object under Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the appropriateness of capital punishment given the evidentiary gaps regarding motive and recovery. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove a common object among the appellants, necessitating the acquittal of several appellants for murder and the setting aside of convictions linked to Section 149. Regarding the two primary appellants, the Court found the ocular evidence credible but discarded the prosecution's evidence on motive and weapon recovery. Consequently, while maintaining the murder convictions, the Court commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment, citing the principle that uncertainty regarding the immediate cause of the incident and the failure of secondary evidence entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt in sentencing. The principle laid down is that where motive and recovery evidence are unreliable, and common object is unproven, capital punishment is not warranted.
Questions settled- Does the failure to prove a common object under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 necessitate the acquittal of co-accused in a murder case?
- Can death sentences be commuted to life imprisonment when the prosecution's evidence regarding motive and weapon recovery is found unreliable?
- Is the benefit of doubt regarding the immediate cause of an incident applicable to the determination of the quantum of sentence?
- Does the exclusion of motive and recovery evidence automatically invalidate a conviction for murder if ocular testimony remains credible?
- Ashfaq Ahmed, Senior Member Aj&K Service Tribunal Muzaffarabad and 32021 PLJ AJ&K 88 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the statutory three-year tenure and salary structure for the Chairman and Members of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal. The core legal questions were whether the fixed three-year term violates the constitutional principle of judicial independence and whether the salary disparity between judicial officers and advocates appointed to the Tribunal constitutes unlawful discrimination. The Court held that the three-year tenure provision in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, is ultra vires the Constitution, as it subjects members to executive pressure, thereby compromising the independence of the judiciary. Consequently, the Court directed the government to amend the Act to provide for permanent appointments. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the salary disparity between District and Sessions Judges and advocates appointed as members is discriminatory, ordering that the petitioners be remunerated at Grade B-21. The key principle laid down is that for a tribunal to function independently, its members must be appointed on a permanent basis, and equality before the law necessitates uniform remuneration for members performing identical judicial functions.
Questions settled- Is the statutory three-year tenure for the Chairman and Members of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal unconstitutional?
- Does the salary disparity between District and Sessions Judges and advocates appointed as members of the Service Tribunal violate the principle of equality before the law?
- Can the High Court direct the government to amend legislation to ensure the independence of a tribunal?
- Ashfaq Ahmed son of Shah Nawaz Jakhrani vs The State2021 SHC 878 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Ashfaq Ahmed, charged with the murder of his sister under sections 302, 311, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought bail primarily on the ground of an alleged compromise, supported by affidavits from the deceased's parents. The core legal question was whether a second bail application is maintainable based on affidavits of compromise when a previous bail application had already been dismissed by the High Court. The Court held that a subsequent bail application is only maintainable if it discloses fresh grounds not available at the time of the previous dismissal. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court found that the affidavits provided by the parents did not constitute a valid fresh ground, particularly given the prima facie evidence connecting the accused to the heinous offense of honor killing. The Court dismissed the application, emphasizing that attempts to create doubt in the prosecution case via post-event affidavits at the bail stage are deprecated, and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Questions settled- Is a second bail application maintainable if it relies on grounds that were available but not raised during the first bail application?
- Can an accused be granted bail solely on the basis of affidavits of compromise filed by the parents of the deceased in a murder case?
- Does the filing of affidavits by eyewitnesses or legal heirs at the bail stage automatically create sufficient doubt to entitle an accused to bail?
- Asghar Gahejo vs The State2021 SHC 852 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-16Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali and 2 others vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 430 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The prosecution case stemmed from a police raid on a dumper truck wherein thousands of bottles of English wine were allegedly recovered. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given numerous contradictions in witness testimonies, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and sending samples for chemical examination, non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding public witnesses, and failure to produce case property before the court. The Federal Shariat Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants. The court laid down the principle that unexplainable and glaring contradictions among prosecution witnesses, unexplained delays in the chemical examination of recovered contraband, and non-compliance with mandatory search and seizure provisions vitiate the trial and render the prosecution case untrustworthy.
Questions settled- Whether material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the quantity of recovered contraband are fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Does an unexplained and inordinate delay in sending samples for chemical examination vitiate the evidentiary value of the chemical report?
- Is the non-association of private persons as recovery witnesses a fatal flaw resulting in the non-compliance of mandatory procedural safeguards?
- Can a conviction for possession of intoxicants be sustained when the case property or alleged samples are not properly produced and identified before the court during trial?
- Asgar Ali and 2 others vs The State2021 MLD 888 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellants under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The prosecution case stemmed from a police stop of a dumper carrying alleged liquor bottles, leading to the appellants' conviction and sentencing. The core legal questions revolved around whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt, the reliability of contradictory testimonies by police witnesses, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and sending samples for chemical examination, and non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding public witnesses. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case due to glaring contradictions among prosecution witnesses regarding the quantity of recovered items, unexplained delays, lack of safe custody and production of case property, and failure to associate private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants.
Questions settled- Does a significant and unexplained contradiction among prosecution witnesses regarding the quantity of recovered contraband vitiate the conviction?
- Is a conviction sustainable under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 when mandatory provisions regarding the association of private witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are ignored?
- What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending samples to the chemical examiner in a criminal case?
- Can a conviction be upheld when the case property or alleged samples are not produced and identified before the trial court?
- Asfandiyar vs The State and others2021 SCMR 2009, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 15 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction for Qatl-i-amd under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, where the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. The petitioner challenged the conviction on the grounds that it rested upon the testimony of a solitary, related eye-witness, and that the prosecution failed to establish a motive or provide forensic corroboration. The Supreme Court examined whether the testimony of a single witness, being the father of the deceased, was sufficient to sustain a conviction on a capital charge. The Court held that the ocular account was consistent, straightforward, and confidence-inspiring, having been reported promptly without possibility of deliberation. The Court clarified that the law does not require a specific number of witnesses to prove a criminal charge; the testimony of a solitary witness with a ring of truth is sufficient. Corroboration was deemed a rule of prudence rather than an absolute legal requirement. Furthermore, the petitioner's long-standing absconsion supported the hypothesis of guilt. Consequently, the Court declined leave to appeal.
- Asadullah vs The State and another2021 MLD 408 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged the trial court's order allowing the exhibition of the complainant's supplementary statement as evidence. The core legal question was whether a supplementary statement recorded during police investigation holds the status of an FIR or can be exhibited as substantive evidence. The High Court held that the trial court erred in exhibiting the document. It affirmed that a supplementary statement is merely a statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and cannot be equated with an FIR or treated as an extension thereof. The Court further emphasized that trial courts are legally obligated to decide objections regarding the admissibility of evidence immediately when raised, rather than deferring such decisions until the final adjudication of the case. Consequently, the Court sustained the defence's objection, ordered the supplementary statement to be discarded from the complainant's evidence, and set aside the trial court's order, clarifying that such statements cannot be used for purposes other than those provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can a supplementary statement of a complainant recorded during police investigation be exhibited as evidence at trial?
- Is a supplementary statement equivalent to a First Information Report?
- Should a trial court defer decisions on the admissibility of evidence until the final adjudication of a case?
- Asadullah Khawaja vs Investment Corporation Of Pakistan (ICP) through Managing Director2021 PLC (C.S.) 1012 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit was instituted by the plaintiff, a former Managing Director, seeking recovery of service dues and retirement benefits following his voluntary retirement. The core legal question concerned the correct salary basis for calculating these benefits: whether the plaintiff was entitled to the salary drawn at the cut-off date of November 30, 1997, or the lower salary subsequently fixed by the Board of Directors. The court held that the plaintiff’s retirement benefits must be calculated based on the M-1 Management Grade salary fixed by the Board, which the plaintiff had accepted. However, the court ruled that the defendant’s withholding of a portion of the retirement benefits, citing audit objections regarding earlier salary payments, was illegal. The court determined that those earlier payments were "past and closed transactions" and could not be clawed back. Consequently, the suit was partly decreed, ordering the defendant to pay the withheld amount with markup. The judgment emphasizes the principle of acquiescence and the finality of past transactions, noting that an employer cannot unilaterally withhold legitimate dues based on audit objections after a transaction has been settled.
Questions settled- Can an employer unilaterally withhold retirement benefits based on audit objections regarding past salary payments?
- Does the doctrine of acquiescence apply when an employee fails to challenge a salary reduction for a significant period?
- Are salary payments treated as 'past and closed transactions' once approved by the Board and accepted by the employee?
- Is a suit for recovery of service dues maintainable after the abatement of proceedings before the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Asadullah Khan and others vs Abdul Ghafoor Khan and others2022 SCMR 672 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan which were found to be time-barred by 27 and 28 days respectively. The core legal question was whether the appellants could seek condonation of delay after initially filing leave petitions under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, when a direct appeal under Article 185(2)(d) was the competent remedy, and the limitation period for such an appeal had already expired. The Court held that the practice of filing a petition for leave to appeal where a direct appeal is competent, particularly when the direct appeal is already time-barred, constitutes an attempt to circumvent the law. Relying on the principle established in Mst. Gul Jan and others v. Naik Muhammad and others (PLD 2012 SC 1), the Court dismissed the applications for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeals as time-barred, emphasizing that such procedural maneuvers to bypass limitation periods will not be entertained.
Questions settled- Does filing a petition for leave to appeal instead of a competent direct appeal justify condonation of delay when the direct appeal is already time-barred?
- Is the practice of filing a petition for leave to appeal where a direct appeal is competent considered an attempt to circumvent the law?
- Asad Shah vs The State and another2021 YLR 1199 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of a woman, as handed down by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, relying primarily on the testimony of a child witness and circumstantial evidence, including forensic reports. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as the evidence was insufficient and lacked necessary corroboration. The court emphasized that the testimony of a child witness, while potentially admissible, must be treated with extreme caution and requires independent corroboration. Furthermore, the court found that the delayed submission of crime empties to the forensic laboratory significantly weakened the prosecution's case. Additionally, the court ruled that a handwriting expert's report is not admissible per se under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and requires the expert to be examined in court to be considered as valid evidence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of a child witness sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does the delayed submission of crime empties to a forensic laboratory undermine the prosecution's case?
- Is a handwriting expert's report admissible as evidence without the examination of the expert under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Asad Muneer Khan vs The State and others2021 P SC (Crl.) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-05-07Read full judgment →
- Asad Javed vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior2022 PLD Islamabad 206 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-20Read full judgment →
- Asad Imran & another vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore &2021 LHC 7634 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Asad Ali vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Peshawar2021 PTD (Trib.) 1924 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-06-18Read full judgment →
- Asad Ali vs Province of Sindh & 04 others2021 SHC 550 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-08Read full judgment →
- Asad Ali Khan and others vs Province of Punjab through Secretary2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 336, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 770, 2021 P SC 1318, 2021 SCP 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitution petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenged the vires of Section 3 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2019, which dissolved all local governments established under the preceding 2013 Act before the expiry of their five-year term. The petitioners contended that such dissolution violated the constitutional mandate for a third tier of government and infringed upon fundamental rights. The Court examined whether a provincial legislature could prematurely terminate the tenure of elected local bodies through new legislation. The Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the 2019 Act was ultra vires the Constitution. The Court reasoned that Articles 140A, 7, 17, and 32 form a composite scheme for local governance; specifically, the fundamental right to form political parties under Article 17 includes the right of elected representatives to complete their lawful tenure. The Court ruled that premature dissolution without lawful cause disenfranchises voters and violates the constitutional fabric. Consequently, the local governments were restored to complete their remaining terms.
- Ary Communication Ltd. Through Authorized Officer vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Information and Broadcasting and 2 others2021 CLC 1184 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
- Artistic Denim Mills Limited through Chief Executive vs Fatani Impex (Pvt.)2021 CLC 1296 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-02Read full judgment →
- Arshad through Central Prison vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 272 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant by an Anti-Terrorism Court for an alleged police encounter involving firing and illegal arms possession. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt given the significant discrepancies in the evidence. The High Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution's case was a complete fabrication and a worst case of false implication. The court found that the prosecution failed to produce credible evidence of an encounter, as no bullet marks were found at the scene, key police witnesses were withheld, and the death of the co-accused was not medically linked to police firing. The court established that where the prosecution fails to provide evidence of an incident, the accused's version of events—that they were falsely implicated and robbed by police—must be accepted. Furthermore, the judgment emphasized the court's power under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 to hold police officers accountable for defective investigations and breach of duty.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce evidence of the alleged encounter, such as bullet marks or medical reports?
- Does the High Court have the authority to initiate summary proceedings against police officers for defective investigation under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Is the failure of the prosecution to produce material eye-witnesses sufficient to reject the prosecution's version of events?
- Arshad Mehmood Raja and others vs Muhammad Saeed Khan and 32021 PLD Sindh 470 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
- Arshad Anwar Advocate vs State through Advocate General Azad Jammu2021 P SC (Crl.) 852, 2021 YLR 1145 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a common judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which dismissed cross-appeals regarding a conviction under sections 34, 302, 324, 337-F and 506 of the Azad Penal Code (A.P.C.) and section 13 of the Arms Act, 1965. The convict-appellant was alleged to have fired shots at the complainant that missed, causing no injuries, during an armed attack arising out of a land dispute. The core legal questions involved whether the uncorroborated recovery of the weapon without Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) verification and the specific role attributed to the appellant warranted acquittal, sentence reduction, or sentence enhancement. The Supreme Court partly accepted the convict's appeal by modifying the sentence to the period already undergone due to mitigating circumstances—specifically the lack of FSL verification of the weapon and empties and the non-fatal nature of the shots attributed to him—while dismissing the complainant's appeal for sentence enhancement. The Court reaffirmed that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that mitigating factors can influence the quantum of sentence even if direct evidence is otherwise accepted.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to send the recovered crime weapon and crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory constitutes a mitigating circumstance in a criminal trial?
- Can an appellate court modify a sentence to the period already undergone in the presence of mitigating factors regarding the active participation of the accused?
- Does the rejection of a plea of alibi relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
- Arshad alias Goga vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1578 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 1285 grams of charas. The petitioner challenged the prosecution's case on two primary grounds: procedural irregularities regarding the investigation conducted by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector, in violation of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and the contention that the quantity recovered constitutes a borderline case between clauses (b) and (c) of Section 9 of the Act. The Court held that the investigation by an officer below the prescribed rank, combined with the borderline quantity of the narcotic substance, rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that mere involvement in other criminal cases, without conviction, does not disentitle an accused to bail. Emphasizing that personal liberty is a guaranteed constitutional right, the Court granted the bail, noting that tentative assessment favored the petitioner and that incarceration should not be used as a punitive measure before trial.
Questions settled- Does an investigation conducted by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector in a narcotics case constitute a ground for further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the recovered quantity of narcotics falls in the borderline range between clauses (b) and (c) of Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Does the mere involvement of an accused in other criminal cases, without conviction, disentitle them to the concession of bail?
- Arshad Ali Tabssum vs Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others2015 PLC (C.S.) 166, 2022 KLR Labour & Services Cases 148 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 2014-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed against the termination of a probationer judicial officer's services, which was ordered by the competent authority following an incident where the officer allegedly slapped a subordinate and brandished a firearm. The appellant challenged the termination, arguing that once disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the authority was legally bound to conclude them rather than resorting to termination simplicitor, and that the termination order stigmatized his career. The core legal question was whether the authority could validly terminate a probationer under Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, after initially contemplating an inquiry, and whether such termination constituted an illegal stigma. The Tribunal held that the authority acted within its legal parameters. It determined that the appellant's conduct was unbecoming of a judicial officer and that the authority was entitled to opt for termination simplicitor under the statute to avoid stigmatizing the officer. The Tribunal affirmed that the authority is not precluded from exercising its statutory power of termination simply because an inquiry was initially contemplated, especially when the officer's conduct renders him unsuitable for judicial service.
Questions settled- Can a competent authority terminate a probationer judicial officer under Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 after initially initiating an inquiry?
- Does a termination order passed under Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 necessarily constitute a stigma?
- Is an authority legally precluded from changing the procedure of disciplinary action once it has been initiated against a probationer?
- Arshad Ali Khan vs FBR and Others2021 SHC 658, 2025 PTD 248 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
- Arsallah vs The State2021 SHC 680, 2022 YLR 679 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism convicting the appellant for murder, attempt to murder, and other offenses arising out of a police encounter. The core legal question is whether the appellant can be convicted on the same set of evidence and facts for which his co-accused have already been acquitted by the High Court. The Sindh High Court held that since the prosecution evidence—consisting of untrustworthy ocular accounts and uncorroborated recoveries—was already found insufficient to prove the guilt of twenty-six co-accused beyond reasonable doubt, and no distinguishing features existed in the appellant's case, he was equally entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The court laid down the principle that an accused whose case is based on the same set of evidence as that of acquitted co-accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of consistency, unless there are distinguishing features establishing his guilt.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to acquittal when twenty-six co-accused facing the same charges and tried on the same set of evidence have already been acquitted?
- Does an unreliable and inconsistent ocular account from police officials without proper identification of the accused warrant a conviction?
- Can unverified recoveries of weapons and motor-cycles unsupported by ballistic reports or registration records be used to sustain a conviction?
- Arsalan vs The State and 2 others2021 MLD 461 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bannu, convicting the appellant, Arsalan, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Uman Ali Shah, alongside convictions under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully established guilt through ocular evidence, corroborated by forensic and medical reports, and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution’s case was consistent, with the ocular account corroborated by medical evidence and the forensic report matching the crime weapon to the empties. The court affirmed the conviction and confirmed the death sentence, noting the brutality of the act. The judgment reinforces the principle that mere relationship of witnesses does not render them interested if their testimony is unbiased and consistent. Furthermore, it establishes that the absence or insufficiency of motive does not mitigate the penalty for a proven case of qatl-e-amd, and that delays in forensic analysis do not necessarily invalidate otherwise reliable ocular evidence.
Questions settled- Does the mere relationship of an eye-witness to the deceased render their testimony unreliable or interested?
- Can the absence or insufficiency of motive serve as a mitigating circumstance for the penalty in a proven case of qatl-e-amd?
- Does a delay in sending the crime weapon and empties for forensic analysis automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Is the death sentence appropriate for a murder committed during the commission of a robbery?
- Arsalan Khan vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 954 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
- Arsalan Hassan vs Province Of Sindh and others2021 SHC 950 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
- Arif Irfan vs Sharif Peeran Ditta2021 CLC 1008 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-19Read full judgment →
- Arbab Nizam Ud Din Kasi vs Government Of Balochistan through Chief2022 YLR 110 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
- Arbab Chachar vs Province of Sindh2021 SHC 1208 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
- Arbab Altaf Qadir vs Auqaf2021 PHC 396, 2022 CLC 644, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 39 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-09Read full judgment →
- Aqsa Jawed through Attorney vs Muhammad Hassan and others2021 CLC 1780 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-18Read full judgment →
- Aqib Saleem vs The State and others2021 MLD 1332, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 238 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Aqib Saleem, who was accused of committing sodomy under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary material available at the pre-trial stage. Upon reviewing the record, the Court noted that the medical examination of the victim revealed no signs of injury or violence in the anal canal, and the DNA test report was negative. Furthermore, the petitioner had been incarcerated since December 2020, and the investigation was complete, rendering his continued detention unnecessary. The Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds. The Court emphasized that the observations made were tentative in nature and restricted solely to the disposal of the bail application, ensuring they would not prejudice the trial proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the absence of physical injury and a negative DNA report in a sodomy case constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for custodial interrogation?
- Aqib Saleem vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 979 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of sodomy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the evidentiary material available at the pre-trial stage. Upon review, the Court noted that the medical examination of the victim revealed no signs of injury or violence in the anal region, and the DNA test report was negative. Furthermore, the petitioner had no prior criminal record of a similar nature and was no longer required for investigation purposes. 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. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where medical and forensic evidence fails to corroborate the prosecution's allegations, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.
Questions settled- Does the absence of physical injury and a negative DNA report in a sodomy case constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when they are no longer required for investigation and the prosecution's evidence is inconclusive?
- Aqib Javed & another vs Higher Education Commission of Pakistan & 72021 MLD 1559, 2021 LHC 987 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-25Read full judgment →
- Aqib Javed & 3 others vs The State2021 LHC 2707 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for abduction for ransom under Section 365-A PPC, Section 337-L(II) PPC, and Section 7-E of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution's evidence regarding the payment of ransom in the presence of police without arresting the culprits, the credibility of recoveries of currency notes and firearms, the legality and proper conduct of identification parades, and the admissibility of computer-generated Call Data Records. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inherent contradictions, serious procedural flaws in the identification parades, doubtful recoveries, and failure to prove the electronic evidence in accordance with law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the trial court's judgment was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges, laying down the principle that the heinousness of an offence does not substitute for qualitative proof, and the benefit of doubt must always be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution can secure a conviction under Section 365-A PPC when the circumstances surrounding the alleged payment of ransom and the non-arrest of culprits by present police officials are unnatural and doubtful?
- What are the mandatory procedural requirements for holding a valid judicial identification parade under the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders and the Police Rules, 1934?
- How must computer-generated Call Data Records (CDRs) be formally proved in evidence during a criminal trial?
- Can the heinousness of an offence alone serve as a ground to sustain a conviction when the prosecution evidence suffers from serious lacunas and infirmities?
- Aqib Ali vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1407 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition and connected criminal miscellaneous application challenge orders passed by the Trial Court allowing the prosecution to collect further samples from recovered contraband for chemical analysis. The core legal question concerns the jurisdiction of the Trial Court to permit re-sampling after investigation is complete and an FSL report is already on record. The Peshawar High Court held that allowing further samples after the initial chemical examiner's report has been prepared amounts to permitting the prosecution to fill gaps and lacunas in its case, which is contrary to the law laid down by the apex Court. The Court ruled that once initial samples are collected and analyzed, any ambiguity in the report must be resolved by summoning the Government Analyst under the Code of Criminal Procedure, rather than conducting a fresh test or re-sampling. Consequently, the impugned orders of the Trial Court were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the Trial Court has jurisdiction to allow the prosecution to collect further samples from recovered contraband for chemical analysis after the initial FSL report is available?
- Does allowing fresh samples and re-testing amount to filling gaps and lacunas in the prosecution case?
- How can ambiguities in a Government Analyst's report be legally resolved by the Trial Court?
- Aparna Bhat & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr2021 SCInd 164 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that imposed a condition requiring an accused charged with sexual offences against a woman to visit the complainant's house to have a rakhi tied and make a monetary payment. The core legal question concerned the legality and propriety of imposing patriarchal, irrelevant, or compromise-based conditions for bail in sexual assault cases. The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal, set aside the offending bail conditions, and held that courts must strictly avoid judicial stereotyping, victim-blaming, and notions of compromise or marriage between the accused and the survivor in sexual offence cases. The Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for bail adjudication in crimes against women, prohibiting any contact between the accused and victim, barring orders encouraging compromise or mediation, and mandating gender sensitization modules in judicial and legal training.
Questions settled- Whether courts can impose conditions requiring the accused to visit the survivor or engage in customary rituals like tying a rakhi as a condition for granting bail?
- Can a compromise or marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix be considered a valid judicial remedy in cases of rape and sexual assault?
- What are the parameters and limitations of the discretionary powers of courts to impose conditions when granting bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- How does judicial stereotyping and the propagation of rape myths impact the fairness of criminal proceedings and a survivor's access to justice?
- Anwara Beghum vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior Islamabad and others2021 SHC 110 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
- Anwar Zaib vs Returning Officer/The Cantonment Executive Officer Clifton2021 SHC 330 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Anwar Syed vs The State through Additional Advocate General, Khyber2021 P Cr. L J 232 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for severing the complainant's ear. The core legal questions were whether the amputation of an ear constitutes Itlaf-i-udw under Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether a sentence of imprisonment (Ta'zir) can be imposed in addition to Arsh under Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 absent evidence that the offender is a habitual or hardened criminal. The Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction, ruling that the definition of Itlaf-i-udw under Section 333 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 covers the severing of an ear regardless of whether the entire hearing system is destroyed. However, the Court set aside the four-year imprisonment sentence. Relying on the principle established in Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Court held that imprisonment as Ta'zir in hurt cases is restricted to specific categories of offenders, such as habitual or hardened criminals. As the prosecution failed to prove the appellant fell within these categories, the sentence of imprisonment was set aside, while the liability for Arsh was maintained.
Questions settled- Does the amputation of an ear constitute the offence of Itlaf-i-udw under Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a court impose a sentence of imprisonment (Ta'zir) in addition to Arsh for hurt offences under Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the offender is not a habitual or hardened criminal?
- Does the absence of proven motive adversely affect the prosecution's case when the offence is otherwise proved?
- Anwar Shaheen and another vs The State and another2021 SCMR 1032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the Peshawar High Court's order refusing them post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail based on the material available on the record. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the deceased and the injured victim each sustained only one firearm injury. Crucially, while the case involved four accused, one co-accused was found innocent during the investigation. Furthermore, the State confirmed that no recoveries were made from the petitioners, whereas a weapon matching the crime scene evidence was recovered from another co-accused. The Court held that these circumstances rendered the petitioners' case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the petitioners, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Questions settled- Does the absence of recovery from an accused justify the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if a co-accused with similar allegations has been found innocent during the investigation?
- Anwar Mehmood vs Shakeel Qadir Chief Secretary and 2 others2021 PLJ AJ&K 69, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1246 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-06-19Read full judgment →
- Anwar Khan vs Mst. Bholi Bibi through L.Rs. and another2022 MLD 25 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-19Read full judgment →
- Anwar Badshah vs The State and another2021 PHC 312 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
- Anwar Ali vs Tariq Mehmood Khoso and 2 others2021 CLC 145 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
- Anwar Ali son of Rajab Ali vs The State through Chairman NAB2022 P Cr.L J 65, 2021 SHC 1052 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal accountability appeal challenges the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellant under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for offences of corruption and corrupt practices under Section 9(a)(vi) and (xii) of the Ordinance, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and fines. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the initial burden of proof regarding misappropriation and mens rea, and whether the statutory presumption under Section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, could shift the onus onto the accused without a prima facie case. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts or prove criminal intent (mens rea) and nexus between the appellant and co-accused who settled via plea bargain. The court ruled that the initial burden of proof always rests on the prosecution and cannot be shifted under Section 14 unless a reasonable case is first made out. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt, laying down principles regarding the standard of proof in accountability cases and the necessity of proving mens rea for misuse of authority.
Questions settled- Does Section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 relieve the prosecution of its initial burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
- Whether proof of mens rea is an essential ingredient for establishing an offence of corruption and corrupt practices under Section 9(a)(vi) and (xii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- Can a conviction for misuse of authority be sustained in the absence of evidence showing a guilty mind or personal financial gain?
- What is the effect on the prosecution's case when co-accused settle liabilities through plea bargain without establishing a clear nexus with the remaining accused?
- Anwaar-Ul-Haq vs Judicial Magistrate, P.S. Ramna, Islamabad and 32021 P Cr. L J 705, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 1 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the acquittal of respondents by the Judicial Magistrate in a case involving Sections 489-F and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a dispute over unpaid vehicle rentals and a dishonored cheque. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust and the dishonest issuance of a cheque. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that mere non-payment of rent or breach of a rental contract does not constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406, which requires proof of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation. Furthermore, the court found the prosecution failed to establish the dishonest intention required for Section 489-F. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in appeals against acquittal, a double presumption of innocence exists, and appellate interference is only warranted if the trial court’s findings are perverse, illegal, or suffer from significant misreading of evidence, which was not the case here.
Questions settled- Does the mere non-payment of rent under a vehicle rental agreement constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What are the essential ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
- Is a guarantor liable for the payment of rent under a contract where the primary obligation lies with the hirer?
- Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala vs State of Gujarat2021 SCInd 22 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat upholding the appellant's conviction under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for kidnapping a minor, while setting aside his conviction under Section 376 for rape due to an established consensual affair. The core legal questions involved whether a consensual relationship or infatuation can serve as a valid defense against the charge of kidnapping a minor, and whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate given the unique circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court of India held that under Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a minor's consent or infatuation is immaterial and cannot constitute a valid defense, as minors are deemed incapable of giving lawful consent and the statute aims to protect them from enticement regardless of their willingness. Consequently, the conviction for kidnapping was upheld. However, considering mitigating factors including the lack of force, the young age of the accused at the time, the passage of over twenty-two years, subsequent rehabilitation, and the lack of recidivism, the Court invoked the principle of sentencing proportionality and reduced the appellant's sentence to the period of incarceration already undergone.
Questions settled- Whether a consensual affair or infatuation by a minor girl can serve as a valid defense against the charge of kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code 1860?
- Does the consent of a minor below eighteen years of age hold any relevance in determining the offense of kidnapping under Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code 1860?
- Whether an appellate court can reduce a sentence to the period already undergone based on mitigating factors such as the passage of time, the accused's young age at the time of the offense, and subsequent rehabilitation?
- Anti-Narcotics Force (Anf), Regional Directorate (North) Rawalpindi2021 P Cr. L J 1520 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was preferred by the Anti-Narcotics Force against an order passed by the Special Court (CNS), Islamabad, which had dismissed an application filed by the prosecution under section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 seeking to summon a forensic chemical analysis expert. The core legal question revolved around whether a trial court is precluded from summoning a Government Analyst to clarify ambiguities or omissions in a chemical report regarding tests and protocols applied, and whether doing so amounts to improperly allowing the prosecution to fill a lacuna in its case. The Islamabad High Court held that while a fresh test cannot be conducted or a new report prepared, the trial court is not precluded from summoning the chemical analyst along with the existing record under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 or the proviso to section 510 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 to remove ambiguities and provide clarifications, provided it is essential for the just decision of the case and does not constitute filling an inherent weakness or irretrievable lacuna. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court can summon a Government Analyst under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to clarify ambiguities in a chemical report?
- Does summoning a chemical analyst to explain an existing report amount to allowing the prosecution to fill a lacuna in its case?
- What are the essential requirements that must be contained in the report of a Government Analyst under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Ansar Iqbal and others vs Muhammad Ahsan Khan and others2021 CLC 1394 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts in a suit for possession through partition, whereby a preliminary decree was passed and the appeal against it was dismissed. The core legal question concerned the rights of a vendee who purchases a share of property from a co-sharer during the pendency of a partition suit and whether such a vendee can reopen a past and closed transaction where the vendor did not challenge the preliminary decree. The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision, holding that a vendee steps into the shoes of the transferor co-sharer, acquiring no more and no less rights, and is bound by the unchallenged preliminary decree which has attained finality. The key legal principle laid down is that the alienation of a specific portion of joint property by a co-sharer entitles the vendee only to retain ostensible possession subject to adjustment upon a final legal partition by metes and bounds, and such vendee cannot challenge a preliminary decree accepted by their vendor.
Questions settled- Does a vendee who purchases property from a co-sharer during the pendency of a partition suit step into the shoes of the transferor with identical rights?
- Can a vendee challenge a preliminary decree for partition that was accepted by their vendor and thus attained finality?
- What are the rights of a vendee regarding possession when specific portions of undivided joint property are alienated by a co-sharer?
- Under what circumstances can concurrent findings of fact regarding a preliminary decree be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction?
- Anjum Sarwar Butt and another vs Addl. District Judge, Gujranwala and others2021 LHC 7797 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Anjum Badar vs Province Of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 2 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1040, 2021 PLD Sindh 328 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses constitutional petitions filed by temporary contractual employees seeking regularization of their services in BPS-17 under Section 3 of The Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013. The core legal questions involve whether contractual employees in BS-16 and above can be regularized without a competitive selection process through the Sindh Public Service Commission, whether such regularization bypasses constitutional commands and Supreme Court precedents, whether contractual employees hold a vested right to regularization, and whether Section 3 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution to that extent. The court held that contract employees governed by master-servant principles have no vested right to regularization or to invoke constitutional jurisdiction for that purpose, and a writ of mandamus cannot issue. Furthermore, the court held that initial appointments or regularizations in BS-16 and above must mandatorily pass through the Sindh Public Service Commission pursuant to Articles 240 and 242 of the Constitution, making Section 3 of the 2013 Act ultra vires the Constitution to the extent it permits regularization without such competitive process. The petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether temporary employees appointed on contract in BS-16 and above can be deemed to have been validly appointed on regular basis without going through the competitive selection process through the Sindh Public Service Commission?
- Whether the mandatory requirement of competitive selection through the Sindh Public Service Commission for appointments in BS-16 and above can be bypassed by Section 3 of The Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013?
- Whether contractual employees have any vested right for regular appointment or to claim regularization, and whether a writ of mandamus can be issued against the Government?
- Whether Section 3 of The Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, to the extent of regularization in BS-16, 17, and 18 without the competitive process through the Sindh Public Service Commission, is ultra vires the Constitution?
- Anis Haroon & others vs Federation of Pakistan and The Secretary, Ministry2021 SHC 52, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 307 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Constitutional petition in the nature of quo warranto challenging the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the United Nations on contract basis. The petitioners contended that the post fell under Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act 1973, prohibiting post-retirement re-employment without prior approval, and that under the ratio of Mustafa Impex, the appointing authority was the Federal Cabinet under Article 90 of the Constitution rather than the Prime Minister alone. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that foreign policy decisions and ambassadorial appointments lie within the executive domain and are non-justiciable. The Court determined that contractual appointment of a non-career Head of Mission does not constitute re-employment of a retired civil servant under Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act 1973. Furthermore, under Rule 15(1)(g)(h) and Schedule V-A of the Rules of Business 1973, the Prime Minister is the competent authority for making ambassadorial appointments, distinguishing this case from the Mustafa Impex precedent.
Questions settled- Is the appointment of an Ambassador or Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations a policy matter amenable to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Does the contractual appointment of a non-career Head of Mission constitute prohibited re-employment of a retired civil servant under Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Is the Prime Minister the competent authority under Rule 15 and Schedule V-A of the Rules of Business 1973 to appoint a Head of Mission, or is approval of the full Federal Cabinet required?
- Anees vs Province of Sindh and Others2021 SHC 322, 2022 PLD Sindh 151 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-30Read full judgment →
- Amsons Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 1076, PTCL 2022 CL 403, 2022 PTD 212 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Plaintiff, a textile manufacturer, filed a civil suit challenging the withdrawal of its zero-rated sales tax facility by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) through Sales Tax General Orders (STGOs) and a subsequent gas billing dispute. The core legal question was whether the suit was maintainable given the Plaintiff’s prior unsuccessful challenge to the same STGOs in a constitutional petition and the existence of a pending appeal regarding the alleged misuse of the facility. The Court held that the suit was not maintainable. It determined that the challenge to the STGOs was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata and the doctrine of election, as the Plaintiff had previously sought the same relief in a constitutional petition which was not granted. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the gas billing dispute was a consequential matter lacking independent maintainability and subject to a specific regulatory forum. The judgment reaffirms that a party cannot re-agitate matters already adjudicated or abandoned in prior proceedings and that the FBR possesses the inherent power to rescind orders under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 authorize the Federal Board of Revenue to rescind a previously granted zero-rated sales tax facility?
- Is a civil suit maintainable to challenge administrative orders when the same relief was previously sought and not granted in a constitutional petition?
- Does the doctrine of election prohibit a suitor from initiating a civil suit after having previously invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for the same relief?
- Can a gas billing dispute be adjudicated in a civil suit when a special remedy is provided under the Complaint Resolution Procedure for Natural Gas, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and refined oil products Regulations, 2003?
- Amruta Ben Himanshu Kumar Shah vs Himanshu Kumar Pravinchandra2021 SCInd 44 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-29Read full judgment →
- Ample Securities (Pvt.) Ltd vs Commissioner (Securities Market Division), SECP2021 CLD 855 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2020-02-28Read full judgment →
- Amna Nawaz vs District Judge and others2021 YLR 2030 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-24Read full judgment →
- Ammer Bakhsh through L.Rs vs Muhammad Zubair through Legal Heirs and others2021 MLD 1974 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-11Read full judgment →
- Amjid Khan vs The State through A.G. KPK, etc2021 SCMR 1458, 2021 SCP 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the inordinate delay by the prosecution in submitting the investigation report (challan) to the trial court, contrary to statutory mandates. The core legal question was whether the Prosecution Department’s internal processing of investigation reports justifies delaying their submission to the court beyond the timelines prescribed by law. The Supreme Court held that the Prosecution’s interpretation—that submitting a report to the Prosecution Department satisfies the legal requirement—is erroneous. The Court clarified that Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandates the submission of the report to the Magistrate or Court, not merely the Prosecution. The Court emphasized that the Prosecution Institution was established to ensure speedy justice, not to create hurdles. It was further held that unjustified delays in filing investigation reports violate the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process. The Court directed the Prosecution to proceed expeditiously with the trial, noting that failure to do so may invite appropriate action by the Trial Court against recalcitrant officials.
Questions settled- Does the submission of an investigation report to the Prosecution Department satisfy the statutory requirement for filing a challan in court?
- Does the delay in the submission of an investigation report violate the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process?
- Is the Prosecution Institution authorized to delay the submission of investigation reports to the court for internal processing?
- Amjid Khan vs The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2021 SCMR 1458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition concerning the non-compliance of a High Court direction requiring the prosecution to submit an investigation report (challan) within one week and expedite the trial. The Additional Advocate General argued that compliance under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was satisfied when the police submitted the challan to the Prosecution department. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, holding that Section 173 requires the report to be submitted to the Magistrate or Court through the Public Prosecutor, and not merely lodged with the prosecution department. The Court observed that failure to submit an investigation report within fourteen days, or an interim report within three days thereafter, violates the mandatory statutory provisions and undermines the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution. Since the challan was eventually submitted, the petition was disposed of with directions to proceed expeditiously.
Questions settled- Does mere submission of an investigation report to the Public Prosecutor satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the statutory timeframe under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for submitting an interim investigation report if the investigation is incomplete?
- Does an unjustifiable delay in the submission of an investigation report (challan) violate the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution?
- Amjad Siddique vs SNGPL and others2022 MLD 112 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-03Read full judgment →
- Anwar Hussain vs The State, etc2021 PLD Lahore 768, 2021 LHC 2420 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges the sentence of a fine imposed on the petitioner following his conviction under Section 6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The petitioner was convicted in a private complaint for violating family law provisions, receiving a sentence of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500,000. While the appellate court reduced the imprisonment to the period already undergone, it maintained the fine. The core legal question was whether the court possesses the discretion to reduce the quantum of the fine imposed under the amended law. The Lahore High Court held that the amendment introduced by the Punjab Muslim Family Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, made the imposition of a Rs. 500,000 fine mandatory upon conviction. The court reasoned that while the legislature retained judicial discretion regarding the duration of imprisonment, it explicitly removed discretion concerning the fine. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, affirming that the statutory requirement for the fine is absolute and leaves no room for judicial reduction or waiver.
Questions settled- Does a court have the discretion to reduce the quantum of a fine imposed under Section 6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, as amended by the Punjab Muslim Family Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015?
- Is the imposition of a fine of Rs. 500,000 mandatory for a conviction under Section 6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, following the 2015 amendment?
- Amjad Mustafa Malik vs Director General, National Accountability Bureau2021 PLD Islamabad 266 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
- Amjad Hussain and 9 others vs Arif Ali Abbasi and another2021 MLD 1384 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-01Read full judgment →
- Amjad and another vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1686 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302(b), 377, and 341 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the abduction, sodomy, and murder of an 11-year-old boy. The core legal questions involve the assessment of eyewitness testimony from close relatives, the evidentiary value of delayed FIRs, medical and forensic corroboration regarding sodomy and weapon pointation, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the eyewitness testimonies were reliable, trustworthy, and duly corroborated by medical evidence, positive chemical reports, and recovery of weapons on the appellants' pointation. The court dismissed the appeals, maintained the convictions, and confirmed the death sentence, ruling that the brutal nature of the crime warranted a deterrent sentence with no leniency.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can form the basis of a conviction in a murder and sodomy case without independent corroboration?
- Does a delay in lodging the FIR automatically render the prosecution case doubtful?
- Whether recovery of crime weapons on the pointation of the accused constitutes reliable incriminating evidence?
- Does the brutal and callous manner of committing murder and sodomy justify the imposition of the death penalty?
- Amjad Ali vs Munir Ahmad and others2021 YLR 669 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
- Amjad Ali vs Director Administration LDA, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 341 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a retired employee of the Lahore Development Authority seeking a direction for regularization of his service retrospectively from his initial appointment date (08.09.2007) instead of 06.04.2010, specifically to attain the requisite qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The petitioner alleged unlawful discrimination, claiming that 203 other employees had been regularized from their initial appointments. The respondents contended that the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis and subsequently regularized under specific terms and conditions, including an express condition that contract service would not count towards pension or gratuity, which he had fully accepted. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's regularization was conditional and accepted without objection, barring him under the principle of acquiescence from claiming contrary benefits. The Court further ruled that no discrimination existed, as contract employees formed a distinct class from work-charge employees, and found no illegality in denying the retrospective pensionary benefits.
Questions settled- Can an employee challenge the terms of a regularization order after having accepted them without objection?
- Does the principle of acquiescence bar a regularized employee from seeking to count their prior contract service period toward pensionary benefits contrary to agreed terms?
- Can contract employees claim unlawful discrimination in regularization terms by comparing themselves to work-charge employees?
- Amjad Ali and another vs The Collector Of Customs, Adjudication, Islamabad and 2 others2022 PTD (Trib.) 427 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
- Amir Zada and others vs Mian Zamin Khan 4nd others2021 CLC 2042 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the determination of the appropriate appellate forum following the enactment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, which altered pecuniary jurisdiction for civil suits and appeals. The core legal question was whether the new provisions, which effectively expanded the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court, applied retrospectively to pending appeals. The Court held that the amendment, being procedural in nature, operates retrospectively. It reasoned that changes in the forum of appeal do not affect vested substantive rights but merely regulate procedure. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the non-obstante clause in the newly substituted Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, overrides conflicting provisions in the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. Consequently, the Court directed the transfer of the pending appeals to the respective District Courts, affirming that the new jurisdictional limits apply to these cases. The principle established is that procedural amendments altering the forum of litigation apply retrospectively unless expressly excluded.
Questions settled- Does a change in the forum of appeal brought about by a legislative amendment apply retrospectively to pending cases?
- Does the non-obstante clause in the substituted Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, override the pecuniary limits set by the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962?
- Is a statute that alters the forum of litigation considered a procedural law?
- Amir vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 581 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Amir, under Section 302(b) and Section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence and imprisonment respectively. The core legal questions involve the reliability of the ocular and medical evidence, the establishment of the motive, the evidentiary value of a delayed weapon recovery, and whether extenuating circumstances warrant the mitigation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Lahore High Court held that the direct ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence, was sufficient to maintain the conviction for murder and house trespass, notwithstanding the unproven motive and inconsequential delayed recovery of the weapon. However, the court ruled that the absence of a proved motive, the lack of weapon recovery corroboration, and the infliction of a single injury without repetition constituted mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the High Court maintained the conviction but altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life, answering the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Whether an unproven motive and a delayed weapon recovery constitute extenuating circumstances sufficient to convert a death sentence into imprisonment for life?
- Does the close relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased render their testimony inherently unreliable or inadmissible?
- Can a conviction for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the basis of ocular and medical evidence when the weapon recovery is inconsequential?
- What is the evidentiary value of a delayed recovery of a crime weapon when sent to the forensic agency after a prolonged period?
- Amir Saleem vs Abdul Rehman, etc2021 LHC 7219, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 748 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the recovery of live hand grenades and whether the ingredients constituting offenses under the Anti-Terrorism Act and section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act were fulfilled without proof of mens rea for terrorism or intent to cause an explosion. The Lahore High Court held that while the recovery of active explosives was established through forensic and expert evidence, the prosecution failed to prove intent to cause an explosion or membership in a proscribed organization, rendering convictions under section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act unsustainable. Consequently, the court set aside those convictions, upheld the conviction under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the appellants' status as first-time offenders. The key principle laid down is that possession of explosive substances without established mens rea or nexus to terrorist activities does not attract terrorism charges or convictions under penal provisions requiring specific intent.
Questions settled- Whether possession of explosive substances alone without proof of intent to cause an explosion is sufficient to sustain a conviction under section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
- Does the absence of evidence regarding membership in a proscribed organization vitiate a conviction under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Can appellate courts reduce a sentence to the period already undergone by considering the lack of previous criminal record and status as a first-time offender?
- Whether the expert testimony and forensic reports are sufficient to prove that recovered hand grenades contained active explosive material at the time of recovery?
- Amir Nawaz vs Pakistan & others2021 SHC 198 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-22Read full judgment →
- Amir Masih vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 101 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing rape and sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case was that the appellant scaled the wall of the complainant's house at night, entered the premises, and committed sexual assault on the victim, upon whose hue and cry the appellant was apprehended at the spot by the family members and taken to the police station. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular and medical evidence, notwithstanding the inconsistent defence pleas of prior intimacy or being called to pay rent. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution proved its case through natural and confidence-inspiring testimony of eyewitnesses supported by medical evidence and immediate apprehension at the scene, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the uncontradicted ocular testimony of eyewitnesses who apprehended the accused red-handed is sufficient to maintain a conviction under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does a negative forensic report regarding seminal material vitiate the prosecution case where the accused was apprehended prior to ejaculation during the commission of the offence?
- Whether shifting and contradictory defence pleas taken during cross-examination can weaken the prosecution's case in a charge of sexual assault?
- Amir Ali vs Gul Shaker & Ors.2021 SHC 702 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-13Read full judgment →
- Amir Akber Khan vs NAB & others2021 SHC 1046 · 0 · 2021-04-26Read full judgment →
- Amir Abbas Minhas vs Deputy Commissioner Chakwal and another2021 LHC 1827 · 0 · 2021-06-09Read full judgment →
- Amina Khatoon (Widow) vs Member (Judicial-III), Board Of Revenue, Punjab and 7 others2021 PLJ Lahore 182 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Amer Zeb Khan vs The State and another2021 PHC 304, 2022 MLD 282 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-22Read full judgment →
- Ameet Kumar and 04 others vs The Chief Secretary Government of Sindh2021 SHC 824 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-26Read full judgment →
- Ameer Maviya @ Maviya & Others vs The State2021 SHC 915 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by the applicants seeking confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail after the trial court rejected their application regarding an FIR registered under Sections 324, 506/2, 337-A(i), 337-F(ii), 337-H(ii), 504, and 35 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants were accused of attacking two individuals, causing injuries with sharp and blunt weapons. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the allegations and the medical evidence. The Court held that the applicants were not entitled to pre-arrest bail, noting that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's version, the offenses fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the recovery of crime weapons necessitated custodial investigation. The Court affirmed that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy meant to protect the innocent from false implication and humiliation, not to subvert investigative processes, and that murderous assault under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not distinguish between vital and non-vital body parts.
Questions settled- Does a murderous assault under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require the injury to be on a vital part of the body?
- Is pre-arrest bail available when the alleged offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted to subvert or undermine the investigative process?
- Does the need for recovery of crime weapons justify the denial of pre-arrest bail?
- Ameer Hussain vs Government of Punjab etc2021 LHC 1226, 2021 PLD Lahore 699, 2022 PLJ Lahore 382 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-24Read full judgment →