Latest Judgments

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

• Ameer Bux alias Luqoo Bangwar vs The State2021 SHC 864 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-26
  post-arrest bailmurderprohibitory clausetentative assessmentlathi blow
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Ameer Bux alias Luqoo Bangwar seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 60 of 2019 registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 114, 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Buxapur, District Kashmore. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific role and lathi injury attributed to him in a murder case falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant was promptly and specifically nominated in the FIR, corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, and that the offense attracts the prohibitory clause. The court established the principle that a deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken at the bail stage and matters requiring trial assessment should be left for the trial court to determine after recording evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when specifically nominated in the FIR with a fatal injury attributed to him falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Can a court undertake a deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
  • Does a medical post-mortem report lending support to eyewitness accounts justify the denial of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Aman Ullah vs The State and another2021 YLR 584 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-24
  narcotics controlchemical examiner reportforensic science agency protocolsbenefit of the doubtcharas recoverycriminal appealstandard of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the possession of Charas and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether a chemical examiner's report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency that fails to detail the full protocols and tests applied is legally reliable to sustain a narcotics conviction. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that an analyst's report lacking the full protocols and details of tests applied is inconclusive, unreliable, and fails to meet the statutory evidentiary presumption under Section 36(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, thus entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt. The court laid down the principle that harder sentences require stricter standards of proof, and failure to document test protocols in a forensic report for narcotics renders the report untrustworthy and incapable of supporting a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a chemical report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency that fails to describe the full protocols and tests applied is legally reliable?
  • Does a forensic report lacking test protocols meet the evidentiary presumption attached to a Government Analyst report under Section 36(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can an accused be acquitted on the sole ground of non-mentioning of test protocols in the chemical analyst report?
  • What is the standard of proof required for offenses carrying stringent punishments under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Ali @ Ameer @ others vs The State2021 SHC 60 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ambreen Moazzam Ali vs Ahmad Zia Ch. etc2021 LHC 55, 2021 YLR 935 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• Amar Jeet Singh vs Sant Singh2021 LHC 3832, 2022 CLC 6 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-29
  summary suitleave to defendnegotiable instrumentdishonoured chequeright to fair trialdue processequality of armscivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a summary suit for recovery instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 based on a dishonored cheque, alongside concurrent criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court could legally close the petitioner's right to file an application for leave to defend without ensuring mandatory service of summons in the prescribed form along with a copy of the plaint, and while the petitioner was incarcerated without access to legal counsel. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order closing the right to defend was illegal, void, and violative of the principles of natural justice and constitutional guarantees. The ratio laid down is that service of summons in Form 4 of Appendix B along with the plaint is a mandatory condition precedent for computing the ten-day limitation period under Article 159 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and failure to provide the incarcerated defendant with adequate opportunity to engage counsel and present a defense violates the absolute fundamental right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the ten-day limitation period for filing an application for leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 begins to run without the formal service of summons in the prescribed Form 4 along with a copy of the plaint?
  • Does the simultaneous initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and a civil recovery suit absolve the court from ensuring compliance with procedural safeguards and the right to fair trial?
  • Is the right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 violated when an incarcerated defendant is denied access to counsel and closing of the right to defend is done mechanically?
  • Whether Form 4 in Appendix B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 should be issued in a bilingual form (English and Urdu) to effectively secure the fundamental right to access to justice and fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 1212 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs Additional Sessions Judge Sariab, Quetta and 3 others2021 MLD 1742 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-02Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Bazai through Attorney vs Director General Of Mines And Mineral (Dev.) Department, Balochistan and another2021 PLD Balochistan 45 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-19Read full judgment →
• Aman Lohia vs Kiran Lohia2021 SCInd 162 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-03-17Read full judgment →
• Altaf, Junior Clerk, Store Purchase Section, University of Peshawar and others vs The Chancellor, Peshawar University, Peshawar and others2021 PHC 28 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Altaf, Junior Clerk, Store Purchase Section, University of Peshawar and 32022 PLC (C.S.) 1028 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-03
  contractual employeesregularizationvested rightmaster and servantconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple writ petitions filed by contractual employees of the University of Peshawar, who sought regularization of their services based on their long tenure of approximately thirteen years. The core legal question was whether contractual employees possess a vested right to regularization in the absence of a specific statutory provision, and whether they can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce such claims. The Court held that contractual employees do not have a vested right to regularization, as their employment relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant. The Court emphasized that in the absence of a specific statute providing for regularization, long service alone does not entitle an employee to permanent status. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that contractual disputes are not maintainable under constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that contractual and fixed-pay employees cannot claim regularization as a matter of right, and if posts are advertised, they must compete with other candidates, though they may be granted preference based on their prior experience.

  Questions settled

  • Do contractual employees have a vested right to regularization based solely on the length of their service?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for the regularization of contractual employees governed by the principle of master and servant?
  • Does the conversion of project or contract posts into regular budgetary posts automatically entitle existing contractual employees to absorption?
  • Can contractual employees claim regularization in the absence of a specific statutory provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain Kharos vs The State2021 SHC 1130 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-07Read full judgment →
• Alpha Insurance Company Limited vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax2022 PTD 439, PTCL 2022 CL.534 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-03Read full judgment →
• Almas Ullah Dad son of Allah Dad, Resident of Merzai Shabaqadar, District2021 PHC 322 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Almas Ahmad vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau and 3 others2021 PLJ Lahore 665, 2021 P Cr. L J 962 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-06
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailmisappropriation of fundsNational Accountability Bureaudelay in conclusion of trialland acquisition
  Summary & questions settled

  This common order resolves multiple constitutional petitions seeking pre-arrest and post-arrest bail arising out of an Accountability Court reference concerning alleged misuse of authority, misappropriation of government funds, and fraudulent land compensation payments related to a National Highway Authority project. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest or post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the land acquisition assessments, lack of incriminating recoveries, and prolonged incarceration without conclusion of the trial. The court held that where land classification reports were verified through site inspections, no recovery was made, and further inquiry was warranted, or where accused persons faced prolonged incarceration of about two and a half years with a trial projected to take significantly longer without any fault on their part, they were entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that protracted and unjustified pre-trial incarceration without a foreseeable early conclusion of the trial constitutes a humanitarian ground warranting the grant of post-arrest bail, and bail may be confirmed where the prosecution's allegations require further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Are accused persons entitled to post-arrest bail on humanitarian grounds when facing prolonged and continuous incarceration without any foreseeable conclusion of the trial in sight?
  • Does an allegation of receiving excess compensation for acquired land warrant pre-arrest bail when the assessment was verified through site inspection and no incriminating material is recovered?
  • Whether physical custody of accused persons is required for further investigation when the investigation process is already complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Engineering And Services Ltd. through Attorney vs The Commissioner2022 PTD 558 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-10Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Zulfiqar Ali Shar & others2021 PLC 191, 2021 PSC 1526, 2021 SCMR 1213, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 878, 2021 SCP 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-26
  termination simplicitermisconductreinstatementincarcerationlabour lawworkmangrievance petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed a constitutional petition filed by the Appellant-Bank against the reinstatement of Respondent No. 1, a former cashier. The respondent was arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for over six years on misappropriation charges, during which the bank terminated his services via a letter of termination simpliciter under Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Following his subsequent acquittal on appeal, the respondent successfully sought reinstatement through the Labour Court, which was upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court on the ground that no regular inquiry for misconduct was conducted. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the lower forums erred in treating the termination simpliciter as a dismissal for misconduct. The Court ruled that under Order 12(3), an employer is not required to wait indefinitely for an incarcerated employee's release and may terminate services simpliciter by providing explicit, written reasons, provided a reasonable period (ordinarily not exceeding two months) has elapsed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the termination of an incarcerated employee's services under Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 requires a show-cause notice and a regular inquiry?
  • Is an employer legally obligated to wait indefinitely and keep a post vacant until an incarcerated employee exhausts all appellate remedies and is released?
  • What constitutes a reasonable period for an employer to wait for an incarcerated employee to return to work before terminating their services simpliciter under Order 12(3) of the Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Khudadad Sher & Another2021 SHC 1156 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-02Read full judgment →
• Allayar Khan and another vs Mst. Massart Sultana2021 PLJ SC 84 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-16
  pre-emption suitTalb-i-Ishhadservice of noticeleave to appealCode of Civil Procedurepostal receipt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioners' pre-emption suit. The Trial Court had decreed the suit, but the appellate court set it aside on the ground that the date of the Talb-i-Ishhad notice was not mentioned in the plaint. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether the failure to state the date in the plaint was fatal, but identified a more fundamental defect concerning the actual service of the Talb-i-Ishhad notice. The Court held that since the recipient of the notice was not named on the postal receipt or in the postman's testimony, the receipt was not put to the defendant's attorney during cross-examination, and the acknowledgement due slip was not produced, the service of the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was not validly established. The Court concluded that establishing service is a necessary ingredient for the success of a pre-emption suit when receipt is denied. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to establish the service of Talb-i-Ishhad notice is fatal to a pre-emption suit?
  • Is a pre-emption suit liable to be dismissed if the service of the Talb-i-Ishhad notice is not proved when its receipt is denied?
  • Does the non-production of the acknowledgement due slip and failure to name the recipient on the postal receipt affect the proof of service of Talb-i-Ishhad?
  Read full judgment →
• Allauddin Malik vs Muhammad Saleem Butt and Ors2021 SHC 360 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-08Read full judgment →
• Allaud-din Tahir, etc vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, etc2021 IHC 202 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya & another vs State & another2021 PHC 258, 2022 PCRLJ 616 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-28
  murderbenefit of doubtrule of consistencyconfessional statementweapon recoveryocular accountacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular testimony, the voluntariness and admissibility of an extra-judicial or judicial confessional statement, the safety of weapon-recovery evidence when empties are delayed in transit to the forensic laboratory, and the rule of consistency regarding an acquitted co-accused. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting severe discrepancies in the ocular account, unexplained delays in reporting, procedural flaws rendering the confession involuntary, and the fact that a co-accused with an identical role had already been acquitted. The court laid down the principle that the same disbelieved evidence cannot be used against a non-appealing or later-arrested co-accused without independent corroboration, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the same evidence disbelieved against an acquitted co-accused can be used to sustain the conviction of a co-accused with a similar role without independent corroboration?
  • Does the delay in sending crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the recovery of the weapon of offense doubtful?
  • Can a judicial confessional statement recorded without prior medical examination of the accused and in the presence of a co-accused be relied upon as voluntary?
  • Is an unexplained delay in reporting the crime and shifting the dead body sufficient to create serious doubt regarding the presence of eyewitnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Wadhaya vs The State etc2021 LHC 824 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-13
  post-arrest bailcounter-versioncross-casesaggressorfurther inquirysuppression of injuriesmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Allah Wadhaya seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether bail should be granted when counter-cases exist, injuries sustained by the accused side have been suppressed in the primary FIR, and it remains unclear at the pre-trial stage which party acted as the aggressor. The court held that the existence of counter-versions and suppressed injuries on the accused party's side bring the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the continued incarceration of the petitioner unwarranted. The key principle laid down is that where cross-cases or counter-versions exist and both sides sustain injuries that are not initially accounted for by the complainant, the question of who was the aggressor constitutes a matter of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when counter-cases exist and it is yet to be determined which party was the aggressor?
  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused in the initial FIR create a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the completion of the investigation and prolonged incarceration of an accused entitle him to post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha and another vs Shahnaz Bibi2021 CLC 1056, 2021 [M] C L R 352 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-13Read full judgment →
• Allah Muhammad vs The State2021 SHC 792 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-20
  narcoticscriminal appealbenefit of doubtindependent mashirschemical examiner reportdelayed dispatchpolice testimonyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for alleged possession of charas. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of uncorroborated police testimony without independent public mashirs at a public place, the legal consequence of unexplained delays in sending the recovered contraband to the chemical examiner, and the propriety of using the complainant as the carrier of the case property to the laboratory. The Sindh High Court held that the failure to associate independent witnesses despite availability, unexplained delays in dispatching the sample, and the compromised integrity of investigation where the complainant acted as the carrier created multiple serious doubts in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, laid down that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, and extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for narcotics possession can be sustained solely on police testimony without associating independent public witnesses when the recovery is made at a public place?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered contraband to the chemical examiner vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is it legally permissible for the complainant of an offence to act as the carrier of the case property to the forensic laboratory?
  • What is the effect of failing to keep the defense plea and documents in juxtaposition with the prosecution case during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Muhammad and others vs The State and others2021 P Cr. L J 1788 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-29
  common intentionvicarious liabilitydying declarationappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealhurt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals and revision petitions challenging the convictions of the appellants for murder and related offences. The core legal questions were whether the appellants shared a common intention with the absconding co-accused to commit murder, and whether the trial court correctly relied upon a statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as a dying declaration. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish common intention, as the appellants were not armed and did not participate in the fatal shooting, rendering them liable only for their individual acts. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the statement of the deceased could not be treated as a valid dying declaration because it lacked the necessary medical or magisterial certification regarding the deceased's mental capacity at the time of recording. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions for murder and attempted murder, acquitting the appellants of those charges, while upholding their convictions for causing hurt. The key principle laid down is that vicarious liability under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires proof of a pre-planned design or common intention, which cannot be inferred from mere presence at the scene.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be held vicariously liable for murder under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based solely on their presence at the crime scene?
  • Is a statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible as a dying declaration without certification of the declarant's mental capacity?
  • Does the absence of common intention absolve an accused of liability for the principal offence while maintaining liability for individual acts of hurt?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and others vs Muhammad Yasin and others2022 YLR 46, 2022 [M] CLR 311 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-17Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditto Bhutto vs The State2021 SHC 686 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-13
  Post-arrest bailBail applicationIllegal gratificationTainted moneyTrap raidFurther inquiryProhibitory clausePrevention of Corruption ActPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused, Allah Ditto Bhutto, facing charges under Sections 161, 34, Pakistan Penal Code, and Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The applicant had previously been denied bail multiple times by both the trial court and the High Court. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution's evidence, particularly concerning the recovery of tainted money during a trap raid, established a prima facie case or warranted further inquiry for bail purposes. The High Court observed that the trap party neither witnessed the delivery of the tainted money nor heard the conversation between the complainant and the applicant, making it uncertain if the recovered money was indeed illegal gratification. Citing Bashir Ahmed v. The State (2001 SCMR 634), the Court held that such circumstances render the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Additionally, the Court noted that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, making bail the rule. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the applicant was granted post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of tainted money without the trap party witnessing its delivery or hearing the conversation constitute a prima facie case for illegal gratification?
  • When does a case fall under the 'further inquiry' clause for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Is bail the rule for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when the accused is no longer required for investigation and challan has been submitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dino Bhatti vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 290 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-28Read full judgment →
• Allah Dino @ Dino & others vs The State2021 SHC 282 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21
  pre-arrest baildelay in FIRland disputecriminal procedurebailable offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were accused of causing injuries to the complainant and his wife and setting their house on fire, following the refusal of their bail plea by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mithi. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically allegations of false implication due to a land dispute and a significant delay in lodging the FIR. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a nine-day delay, which could not be overlooked, and noted that the parties were involved in a dispute over landed property. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that most of the penal sections applied were bailable, except for Section 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Finding that the applicants had joined the trial and that the case was ready for challenge, the Court held that the applicants were entitled to relief. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants.

  Questions settled

  • Does a nine-day delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Are applicants entitled to pre-arrest bail when the majority of penal sections applied are bailable and the parties have a pre-existing land dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah dad Waswa no vs The State2021 SHC 674, 2022 YLR 2047 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-13
  chain of custodynarcoticssafe custodyMalkhanacriminal appealacquittalchemical examiner
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for allegedly possessing 4000 grams of Charas. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody for the recovered narcotics and whether contradictions and missing links in the evidence vitiate the conviction. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The court held that a compromised chain of custody—specifically the failure to examine the Malkhana in-charge, the lack of a proper or certified Malkhana entry, and the failure to prove safe transmission to the Chemical Examiner—creates fatal doubts in the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the prosecution must prove every link in the safe custody and transmission of narcotic substances beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of a broken or compromised chain of custody of a narcotic substance on a criminal conviction?
  • Does the failure to examine the Malkhana in-charge who received the recovered contraband render the custody doubtful?
  • Whether uncertified and undated Malkhana entries can be relied upon to prove safe custody of case property?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to associate independent witnesses from a public transport vehicle cast doubt on the recovery of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Islamabad and another2021 IHC 280 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-15Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The State2021 MLD 972 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-14
  criminal appealmurder trialbenefit of doubtcontradictory ocular testimonyunnatural conduct of complainantinadmissible confessional statementunproven motiveacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Balochistan High Court was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony, corroborative medical and forensic evidence, and established motive. Upon reviewing the record, the High Court observed glaring contradictions among the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, unnatural conduct of the complainant in leaving the fatally injured brother to register an FIR, unexplained delay in sending forensic items to the laboratory, failure to prove the alleged motive, and reliance on inadmissible police confessions. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused through unimpeachable evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge, reaffirming the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions in the testimonies of eyewitnesses are sufficient to create reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of an accused?
  • Does a confession made before the police during custody possess any evidentiary value under the law?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to prove an alleged motive once it has been specifically asserted in the FIR?
  • Can a positive forensic report lose its evidentiary value due to an unexplained delay in dispatching the recovered items to the laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Muhammad Ramzan and 2 others2021 MLD 987 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-24
  criminal acquittal appealvicarious liabilityocular evidencepresumption of innocencecommon intentionappreciation of evidenceFIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Model Criminal Court, Sibi, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 302, 324, 337-H(2), 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence not mentioned in the FIR and the applicability of vicarious liability for mere presence at the crime scene. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to substantiate the guilt of the respondents. The Court observed that the ocular witnesses were not named in the FIR, rendering their testimony unreliable and requiring strict scrutiny. Furthermore, the Court held that mere presence at the scene of the occurrence, without evidence of a coercive role or common intention, is insufficient to establish vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court reaffirmed that an order of acquittal carries a presumption of innocence and that medical evidence, while confirming the nature of the injury, does not implicate specific individuals. Consequently, the trial court's well-reasoned acquittal was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without an attributed coercive role, establish vicarious liability?
  • What is the evidentiary value of ocular witnesses whose names are not mentioned in the First Information Report?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to implicate an accused in a criminal case?
  • What is the standard of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 156 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-17
  criminal appealQatl-Shibh-i-Amdconviction modificationmedical evidenceocular testimonybenefit of doubtsentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court for offences including murder and causing injuries. The appellants were initially convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, among other provisions, following an incident where the deceased and an injured witness were assaulted with clubs. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the ingredients of intentional murder (Qatl-i-Amd) or if the circumstances warranted a conviction for Qatl-Shibh-i-Amd under Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, given the nature of the injuries and the delayed death of the victim. The court held that the injuries were largely simple and the death occurred days later, failing to meet the threshold for Section 302(b). Consequently, the court acquitted two appellants, modified the convictions of others to reflect their specific roles, and converted the principal accused's conviction to Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that where injuries are not inherently fatal and death occurs after a significant interval, the charge of intentional murder may be unsustainable, necessitating a re-evaluation of the offence as Qatl-Shibh-i-Amd.

  Questions settled

  • Does the infliction of non-fatal injuries followed by death several days later satisfy the requirements for a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court convert a conviction from intentional murder to Qatl-Shibh-i-Amd if the evidence does not support the intent to cause death?
  • Is the recovery of common weapons like clubs from an open place sufficient to sustain a conviction when the prosecution case is otherwise partially discredited?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused based on the benefit of doubt necessitate a re-evaluation of the role of the principal accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachayo vs SHO P.S Matli2022 P Cr.L J 21, 2021 SHC 1126 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-17
  FIR registrationterritorial jurisdictioncontinuing offenceEx-Officio Justice of Peacecognizable offencecriminal procedureinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenged an order passed by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which had partially dismissed an application for the registration of an FIR. The lower court had refused to order the registration of the FIR regarding the second episode of an alleged cognizable offence on the grounds that it occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the relevant police station. The core legal question was whether an FIR can be registered for a continuing offence or an offence consisting of several acts that occurred across different territorial jurisdictions. The High Court allowed the application, setting aside the lower court's refusal. Relying on Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court held that when an offence is a continuing one or consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Furthermore, the Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to secure the ends of justice, directing the registration of the FIR against all proposed accused persons and ordering a fair investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR be registered for a continuing offence that spans multiple police station jurisdictions?
  • Does a Justice of Peace have the authority to decline FIR registration based on territorial jurisdiction when an offence consists of several acts in different areas?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the registration of FIRs for continuing offences?
  Read full judgment →
• All Pakistan Ztbl Workers Union (Cba) and others vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 PLC 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-15
  Registrar Trade UnionsIndustrial Relations Actad hoc appointmentsstop-gap arrangementpublic interest litigationcivil servantsregular appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed in the public interest by the All Pakistan ZTBL Workers Union and others sought directions for the immediate regular appointment of a Registrar Trade Unions under Section 4 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, alongside establishing proper office infrastructure in the Islamabad Capital Territory. The core legal question concerned whether the Federal Government could indefinitely delay regular statutory appointments through prolonged ad hoc or temporary stop-gap arrangements under the pretext of rule-making. The Islamabad High Court allowed the petition, holding that substantive statutory powers to make appointments are not conditional upon prior framing of rules and that continuous ad hocism violates good governance, separation of powers, and fundamental rights. The Court laid down the principle that statutory posts must be filled on a regular basis without delay, prohibiting indefinite acting, current charge, or look-after arrangements, and directed the respondents to complete the regular appointment process via promotion or direct recruitment within a specified timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the substantive power of the Federal Government to appoint a Registrar Trade Unions under Section 4 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is conditional upon the prior framing of rules?
  • Can an appointment to a statutory post like the Registrar Trade Unions be kept on an ad hoc, temporary, or look-after charge basis for an indefinite period?
  • Does the absence of specific recruitment rules preclude the Federal Government from exercising its statutory power to make regular appointments?
  • Whether prolonged ad hoc appointments to public offices violate the fundamental rights of eligible candidates and the principles of good governance?
  Read full judgment →
• All Pakistan Fruit And Vegetable Exporters, Importers And Merchants2021 CLD 887 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2020-06-19Read full judgment →
• Alka Khandu Avhad vs Amar Syamprasad Mishra & Anr2021 SCInd 138 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-03-08
  dishonour of chequecriminal complaintvicarious liabilityquashing of complaintnegotiable instrumentsjoint liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a High Court order refusing to quash a criminal complaint filed against the appellant under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the appellant and her husband were jointly liable for legal fees, and the husband issued a cheque that was subsequently dishonoured. The appellant sought to quash the complaint on the grounds that she was neither a signatory to the cheque nor did she maintain the bank account from which it was drawn. The Supreme Court held that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, strictly requires that the cheque be drawn by a person on an account maintained by them. Consequently, a person who is not a signatory and does not maintain the account cannot be prosecuted, regardless of any underlying joint liability. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, applies only to companies, firms, or associations of individuals, and cannot be invoked against private individuals. The Court allowed the appeal, quashing the complaint against the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if they are not the signatory to the cheque and do not maintain the bank account?
  • Does Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, apply to private individuals who are not part of a company, firm, or association of individuals?
  • Can a person be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, solely on the basis of joint liability for a debt?
  Read full judgment →
• Alim Khan Badeni vs The State2021 SHC 1146 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-16
  narcotics possessionreduction of sentencejail appealmitigating circumstancesControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for being in possession of narcotics, whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and six months with a fine. At the hearing, the appellant's counsel stated that he would not press the appeal on merits if the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, to which the State prosecutor raised no objection. The Sindh High Court examined the record and found the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt through consistent witness testimonies and a positive chemical examiner report. However, considering mitigating circumstances—including the appellant's young age, lack of previous criminal record, status as sole breadwinner, genuine repentance shown by not pressing the appeal on merits, and the substantial period of imprisonment already served—the Court exercised leniency. The Court held that the sentence could be modified accordingly. It was concluded that the appellant's conviction and sentence be reduced to the period already undergone, excluding the sentence in default of fine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can reduce a narcotics conviction sentence to the period already undergone when the appellant does not press the appeal on merits?
  • Whether mitigating factors such as youth and lack of criminal record justify a reduction in sentence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Trust Pakistan through President vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad through Chairman and 7 others2021 P Cr. L J 1738 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-19
  property transferNAB inquiryfreezing orderfundamental rightsconstitutional petitioncapital development authoritycorrupt practices
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition addressed the refusal by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) to issue a transfer letter for a commercial property purchased by the petitioner, citing an ongoing inquiry by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) into the 2007 conversion of the property's trade status under Section 23 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. The core legal questions revolved around the scope, effect, and applicability of Section 23 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, regarding restrictions on property transfers and whether NAB has the authority to issue 'cautions' or direct public authorities to withhold property transfers without formal freezing orders under Section 12. The Islamabad High Court held that Section 23 is merely a declaratory provision determining priority of rights and does not vest NAB with affirmative powers to issue instructions for placing 'cautions' on properties or withhold transfers in the absence of a freezing order. The Court laid down the principle that the power to restrict property is strictly governed by Section 12 under judicial oversight of the Accountability Court, and indefinite restrictions violate the fundamental property rights guaranteed under Article 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the impugned CDA letter making transfer contingent on NAB clearance was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 23 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 vest NAB with the authority to issue instructions to public authorities to place a caution against the transfer of property?
  • Can the Capital Development Authority refuse to transfer property solely on the basis of a communication from NAB under Section 23 without a formal freezing order under Section 12?
  • Whether an indefinite restriction on the disposal of property resulting from a prolonged NAB inquiry violates the fundamental right to property under Article 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • What is the proper legal remedy for a third-party purchaser seeking to ensure a property transfer is not void under Section 23 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 during a pending NAB inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher Khan vs District & Sessions Judge, Multan and others2021 KLR Civil Cases 235, 2021 LHC 2391, 2021 [M] CLR 1089, 2022 PLC (C.S.) · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-03
  subordinate judiciary recruitmentpublic appointmentsadvertisement of vacanciestransparency in recruitmentsupervisory jurisdiction of high courtexcess appointmentsservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging staff appointments made by the District and Sessions Judge, Multan, on various posts, alleging a lack of transparency, procedural irregularities, and appointments in excess of advertised vacancies. The core legal questions concern whether recruitment to judicial establishments can include enhanced posts without a fresh advertisement, and whether prior approval of the High Court is mandatory for such appointments under constitutional provisions and service rules. The Lahore High Court held that the entire recruitment process was vitiated by illegalities, including the failure to advertise enhanced vacancies and lack of transparency, rendering the appointments null and void. The Court laid down that recruitment in the subordinate judiciary must strictly adhere to advertised clear-cut vacancies, transparency standards under Article 19A of the Constitution, and mandatory guidelines issued by the High Court pursuant to its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 203 and 208.

  Questions settled

  • Whether appointments made against posts enhanced during the recruitment process without a fresh advertisement are legally valid?
  • Does the failure to maintain transparency and proper documentation in written tests and interviews vitiate the entire recruitment process?
  • Whether prior approval of the High Court is mandatory for appointments made in subordinate court establishments under the applicable notifications and constitutional provisions?
  • How do the supervisory and rule-making powers of the High Court under Articles 203 and 208 of the Constitution affect subordinate staff recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Shan vs The State2021 IHC 212 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-18
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsstatutory delayspeedy trialhuge quantityfresh ground
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Ali Shan, in a case involving the recovery of 96 kilograms of charas and 35 kilograms of opium, registered under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial, citing the failure of the trial court to comply with a previous High Court direction to conclude the proceedings within two months. The core legal question was whether the non-compliance with a previous judicial direction for a speedy trial, coupled with the delay in trial proceedings, constitutes a sufficient fresh ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in a case involving a heinous narcotics offense. The Court held that while an accused has an inalienable right to a speedy trial, non-compliance with a prior direction for trial conclusion does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, particularly when the recovery involves a huge quantity of narcotics. The petition was dismissed, with the Court emphasizing that the gravity of the offense outweighs procedural delays in this context.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to comply with a previous High Court direction to conclude a trial within a specified period automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Can a second post-arrest bail petition be granted solely on the ground of delay in trial when the bail was previously dismissed on merits?
  • Is the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics a relevant factor in denying post-arrest bail despite delays in the trial process?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza vs The State and another2021 LHC 4343, 2022 P Cr. L J 1466 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-09
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsconscious possessionco-accused statementfurther inquiryadmissibility of confessionControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving charges under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question is whether an accused who was merely accompanying a co-accused from whom narcotics were recovered can be denied bail based solely on the co-accused's statement to the police. The Court granted bail, holding that the petitioner's case required further inquiry. It found that the prosecution failed to establish conscious possession or active control of the contraband by the petitioner. The Court affirmed that a confessional statement of a co-accused made to the police is inadmissible and insufficient, without independent corroboration, to establish prima facie involvement at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court held that mere accompaniment does not equate to possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and the prosecution must prove conscious knowledge or control. Emphasizing that the investigation was complete and trial was not imminent, the Court concluded that continued detention served no purpose when the case involved further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of a co-accused's statement made to the police?
  • Does mere accompaniment of a person carrying narcotics constitute possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is a confessional statement of a co-accused admissible as evidence against another accused at the bail stage without independent corroboration?
  • What is the standard for establishing possession of narcotic drugs under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1443 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-17
  criminal revisionquantum of sentenceTa'zirDamanfirst offenderhurtmitigation of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the lower appellate court whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 324 and 337-F(iii) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with fine and Daman. The core legal question concerns the quantum of sentence and the propriety of awarding additional imprisonment by way of Ta'zir to a first-time offender where no aggravating circumstances exist. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner is a first offender, did not repeat the fire shot, and the case does not involve any aggravating factors such as being a hardened criminal or an offence committed on the pretext of honour, the imposition of discretionary imprisonment as Ta'zir was unjustified under Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court laid down the principle that the normal punishment for hurt offences is financial compensation, and additional imprisonment as Ta'zir should only be awarded in specified aggravated circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether additional imprisonment as Ta'zir can be awarded to a first offender who is not a hardened or desperate criminal?
  • What are the governing factors for awarding punishment as Ta'zir under Section 337-N of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a revisional court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone in the interest of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza vs MCB Bank Limited and another2021 CLD 986, 2022 [M] CLR 1000, 2022 PCTLR 595 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz Lolai vs The State2021 SHC 818 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealbenefit of doubtsafe custody of propertychemical examiner reportprocedural infirmitiesnarcotics control
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of two kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant procedural infirmities and contradictions in the evidence. The High Court, upon reassessing the evidence, identified material contradictions regarding the arrest of the accused and the recovery proceedings. Crucially, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody of the recovered narcotics in the malkhana, as the official responsible was not examined. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to explain the delay in transmitting the samples to the chemical examiner and did not produce the official responsible for the transmission. Consequently, the court held that these lacunas created serious doubts in the prosecution's case. Applying the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the official responsible for the safe custody of narcotics in the malkhana create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if the prosecution fails to explain the delay in transmitting recovered narcotics to the chemical examiner?
  • Can material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the arrest and recovery proceedings entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz and 5 others vs The State and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 909 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-19
  criminal revisionanti-terrorism courttransfer of caseextortionbhattamens reajurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application impugns the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing the applicants' application to transfer their case from the Anti-Terrorism Court to an ordinary criminal court. The core legal question was whether the alleged offense of extortion (bhatta) under sections 385/386/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, satisfied the mandatory statutory requirements of terrorism under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, specifically regarding the requisite mens rea of creating fear or coercing the public. The court held that since the demand for extortion remained private and personal to the complainant without any design or intention to coerce or intimidate the public or a section thereof, the essential mens rea for terrorism was absent. Consequently, the court allowed the application, directed the deletion of the Anti-Terrorism Act charges, and ordered the case to be transferred to the ordinary Sessions Court for trial. The key principle laid down is that for an offense to fall within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, both the proscribed act and the specific statutory mens rea designed to terrorize or coerce the public or a section of the public must be clearly established from the facts and circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offense of extortion under the Pakistan Penal Code automatically fall within the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • What specific mens rea is required under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for an ordinary crime to be tried as a terrorist act?
  • Can a case be transferred from an Anti-Terrorism Court to an ordinary court when the element of public fear or intimidation is absent?
  • What is the effect of a private and personal demand for extortion on the applicability of anti-terrorism laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad son of Kehar Katohar vs The State2021 SHC 874 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-02
  post-arrest bailrobberydacoitydelay in FIRfurther inquirytentative assessmentnon-recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail after it was refused by the Sessions Court in F.I.R. No. 01 of 2021 registered for offenses including robbery and dacoity. The core legal question is whether the applicant has made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the delayed lodging of the F.I.R., lack of recovery, and absence of specific roles attributed in the initial report. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained delay of 36 days in reporting, absence of recovery of the robbed property or vehicles, and delayed recording of witness statements warranted a tentative assessment favoring further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that while deciding bail, courts must evaluate the tentative assessment of the record, including delay, recovery, and nature of the charge, and where reasonable grounds exist pointing to further inquiry, the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging an FIR without plausible explanation constitutes a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of recovery of robbed property entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • What factors must a court consider when deciding a post-arrest bail application under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State2020 SCMR 2143, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 416, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-18
  murdercapital punishmentcommutation of sentencereappraisal of evidencemitigating circumstancesproclaimed offenderjoint investigation team
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose from the conviction and death sentences of the appellant, Ali Muhammad, for the murder of seven persons in an incident in 1999, which convictions had been upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the reappraisal of evidence, the credibility of eye-witnesses, and whether mitigating circumstances warranted the commutation of the death sentence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on consistent eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and his long status as a proclaimed offender, maintaining his convictions. However, the Court held that mitigating circumstances—including a remote motive, an unconnected recovery of a firearm, a defence witness statement from an eyewitness, and a Joint Investigation Team opinion favoring the appellant compared to an executed co-convict—justified the reduction of the death sentences to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that while concurrent findings of guilt based on credible eye-witness accounts will be maintained, distinct mitigating factors regarding motive, weapon recovery, and conflicting investigation opinions can form a valid basis for commuting death sentences to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in a criminal appeal against concurrent convictions for murder?
  • Whether mitigating circumstances such as remote motive and unconnected weapon recovery are sufficient grounds to commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Is the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable when a death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Muhammad Hassan and others2021 [M] C L R 1139, 2021 CLC 1111 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad etc vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1220, 2022 YLR 710 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-04-30
  double murderdeath sentence confirmationrecovery of weaponsdisclosure statementQanun-e-Shahadat Ordercriminal appealidentification paradered-handed arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences awarded to the appellants for the double murder of two individuals. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of prosecution evidence, the reliability of the identification parade, and the admissibility of weapon recoveries based on the appellants' disclosure statements. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the death sentences, holding that the prosecution's case was consistent, natural, and corroborated by forensic reports. The Court found that the appellants were arrested red-handed following an exchange of fire with Levies personnel, and the recoveries of weapons were legally admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as they were discovered in consequence of information provided by the accused while in custody. The Court affirmed that when the chain of events is flawless and supported by independent evidence, the conviction is sound, and the trial court's judgment warrants no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Is a recovery made in consequence of information provided by an accused in police custody admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the arrest of an accused red-handed following an exchange of fire with law enforcement constitute sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Can a trial court's judgment be maintained if the prosecution evidence is consistent and corroborated by forensic reports despite arguments regarding the delay in identification parades?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and another vs Mukaram Khan and others2021 SHC 14 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-07Read full judgment →
• Ali Ikram vs Mian Muhammad Ikram etc2021 LHC 8013, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 688 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-03
  Protection of Parents Ordinanceeviction of childrenDeputy Commissioner jurisdictioncivil suits pendencycriminal revisionCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against an appellate order setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and remanding a parent-child property dispute under the Protection of Parents Ordinance, 2021. The core legal question revolves around whether the Deputy Commissioner is required to follow the trial procedure under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, when dealing with complaints under the Ordinance, and whether pending civil suits oust the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that an eviction order passed under Section 4(2) is civil in nature and does not attract Chapter XX trial procedures, and that the phrase 'irrespective of any defence' in the special statute excludes the bar of pending civil litigation. The court set aside the appellate remand order as well as the Deputy Commissioner's refusal to exercise jurisdiction, directing the Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the procedure under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applies to proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner under the Protection of Parents Ordinance, 2021?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit oust the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under the Protection of Parents Ordinance, 2021?
  • What is the legal effect of the phrase irrespective of any defence under Section 4 of the Protection of Parents Ordinance, 2021?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan vs Mst. Sumaira Khalid and 7 others2021 MLD 542 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-30Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan Jeho vs The State2021 SHC 848 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryinstigationvicarious liabilitymedical evidencecommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged with instigation and causing injuries to a prosecution witness in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite being named in the FIR, given that no specific fatal injury to the deceased was attributed to him and the medical evidence contradicted the alleged injury caused to the prosecution witness. The Court held that the applicant's culpability required further inquiry, as the allegations against him were of a generalized nature and the medical report did not support the claim of injury to the witness. Relying on the principle that bail may be granted where the accused is not attributed any specific harm to the deceased and the case against them warrants further investigation, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The holding emphasizes that tentative assessment of the record at the bail stage, particularly regarding the lack of medical corroboration for injuries, justifies the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the medical evidence contradicts the specific injuries alleged to have been caused by them?
  • Does the absence of a specific injury attributed to an accused in a murder case warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can bail be granted to an accused charged with instigation if they are not alleged to have caused any harm to the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Haider alias Papu vs Jameel Hussain and others2021 PLD Supreme Court 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-07
  DNA testforensic scienceper se admissibilityexpert opinionrape and murdercircumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionwaj takkar
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a brutal case of rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl, where the petitioner was convicted under sections 302(b) and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, receiving a death sentence and imprisonment for life, which were upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the admissibility and evidentiary value of DNA test reports under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly regarding per se admissibility under section 510, Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that DNA test reports are highly reliable, constitute the strongest corroborative piece of evidence, and are fully admissible under Articles 59 and 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Furthermore, DNA test reports prepared by experts of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency are per se admissible under section 9 of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act, 2007. The key principles laid down emphasize the integration of modern forensic science into criminal jurisprudence, the gatekeeper role of judges regarding scientific evidence, and the conclusive nature of matching DNA profiles in violent crimes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a DNA test report is admissible in evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Are DNA test reports prepared by experts of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency per se admissible under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of DNA profiling in criminal cases involving sexual assault and murder?
  • Does the absence of specific mention of DNA experts in section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 bar the admission of DNA test reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Haider @ Pappu vs Jameel Hussain, etc2021 PLD Supreme Court 362, 2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 241, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 214, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-07
  DNA evidenceadmissibility of DNAforensic scienceper se admissiblerape and murdercapital punishmentcircumstantial evidencePFSA Act 2007
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, including waj takkar evidence, extra-judicial confession, medical reports, and a matching DNA test report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. The core legal issues pertained to the admissibility, reliability, and evidentiary value of DNA evidence in rape and murder cases, and whether DNA reports are per se admissible without examining the forensic expert. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentence, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and unbroken. The Court decided that DNA evidence is admissible under Articles 59 and 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, representing one of the strongest corroborative pieces of evidence today. Furthermore, under Section 9 of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act 2007, DNA reports prepared by PFSA experts are per se admissible in evidence under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is a DNA test report admissible as scientific expert evidence in criminal trials under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a DNA test report prepared by an expert of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency per se admissible in evidence under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary value of DNA evidence in establishing the identity of an accused in cases of sexual violence and murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul vs The State and 6 others2021 MLD 759 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-14
  Anti-Terrorism Actpersonal vendettatransfer of casecriminal procedureSection 561-A Cr.P.C.terrorismjudicial inconsistency
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, filed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pano Akil, which dismissed the applicant’s request to transfer a murder case to the Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether the alleged incident, involving the death of two individuals, constituted an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, warranting trial by a special court. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the ingredients of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were absent. The court determined that the incident arose from personal vendetta and long-standing enmity rather than an intent to create terror or insecurity among the general public. The key principle laid down is that crimes committed solely due to personal revenge, lacking the specific intent to overawe the state or public, do not fall within the ambit of terrorism. Furthermore, the court criticized the trial magistrate for issuing conflicting orders regarding the same incident, noting that such inconsistency undermines the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an incident of murder arising from personal enmity constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can a court transfer a criminal case to an Anti-Terrorism Court if the ingredients of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, are not present?
  • Is an act of personal revenge sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul and another vs Syed Nazeer Hussain Shah and others2021 SHC 1324 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20Read full judgment →
• Ali Ghulam vs The State2021 YLR 2014 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-01-16
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtballistic expert reportmedical evidenceuncross-examined witnessesattempt to commit qatl-e-amdrobbery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the common judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Umerkot, convicting the appellants under Section 392 and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of prosecution evidence where material witnesses remained uncross-examined, and the legal consequences of withholding medical evidence and ballistic expert reports in a criminal trial involving firearm use. The Federal Shariat Court held that the failure of the prosecution to send the recovered weapon and empty shells to a ballistic expert, the omission to refer the injured accused for medical examination, and the lack of cross-examination of key witnesses create profound doubts in the prosecution's case. The Court laid down that medical and ballistic evidence serve as crucial corroborative tools, and withholding them attracts adverse presumptions under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants, their convictions were set aside, and they were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • What are the legal consequences under criminal jurisprudence when the prosecution fails to send a recovered firearm and empty cartridge shells to a ballistic expert for examination and report?
  • Whether the failure to refer an injured accused for medical examination and treatment creates a significant doubt in the veracity of the prosecution's version of events?
  • Does the absence of cross-examination of key prosecution witnesses due to the absence of counsel vitiate the evidentiary value of their testimony?
  • What evidentiary presumption arises under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when material evidence such as medical reports and ballistic expert opinions are withheld by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Bux Chohan & another vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 646 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-04Read full judgment →
• Ali Bakhsh vs The State2021 MLD 1168 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-06
  narcotics smugglingcharas recoverypolice witnessessafe custodychemical examiner reportdirectory rulescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant challenging his conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, where he was sentenced to life imprisonment following the recovery of 40 kilograms of charas from secret cavities of a vehicle he was driving. The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to associate private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that the chemical examiner's report was deficient, and that there was an unexplained delay in transmitting the samples. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 explicitly excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in narcotics cases. The Court further ruled that the testimonies of police officials are competent and reliable, and that Rules 4 and 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 regarding the 72-hour transmission window are directory rather than mandatory. Safe custody and transmission were fully established by the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 render the non-association of private witnesses a fatal defect in narcotics cases?
  • Are the testimonies of police officials sufficient to sustain a conviction in a narcotics case if they are consistent and confidence-inspiring?
  • Are Rules 4 and 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 mandatory or directory regarding the 72-hour limit for transmitting samples to the chemical examiner?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Aslam Malik and others vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others2021 CLD 1, 2022 PCRLJ 644, 2022 CLD 443, 2022 PCTLR 849 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-12
  regulated activityNAB referenceSECPquashment of proceedingsspecial legislationcapital marketsstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the authority of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to initiate criminal proceedings regarding "regulated activities" within capital markets without a prior reference from the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP). The petitioner, a brokerage firm, challenged a NAB reference, arguing that Section 41-B of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, mandates a reference from the SECP as a condition precedent for any investigation by NAB into regulated securities activities. The Court examined the conflict between the overriding clause in Section 3 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and the later-enacted Section 41-B of the SECP Act. Applying the principle that a later special statute prevails over an earlier one, the Court held that the SECP Act's requirement is mandatory. Consequently, the Court ruled that NAB proceedings initiated without a formal reference from the SECP regarding regulated activities are void ab initio. The judgment establishes that specialized regulatory bodies must first determine the validity of allegations in their domain before criminal investigation agencies can intervene.

  Questions settled

  • Can the National Accountability Bureau initiate an inquiry into a regulated activity without a reference from the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan?
  • Does the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Amendment) Act 2016 prevail over the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 regarding the initiation of investigations?
  • Are proceedings initiated by the National Accountability Bureau without a mandatory reference from the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Asjad Malhi vs Ms. Syeda Nosheen Iftikhar and others2021 SCP 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-15
  bye-electionelection irregularitiesre-pollElection Commission of Pakistanlaw and orderexecutive and quasi-judicial powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a challenge to the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) judgment declaring the entire bye-election of NA-75, Sialkot-IV null and void following widespread irregularities, violence, and missing presiding officers on polling day. The core legal question concerns the standard of proof, quantum of evidence, scale, and severity of violations required to warrant a total re-poll across an entire constituency under Section 9 of the Elections Act, 2017 read with Article 218(3) of the Constitution. The Court noted that the ECP's executive and quasi-judicial powers under Section 9 operate within a limited timeframe and may not strictly mirror the benchmarks applied by Election Tribunals. Without issuing a final holding on the merits, the Supreme Court directed the ECP to provide a detailed map and chart correlating specific polling station irregularities to the legal thresholds required for ordering a total versus partial re-poll, adjourning the matter for further arguments.

  Questions settled

  • What standard of proof, quantum of evidence, scale and severity of violations of law will warrant a re-poll in the entire constituency under the Elections Act, 2017?
  • What transgressions on the polling day could constitute grave illegalities or violations calling for a fresh rather than a partial re-poll?
  • In what situations would non-pervasiveness of the illegalities or violations committed on polling day still attract the same result of annulling the entire election?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs The State and others2022 SCMR 970, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-11
  post-arrest bailstatutory grounddelay in trialrule of consistencycyber crimefurther inquiryfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in which the petitioner sought post-arrest bail on statutory grounds in a case registered under sections 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and sections 419 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, relating to allegations of posting false campaigns on social media inciting a mob. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail due to prolonged incarceration and whether delay in the trial was attributable to him. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where an accused has been detained for a continuous period exceeding one year in a non-bailable offence not punishable with death, and the delay in trial is not occasioned by the accused or his omissions, he is entitled to be released on bail under the provisions of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the Court applied the rule of consistency noting that a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail, and found that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, allowed, and the petitioner admitted to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on statutory grounds when detained for a continuous period exceeding one year and the delay in trial is not attributable to him?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail?
  • Whether the liberty of a person can be taken away without exceptional foundations?
  • Does a case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under similar circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 763 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-30
  post-arrest bailcommon intentiontentative assessmentfurther inquirycriminal facilitationSection 497 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arising from an FIR registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, Ali Asghar, sought bail in a murder case where he was accused of facilitating the principal accused by transporting him to the crime scene on a motorcycle. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite being nominated in the FIR, was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary threshold at the pre-trial stage. The Court held that the petitioner’s role was limited to facilitation, with no specific overt act attributed to him regarding the deceased. Emphasizing that bail proceedings require only a tentative assessment of evidence, the Court determined that the petitioner’s case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, ruling that continued incarceration was unnecessary as the investigation was complete and the petitioner’s actual participation and common intention remained matters for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere facilitation of a principal accused in a murder case, without an overt act, warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is a detailed appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  • When does a case for post-arrest bail qualify for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs Raja M. Siddique and others2021 CLC 1348 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-30
  necessary partyimpleadment of partiesdominus litismultiplicity of proceedingscivil proceduretransfer of propertywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an appellate order that reversed a trial court's decision allowing the petitioner to be impleaded as a defendant in a long-standing civil suit. The core legal question was whether a subsequent purchaser of the suit property, who claims title and possession, constitutes a necessary party under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that while a plaintiff is generally the dominus litis, this principle is subject to the court's power to implead parties whose presence is essential for a complete and effective adjudication. The Court reasoned that because the petitioner and other transferees were in possession of the property and would be directly affected by any decree, their exclusion would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and potential injustice. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate order and restored the trial court's decision, mandating that all purchasers under the relevant mutation be impleaded as defendants. The key principle laid down is that to avoid multiplicity of litigation, persons asserting title and possession in the suit property are necessary parties whose inclusion is required for the effective settlement of all questions involved.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who asserts title and possession in suit property be impleaded as a necessary party even if the plaintiff objects?
  • Does the principle of dominus litis prevent a court from adding a party whose presence is necessary for complete adjudication?
  • Is a subsequent purchaser of suit property a necessary party to a pending civil suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs Anti Terorism Judge MPK2021 SHC 40 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar vs Daud Akhtar and others2021 CLC 616 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-04-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar and 4 others vs Mir Ghulam Ali and others2021 PLD Balochistan 34, 2022 PLJ Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-10Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar @ Baboo & An Other vs The State2021 SHC 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-16
  Qatl-bis-SababDiyatsuspension of sentencebail pending appealcriminal appealsentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the suspension of a sentence and release on bail pending the disposal of an appeal against a conviction under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants were convicted of Qatl-bis-Sabab regarding two deceased individuals and sentenced to pay Diyat to the legal heirs, payable in installments over five years. The core legal question before the Court was whether the applicants, who were in custody solely due to their inability to pay the ordered Diyat money, were entitled to bail pending the final adjudication of their appeal. The Court held that there is no provision in law that conditions the grant of bail on the prior payment of Diyat money. Consequently, the Court suspended the operation of the impugned judgment and ordered the release of the applicants on bail, subject to the furnishing of surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that the inability to pay Diyat does not constitute a legal bar to the suspension of a sentence or the grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court grant bail to a convict whose sentence is primarily based on the payment of Diyat?
  • Is the payment of Diyat a mandatory condition precedent for the suspension of a sentence pending appeal in a Qatl-bis-Sabab case?
  • Does the inability to pay Diyat justify the continued incarceration of a convict during the pendency of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamgir Khan vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary2021 PLC (C.S.) 566 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-02
  cut-off dateadditional marksM.Ed degreeconstitutional petitionrecruitment eligibilityCertified Teacher
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by the petitioner against the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, challenging the denial of additional marks for an M.Ed degree in the recruitment process for the post of Certified Teacher (BPS-15). The core legal question before the court was whether a candidate is entitled to marks or eligibility for a qualification acquired after the cut-off date fixed for filing applications. The Peshawar High Court held that if a candidate has not completed the essential qualification or passed the examination by the prescribed cut-off date, additional marks or eligibility cannot be granted, distinguishing cases where qualification was completed prior to the cut-off date but the formal certificate issuance was delayed. The court laid down the principle that while delay in formal issuance of a degree by educational authorities should not prejudice a candidate who completed the course before the cut-off date, a candidate who has not actually completed the qualification by the cut-off date is ineligible for consideration of that qualification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether marks for an educational qualification acquired after the cut-off date for filing job applications can be counted in favor of a candidate?
  • Does the principle protecting candidates whose formal degree issuance was delayed by educational authorities apply to a candidate who had not completed the course work by the cut-off date?
  Read full judgment →
• Alam Sher vs Yasir Nawaz and another2021 [M] C L R 1051, 2021 YLR 1394, 2021 LHC 235 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
• Alam Khan vs The State2021 LHC 1241, 2022 PCr. LJ 338 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-18
  murderdacoitytest identification paradechance witnessbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder referencefirearm injuryocular accountforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences of the appellants for offences under sections 302(b) and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance eyewitnesses, the legal validity of a joint test identification parade without features and ages of dummies, and the corroborative value of tainted recoveries and delayed forensic reports. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eyewitnesses through any reliable source of light or plausible explanation, found the joint identification parade legally flawed and tainted with discrepancies, and noted significant improvements and contradictions in witness testimonies. The court established that joint identification parades and unverified recoveries cannot sustain convictions when the primary ocular account is disbelieved. Consequently, the appeals were accepted, the convictions and sentences were set aside, the appellants were acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does a joint test identification parade conducted for multiple accused persons possess legal evidentiary value?
  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be relied upon without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Is a delayed forensic comparison report relating to crime empties and recovered firearms sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of a reliable ocular account?
  • Do material improvements made by eyewitnesses during trial cast serious doubt on their veracity?
  Read full judgment →
• Alam Khan vs The State and others2021 MLD 1541 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-17
  post-arrest bailmurderextra-judicial confessionforensic science agency reportprohibitory clausecriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Alam Khan, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Harnoli, District Mianwali, for the murder of Muhammad Faisal through firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the incriminating material collected during the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that sufficient prima facie incriminating material was available on record, including eyewitness accounts placing the deceased with the petitioner, statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding an extra-judicial confession, and a positive forensic report matching the recovered weapon with empties from the crime scene. The court dismissed the bail petition, laying down the principle that tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage suffices when a prima facie connection to an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is established, and deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when a positive forensic report matches the recovered weapon with empties from the crime scene?
  • Does an extra-judicial confession recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute prima facie incriminating material at the bail stage?
  • Can a court undertake deeper appreciation of evidence while deciding a post-arrest bail petition for an offence falling within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Alam and another vs Niaz Muhammad and 4 others2021 MLD 1322 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-26Read full judgment →
• Al Razzaq Fibres and others vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2021 CL. 270, 2021 PTD 542, 2021 SHC 120 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• Al Abbas Mini Travel Service etc vs Govt. of Punjab etc2021 LHC 246, 2022 SCMR 1647 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-03
  constitutional petitiontransport businesspolicy decisiondoctrine of mergerfundamental rightstraffic managementshifting of bus stands
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the government's directive to shift the petitioners' wagon stands from city premises to a designated General Bus Stand. The core legal question was whether this administrative policy, which allegedly conflicted with prior court orders and infringed upon the petitioners' fundamental right to trade, was sustainable. The Court held that the government's policy decision to relocate transport stands for traffic management and public interest falls within its executive domain and is not subject to judicial interference absent illegality or mala fides. The Court clarified that the doctrine of merger applies, meaning the Supreme Court's prior modification of the High Court's earlier order regarding land allocation overrides the original terms. Furthermore, the Court interpreted the requirement for "amicable" alternate arrangements as a directive for reasonable, peaceful settlement rather than a requirement for the petitioners' consent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the challenge to the relocation but directed the respondents to provide reasonable facilities, including office space and bays, at the new location within thirty days, ensuring the regulation of business in the public interest.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of merger imply that a Supreme Court order modifying a High Court judgment renders the High Court's original order ineffective?
  • Does the term 'amicable' in a court-ordered alternate arrangement require the consent of the affected party?
  • Can the government shift bus stands to a central location for traffic management without violating the constitutional right to trade?
  Read full judgment →
• Akram Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1150 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-03
  post-arrest bailforged educational credentialsprohibitory clauseillegal appointmentcorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case-FIR No. 03/2021 registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, on allegations of securing employment as an educator through forged educational credentials and drawing salaries from the government treasury. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations, the non-cognizable nature of certain offenses, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that complicity and negligence of the appointing authorities required further probe and no recovery of incriminating material for forged documents was made from the petitioner. The court laid down the principle that where offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause and further inquiry is warranted into the conduct of the appointing authorities, post-arrest bail should be granted as a matter of judicial discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether offenses under Sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 provide for a bailable offense?
  • Whether a petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when no incriminating material used for the preparation of forged documents is recovered from his possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Akmal vs State and another2021 PLJ Cr.C (Lahore) 823 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-16
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealforensic reportrecovery witnessessample testingControl of Narcotic Substances Actappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the possession of 15 kilograms of heroin under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant contended that the prosecution case was flawed due to the complainant's absence at trial, alleged personal enmity, and the failure of the forensic report to detail specific testing protocols. The Court held that the conviction was sustainable. It determined that the absence of the complainant did not vitiate the prosecution's case where other recovery witnesses provided consistent and credible testimony regarding the recovery. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, requires only the testing of a sample, not the entire bulk of the contraband. Finally, relying on recent Supreme Court precedent, the Court rejected the argument that the forensic report was invalid for lacking detailed protocols, finding the report sufficient to confirm the narcotic nature of the substance. The appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of the complainant at trial automatically invalidate a prosecution case for narcotics possession?
  • Is it legally required under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 to test the entire bulk of recovered narcotics, or is testing a sample sufficient?
  • Can a forensic report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency be challenged solely on the ground that it does not explicitly detail the testing protocols?
  Read full judgment →
• Akmal Nazeer etc vs Government of the Punjab etc2021 PLC (C.S.) 1553, 2021 LHC 1791 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-10
  recruitment policyjudicial reviewpermissible classificationexecutive domainfundamental rightsconstitutional petitiondiscriminatory policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the validity of the Recruitment Policy 2016-2017 for School Specific Educators and Assistant Education Officers, specifically entry No.(ii) of Note Clause-5, which awarded 12 additional marks to candidates residing in rural Union Councils of District Councils, while excluding residents of urban Municipal Committees, Corporations, and Metropolitan Corporations. The petitioners contended this distinction was discriminatory and violated their fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether the executive policy of granting preferential marks based on rural residency constitutes impermissible discrimination or a valid exercise of executive discretion. The Court held that the framing of recruitment policy falls within the executive domain, and courts should not interfere unless the policy is irrational, malafide, or arbitrary. It determined that the classification between rural and urban residents was based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective of ensuring teacher availability in remote, under-developed areas. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the policy did not violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with government recruitment policy under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a recruitment policy granting additional marks to rural residents violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What is the test for determining whether a classification in a government policy is permissible?
  • Is the framing of recruitment policy for public sector employees considered an executive function?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ullah Khan Khattak vs Collector Land Acquisition, Nowshera and 62022 PLD Peshawar 105 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-10Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ullah Khan Khattak son of Sultan Khan (late), r/o village Manki2021 PHC 242 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Akhtar Ullah @ Akhtar Ali vs The State and anotherPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 305, 2021 SCP 216, 2021 SCMR 1287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-16
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirynon-vital part injuryattempt to murderfirearm injurymedical report discrepanciesweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's post-arrest bail application in a case registered under Sections 324, 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the injury, lack of weapon recovery, and debatable applicability of Section 324 PPC. The Supreme Court held that where an injury is inflicted on a non-vital part, medical reports lack essential details such as dimensions and examining doctor's identification, and weapon recovery is absent, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of medical evidence regarding injury on non-vital parts and missing corroborative recoveries can make out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an injury on a non-vital part of the body make the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Whether the absence of weapon recovery renders the recovery of a crime empty from the spot inconsequential for bail purposes?
  • Can deficiencies in a medico-legal report, such as missing dimensions and lack of the examining doctor's name, form a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar s/o Gul Zameer vs Khwas Khan and another2023 SCP 360, 2024 SCMR 476, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 898, PLJ 2021 SC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-10-23
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirypolice confessionrule of consistencytentative assessmentprohibitory limbFIR against unknown persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a post-arrest bail application in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and Section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013. The core legal question concerned whether reasonable grounds existed to connect the petitioner with the crime, given that the FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons, the petitioner's name was introduced later via a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, no recovery was made directly from the petitioner, and co-accused had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed post-arrest bail, holding that the case called for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly in light of evidentiary issues surrounding police confessions under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The key principles laid down include that bail cannot be withheld as punishment, doubt regarding an accused's involvement warrants the concession of bail, and police confessions are inadmissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the initial FIR is lodged against unknown persons and his name is introduced subsequently after a delay?
  • Can a confession made before the police during investigation be proved against an accused person in view of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been released on bail?
  • What constitutes reasonable grounds for the purpose of denying bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs Muhammad Jamal & 4 others2021 LHC 7938, 2022 CLC 2007 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-16Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain alias Manni etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 14 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-13
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of the doubtmedical evidence contradictionimprovements in testimonydelayed FIRfirearm recoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a murder case registered via F.I.R. No. 126 of 2010. A criminal revision petition was also filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony in light of medical contradictions, significant improvements made by eyewitnesses during trial, delayed FIR registration, and the absence of matching forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the crime. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence, coupled with dishonest improvements by witnesses and delayed lodging of the F.I.R., created serious doubts regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court established the ratio that where the oral testimony irreconcilably conflicts with medical evidence and witnesses make material improvements, their testimony becomes untrustworthy, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. The appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the connected revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to an acquittal when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence?
  • Does making material improvements in statements during trial render eyewitness testimony untrustworthy?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution case when an F.I.R. is delayed and appears to have been fabricated after due deliberation?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on a recovered weapon where there is no forensic report matching it with crime empties from the spot?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Abro vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 1328, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 906 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20
  departmental promotion committeeservice lawpromotioncivil serviceprospective effect of rulesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, filed a constitutional petition seeking a directive for the respondents to consider his promotion, alleging that despite his eligibility and the existence of vacancies, the process was being unlawfully delayed. The respondents contended that the delay was justified because relevant service rules were undergoing revision, and they sought to await the notification of these new rules. The core legal question was whether a departmental promotion committee could lawfully defer the consideration of an eligible employee's promotion based solely on the anticipation of future rule amendments. The Court held that the respondents' stance was legally unsustainable. Relying on the principle established by the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that in the presence of existing, valid rules, promotion cases cannot be kept pending on the premise that new rules are being finalized. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to convene a departmental promotion committee expeditiously to consider the petitioner's case for promotion in accordance with the prevailing laws and regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a departmental promotion committee lawfully defer the consideration of an eligible employee's promotion on the ground that new service rules are being finalized?
  • Do amendments to service rules generally have retrospective or prospective effect?
  • Is a government department permitted to deny consideration for promotion based on the anticipation of future rule changes?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Computers Pakistan vs Additional Collector and others2021 PTD 693 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-22Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs Mst. Taj Mahal and another2021 P SC 1241, 2021 SCMR 806, 2021 SCP 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-02
  remand prohibitionShariah Nizam-e-Adl RegulationTwenty-fifth Constitutional Amendmenterstwhile tribal areasfixation of casesjudicial administrationconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a civil revision involving the interpretation of Section 10(8) of the Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009, which prohibits appellate or revisional courts from remanding cases. The petitioner argued that the impugned order violated this prohibition. During proceedings, the Court noted that the case's broader implications, particularly regarding the status of laws in the erstwhile tribal areas following the Twenty-fifth Constitutional Amendment, necessitated a comprehensive approach. The Court observed that several pending cases, including those challenging the validity of provincial laws enacted for former tribal areas, remained undecided for years, often due to interim orders suspending High Court judgments that had struck down such laws as unconstitutional. The Court held that it would be inappropriate to decide the specific issue of remand in isolation, as the pending constitutional challenges regarding the validity of these laws could impact the outcome. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar to seek the Chief Justice's orders to fix all related appeals and petitions for hearing together to ensure judicial consistency and avoid conflicting findings, emphasizing the necessity of prompt adjudication for public interest and legal certainty.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 10(8) of the Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009, prohibit appellate or revisional courts from remanding cases?
  • What is the duty of the Registrar of the Supreme Court regarding the fixation of pending cases for hearing?
  • Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to club related petitions and appeals involving the validity of laws in erstwhile tribal areas to avoid conflicting findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali and others vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 727, 2021 P Cr. L J 750 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-18
  murder referencebenefit of doubtocular accountchance witnessco-accused acquittaldelay in FIRmedical evidence conflictweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 302(b), 324/34, 337-D, and 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in death sentences and imprisonment terms. The core legal questions involve the assessment of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of testimony disbelieved against co-accused, the impact of inordinate delays in FIR registration and postmortem examinations, and the corroborative value of alleged weapon recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to a delay in reporting, shaky and uncorroborated eyewitness accounts, unproved motive, and flawed recoveries. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key legal principles laid down include that if eyewitnesses are disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon against remaining accused without strong independent corroboration, and a single circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can eyewitness testimony disbelieved against an acquitted co-accused be relied upon against other co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report without plausible explanation cast doubt on the prosecution case?
  • Whether injuries on the person of an injured witness automatically stamp them as a truthful witness in the absence of consistent corroboration?
  • Are weapon recoveries consequential when the accused were already in undisclosed police custody prior to the recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali and 02 others vs Amir Hatam and another2021 P Cr. L J 1439, 2021 PHC 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-28
  criminal appealabandonment of witnesscross-examinationdefective chargetrial court procedureremandright to fair trialQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court in a murder case. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution may abandon a witness after their examination-in-chief is recorded without permitting cross-examination, and the impact of a defective charge on trial proceedings. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable and remanded the case for a fresh trial. It established that the prosecution cannot unilaterally abandon a witness once their examination-in-chief is recorded, as this violates the accused's statutory right to cross-examination under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court emphasized that trial judges must actively control and regulate the recording of evidence, rather than acting as passive spectators. Furthermore, the judgment underscores that trial judges must personally frame charges to prevent procedural errors that necessitate retrials. The failure of the trial court to ensure the cross-examination of a key witness and its reliance on a defective initial charge necessitated setting aside the judgment to ensure a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution abandon a witness after their examination-in-chief has been recorded?
  • What is the duty of a trial judge in regulating the recording of evidence during a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to allow cross-examination of a witness whose examination-in-chief was recorded violate the right to a fair trial?
  • What is the effect of a defective charge on the validity of a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Abbas vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 339 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-11
  murder convictiondeath sentence commutationocular evidenceextenuating circumstancescriminal appealappreciation of evidencemotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Mst. Sumera Bibi, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account, the impact of unproven motive and recovery on the sentencing, and whether the death penalty was warranted. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony of the complainant and her husband credible and consistent with the medical evidence, despite the delay in reporting the crime. However, the Court held that the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged motive and the recovery of the weapon from an accessible public place. Consequently, the Court ruled that these factors constituted extenuating circumstances. The Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, noting that the single gunshot fired did not justify capital punishment. The judgment reaffirms that while ocular testimony from close relatives is admissible, the absence of proven motive and recovery can mitigate the quantum of sentence in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can the death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive and recovery of the weapon?
  • Does the close relationship between eye-witnesses and the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is a delay in reporting a crime to the police sufficient to discard the prosecution's case when the witnesses are in a state of grief?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained solely on the basis of ocular and medical evidence if the recovery of the weapon is found to be doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhlaque Hussain Memon & others vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 444 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-01
  service structurecadre mergercivil servantspromotionslaw officersvested rightsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by District Attorneys and Deputy District Attorneys of the Province of Sindh seeking the creation of a proper service structure, promotion venues, and the implementation of recommendations made by the National Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC) to reserve a quota of Assistant and Additional Advocate General posts for them. The core legal question centered on whether the posts of Additional and Assistant Advocate Generals could be filled by District Attorneys pursuant to specific service rules and notifications, and whether the 2016 recruitment rules or the subsequent 2018/2021 rules should prevail, alongside issues of cadre merger. The Sindh High Court held that the 2016 notification was never acted upon and could not merge distinct cadres of civil servants and tenure law officers, noting that the competent authority had lawfully withdrawn the said notification. The court established that executive or policy recommendations cannot override statutory service rules, different cadres cannot be arbitrarily merged, and unexecuted rules create no vested rights. However, the court directed the respondents to take appropriate measures to streamline the service structure and promotion avenues for District Attorneys and Deputy District Attorneys within a stipulated period.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the post of Additional or Assistant Advocate General can be filled from amongst District Attorneys under the Sindh Law Officers (Conditions of Service Rules), 1940?
  • Can a notification regarding recruitment rules that was never acted upon create a vested right for civil servants to change their cadre?
  • Whether different service cadres of civil servants and tenure law officers can be merged without express statutory backing?
  • Do recommendations of the National Judicial Policy Making Committee supersede provincial civil servant laws and rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Hashmi vs Mst. Bakht Bibi and 33 others2021 MLD 1368 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-30Read full judgment →
• Akeel Raza Manganhar vs Govt of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 1286 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-15Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others2021 PHC 172, 2021 [M] CLR 1609, 2022 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-31Read full judgment →
• Akbar Haripal and another vs Zahid Noor and 3 others2022 YLR 953 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-27Read full judgment →
• Akbar alias Ak-Boli vs The State2021 YLR 748 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-25
  unlicensed weaponsafe custody of weaponfair trialbenefit of doubtpolice evidencecriminal appealchain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for the possession of an unlicensed pistol. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of police evidence in the absence of independent corroboration, the failure to prove the safe custody and transmission of the recovered weapon to the forensic laboratory, and the adherence to fair trial standards. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing the lack of independent witnesses despite their availability, the failure to prove the chain of custody for the weapon, and the un-natural nature of the prosecution's narrative regarding the arrest. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial court violated the appellant's right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution by conducting the trial in haste without cross-examination. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession, and that police testimony requires independent corroboration when the case rests solely upon it.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of a recovered weapon to a forensic laboratory vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the testimony of police officials sufficient to sustain a conviction when independent witnesses were available but not examined?
  • Does conducting a trial in haste without cross-examination of prosecution witnesses violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a legal right of the accused?
  Read full judgment →