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.

• Abdullah and 7 others vs Province Of Balochistan through Secretary2021 PLC (C.S.) 272 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-29
  service rulesrecruitment policysubordinate legislationstatutory interpretationphysical education teacherconstitutional petitioncivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the exclusion of the 'Diploma in Physical Education' requirement for the post of Physical Education Teacher (BPS-14) in the Recruitment Policy, 2019, issued by the Secondary Education Department, Government of Balochistan. The petitioners, who held such diplomas, argued that the 2019 policy conflicted with the existing Balochistan Education Department (Schools Branch) (Men's Section) (Basic Pay Scale 1 to 15) Service Rules, 1984, which explicitly mandated this qualification. The core legal question was whether an executive recruitment policy could override statutory service rules. The High Court held that the 2019 policy could not supersede the 1984 Rules, as the latter constituted subordinate legislation derived from the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Court affirmed the principle that executive policies cannot override or conflict with established statutory rules. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to reinstate the diploma requirement as stipulated in the 1984 Rules for the recruitment of Physical Education Teachers, ensuring that appointments are made in accordance with the established service regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive recruitment policy override existing statutory service rules?
  • Does a rule-making body have the authority to frame rules in conflict with the parent statute?
  • Is a recruitment policy that removes a mandatory qualification prescribed by service rules legally valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah alias Raajo vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 816 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-15
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayprolonged incarcerationconclusion of trialheinous offencebail petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail petition filed by the petitioners, Abdullah alias Raajo and Muhammad Kashif, who sought post-arrest bail on the grounds of statutory delay in the conclusion of their trial, pursuant to the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners had been incarcerated since July 2014 in connection with a case involving murder, attempted murder, and robbery. The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that the delay was not attributable to them, citing the requisitioning of records by superior courts and the necessity of examining witnesses from Karachi regarding the recovery of looted funds. The court acknowledged the petitioners' prolonged incarceration but noted that the delay was not solely attributable to the prosecution and that the trial's conclusion was imminent given the evidentiary developments. Consequently, the court declined to grant bail at this stage but directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within two and a half months, granting the petitioners liberty to re-approach the court if the trial remains unfinished due to reasons not attributable to the defence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandate the grant of bail solely based on the duration of incarceration?
  • Can bail be denied on the ground of statutory delay if the delay in the trial is not attributable to the prosecution?
  • Is a court empowered to set a specific time frame for the conclusion of a trial while disposing of a bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah alias Muhammad alias Masab vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 925 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-17
  criminal appealterrorismmurderjuvenile offenderfirearm recoveryforensic matcheyewitness testimonybail and conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant, a juvenile, for multiple counts of murder, terrorist acts, and related offenses arising from an attack on a mosque in Model Town, Lahore. The core legal questions involve assessing the sufficiency and credibility of the ocular testimony, police recoveries, and forensic evidence connecting the appellant to the crime, as well as evaluating the appellant's defence of alleged prior abduction by state agencies. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt through reliable eyewitness testimony from police officials who apprehended the appellant at the spot, corroborated by matching forensic firearm reports and medical evidence, while the appellant failed to substantiate his defence plea. The court consequently dismissed the appeal and maintained the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unshakeable testimony of police officials who apprehended an accused at the spot of a terrorist attack is sufficient to sustain a conviction?
  • Does a positive forensic match between a recovered weapon and crime empties corroborate the ocular account?
  • How is an unproven defence plea of alleged prior abduction by agencies evaluated when the accused fails to depose under oath?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wasay vs The State2021 P SC (Crl.) 529, 2021 SCMR 1059, 2021 SCP 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-19
  murderqatl-e-amdspot arrestinjured eyewitnessesmitigating circumstanceunproven motiveQisas and Diyatstatutory interpretationrepealed ordinancesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprised criminal petitions seeking leave to appeal against a Balochistan High Court judgment which upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 PPC for murder, but modified the sentence from death to life imprisonment due to unproven motive. The core legal questions pertained to the sufficiency of eye-witness and medical evidence supported by prompt FIR registration and spot arrest, as well as the legality of lower courts continuing to cite repealed Qisas and Diyat Ordinances rather than the enacted Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1997. The Supreme Court dismissed all petitions, holding that the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through injured eyewitnesses and spot recovery, while unproven motive justified reducing the sentence to life imprisonment. Crucially, the Court laid down that citing repealed Qisas and Diyat Ordinances instead of the permanently enacted provisions of Chapter XVI PPC (via Act II of 1997) is an unlawful misconception of law, ordering all judicial and prosecution authorities in Balochistan to immediately rectify this practice.

  Questions settled

  • Does failure to prove the alleged motive entitle a convict under Section 302 PPC to a reduction of sentence from death to life imprisonment?
  • Is it lawful for courts or prosecution departments to charge or convict an accused under repealed Qisas and Diyat Ordinances instead of Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code as amended by Act II of 1997?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained primarily on the testimony of injured eyewitnesses corroborated by prompt FIR lodging and spot arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wakeel & 5 others vs Govt of KPK & others2021 PLD Peshawar 191, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 143, 2021 PHC 280 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-08-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wajid vs National Database And Registration Authority and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 596 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-18
  contractual employmentmaster and servantwrit jurisdictiontermination of serviceNADRAintra court appealcontractual obligations
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the termination of the Appellant's services as an Assistant Manager at the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA). The Appellant, initially appointed on a contract basis, had his services terminated pursuant to a specific contractual clause allowing for termination upon thirty days' notice or payment in lieu thereof. The core legal question was whether a contract employee, whose services were terminated in accordance with agreed-upon terms, could invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction to challenge such termination. The Court held that the Appellant, having voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions of his contract, including the termination clause, could not resile from them at a belated stage. The Court affirmed that contractual obligations of this nature are not enforceable through constitutional petitions, as the relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no illegality in the impugned order, and reiterated that contract employees have no vested right to remain in service beyond the terms agreed upon.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract employee enforce contractual obligations through the High Court's writ jurisdiction?
  • Does an employee have a vested right to remain in service after the termination of a contract in accordance with its terms?
  • Is the principle of master and servant applicable to the termination of a contract employee at a statutory corporation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid and others vs The State and others2021 YLR 913 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-04-30
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRrelated witnessesimprovementsacquittal appealfalsus in uno falsus in omnibus
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, an acquittal appeal, and a revision petition regarding quantum of sentence arising from a murder case. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related and injured eyewitnesses, the effect of inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and recording statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, improvements in witness testimonies, and the application of the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to unnatural delays, consultations, material improvements, and contradictions in the ocular account. The court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the connected acquittal appeal and revision petition, reaffirming that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and injured eyewitnesses can be relied upon when the FIR is lodged with an inordinate and unexplained delay after deliberation?
  • Does the presence of injury marks on the person of a witness automatically prove that their deposition regarding the identity and specific role of the assailant is truthful?
  • What is the evidentiary effect under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 of withholding material witnesses who shifted the injured and deceased to the hospital?
  • Whether material and dishonest improvements made by witnesses in their statements before the court render their testimonies untrustworthy for maintaining a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs The Collector Of Customs, Mcc Of Preventive, Hyderabad2021 PTD (Trib.) 1747 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-10-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs Additional District Judge etc2021 PLD Lahore 453, 2021 LHC 901 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-19
  COVID-19doctrine of frustrationforce majeurecommercial impracticabilitylease versus licenceinterim injunctioncontractual obligations
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenged an appellate court judgment that reversed a civil court's order granting an interim injunction to the Petitioner. The Petitioner had been awarded a contract to run a hostelry at a hospital, which he claimed was severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown, rendering performance commercially impracticable and frustrating the contract. The core legal questions revolved around whether the contract constituted a lease or a licence, whether the doctrine of frustration or impracticability applied to relieve the Petitioner from his financial obligations, and whether courts could rewrite contracts due to unforeseen events. The Lahore High Court held that the agreement was a licence rather than a lease, meaning the Easements Act governed the matter rather than the Transfer of Property Act or the Contract Act's doctrine of frustration. The Court concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish commercial impracticability as the business remained functional, the Petitioner continued operating until the contract's expiry without termination, and courts cannot rewrite contracts or grant relief where performance remains possible. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement to run a hostelry within a hospital constitutes a lease or a licence?
  • Does the doctrine of frustration under section 56 of the Contract Act 1872 apply to licences and agreements involving immovable property governed by the Easements Act 1882?
  • Can a party claim commercial impracticability or frustration of contract when they continue to operate and derive benefits under the contract until its expiry?
  • Whether courts have the mandate to rewrite a contract or relieve a party from obligations merely because an unforeseen event has made performance more onerous?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Khan vs Ehtesab Bureau through their Deputy Prosecutor, Mirpur2021 YLR 1857, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 257 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-05-11
  post-arrest bailparallel banking fraudrule of consistencytentative assessmentcorruptioncriminal appealEhtesab Bureau
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against High Court judgments that denied post-arrest bail to appellants accused of parallel banking fraud and corruption. The core legal questions addressed whether the appellants were entitled to bail based on the material collected, whether the rule of consistency applied regarding co-accused, and whether the investigation was time-barred under the relevant Ehtesab Bureau Act. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the appeals, holding that at the bail stage, the court must only perform a tentative assessment of the record rather than a deep appreciation of evidence. Finding prima facie evidence linking the appellants to the fraud, the Court determined they were not entitled to bail. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the rule of consistency was inapplicable as the appellants' roles differed from those of the released co-accused. Finally, it established that procedural objections, such as the alleged time-barred nature of the investigation, must be raised before the trial court rather than for the first time in appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court conduct a deep appreciation of evidence during the hearing of a bail application?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply to an accused whose role in the alleged offence differs from that of co-accused who have already been granted bail?
  • Can a party raise a plea regarding a time-barred investigation for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail where there is prima facie evidence linking them to the commission of a banking fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Khan etc vs Ehtesab Bureau through their Deputy2021 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Abdul Wadood and another vs The State2021 YLR 560 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-18
  benefit of doubtocular evidencedelayed FIRanti-terrorismappreciation of evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants, Abdul Wadood and Muhammad Rafiq, by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences including murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the ocular evidence and the circumstances of the FIR registration. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court found that the FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay of seven hours, allowing for deliberation and consultation, and that the ocular evidence was unreliable due to inconsistencies between the medical reports and the specific roles attributed to the accused. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation was biased, failing to associate independent witnesses. The court reiterated the principle that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt is sufficient for acquittal and that conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR, coupled with consultation, undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony when the medical evidence contradicts the specific roles attributed to the accused?
  • Is the presence of injuries on the person of a witness sufficient to establish the truthfulness of their testimony?
  • Can abscondence of an accused, in isolation, serve as a sufficient basis for a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor Dayo vs P.O. Sindh and others2021 SHC 1300 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2021 SHC 556 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 112 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Soomro vs Mst. Nabul (late) through her legal heirs and others2021 SHC 1310 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Malik vs Sagheeruddin and others2021 SHC 1282 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Farooqi vs National Accountability Bureau through Director2021 PLJ Lahore 149 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar & others vs The State2021 SHC 58 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13
  pre-arrest bailunexplained delaycounter versionfurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail after it was refused by the trial court. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the existence of a counter version of the incident, and a pre-existing property dispute over a fish pond. The Sindh High Court held that where an FIR is delayed without plausible explanation, a counter version exists making the aggressor a question for trial, and the accused have joined the trial, a case for further inquiry and malafide is established. The court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants, laying down the principle that such factors warrant pre-arrest relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of eight days in lodging the FIR justifies the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the existence of a counter version of the incident create a case for further inquiry regarding who the aggressor is?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the accused have joined the trial and the dispute arises from a prior civil grievance?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Bhutto vs Government Of Sindh and others2021 SHC 1288 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Reheem Shah vs The State and another2021 SHC 272 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19
  transfer of criminal casehigh profile casecriminal procedurejudicial transferdelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the applicant seeking the transfer of a criminal case from the current trial court to either Hyderabad or Karachi, primarily on the ground that the matter is a 'high profile case'. The State and the respondent opposed the application, arguing that the request was a tactical maneuver intended to delay the early disposal of the case. Upon review of the record and the arguments presented, the Court observed that the applicant is currently in custody and can be produced before the trial court by the police without difficulty. The Court held that the mere characterization of a matter as a 'high profile case' does not constitute a valid legal ground for the transfer of a criminal case from one court to another. Consequently, finding the application to be misconceived, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that judicial transfers must be based on substantive legal grounds rather than the perceived status of the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the classification of a matter as a 'high profile case' constitute a valid legal ground for transferring a criminal case between courts?
  • Can a criminal case be transferred solely on the basis of the applicant's desire to change the venue?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State2021 P SC (Crl.) 863, 2021 SCP 350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-17
  post-arrest bailjuvenilityforensic evidenceempty casingscircumstantial evidencefurther inquirypre-trial detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's bail application by the High Court in an unidentified murder case initially reported without naming suspects or motive. The petitioner was subsequently implicated based on belated witness statements alleging he had borrowed and returned a .30 caliber pistol, which was later produced by the witnesses and forensically matched to casings retrieved from the crime scene. The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether such circumstantial weapon recovery, in the absence of other direct evidence, conclusively connected the accused to the crime to justify withholding bail, especially in light of the petitioner's juvenility and the conclusion of the investigation. Granting bail, the Court held that attributing the weapon and culpability to the petitioner without further corroboration was a matter to be settled after recording evidence at trial. Furthermore, the petitioner's juvenile status and the completion of the investigation rendered continued pre-trial detention unjustified.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of a weapon produced by witnesses and forensically linked to crime-scene casings is sufficient to deny bail without substantive evidence attributing its use to the accused?
  • Does an accused person's status as a juvenile entitle them to concessions in the grant of bail pending trial?
  • Is continued pre-trial detention justified when the investigation is complete and no further purpose is served by keeping the accused incarcerated?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq etc vs Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 818 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-30
  summoning orderprivate complaintcursory evidencepreliminary inquirydouble jeopardyprevious acquittalquashing of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal miscellaneous petitions challenging the concurrent orders of the lower courts whereby the petitioners were summoned to face trial in a private complaint under Sections 324, 427, 506, 148, 149, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after the Magistrate held that an offence under Section 302 was not made out. The core legal question revolved around the validity of the summoning order based on cursory evidence, and whether contentions regarding double jeopardy and previous acquittal should be examined at the summoning stage or before the trial court. The Lahore High Court held that at the preliminary inquiry stage under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the evidence cannot be appreciated with the strict yardstick applied at the conclusion of a trial, and the burden of proof for issuing process under Section 204 is comparatively lighter. The Court ruled that complex questions such as double jeopardy and previous acquittal should appropriately be agitated before the trial court via an application under Section 249-A rather than invoking constitutional jurisdiction at the threshold. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether evidence at the preliminary inquiry stage under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be appreciated with the same yardstick as applied at the conclusion of a trial?
  • Can the question of double jeopardy and previous acquittal be raised for the first time before the trial court through an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does delay in filing a private complaint serve as a sole basis for its dismissal at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 766 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-11
  narcotic substanceschain of custodysafe custody of case propertycriminal appealacquittalreasonable doubtpossession of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the possession of six kilograms of Charas, recorded by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the charge beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the integrity of the chain of custody of the recovered contraband. Upon review, the Court found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. Specifically, the Investigating Officer failed to testify regarding the receipt of the case property from the complainant at the place of recovery, and there was a lack of clarity regarding the transmission of sample parcels to the forensic laboratory. The Court held that in cases involving severe statutory punishments, a high standard of evidence is required, and the prosecution's failure to prove the safe custody of the case property rendered the evidence unreliable. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, establishing the principle that where the chain of custody is broken and prosecution evidence is unreliable, conviction cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure by the Investigating Officer to testify regarding the receipt of case property from the complainant create a fatal break in the chain of custody?
  • Is a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody of sample parcels?
  • What is the standard of proof required in cases involving severe punishments under special enactments?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Abbas and 2 others2021 PLJ Quetta 226, 2021 CLC 1315 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf alias Kala vs The State2021 MLD 1305 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-16
  Qatl-i-Amdinterested witnesssubstitution of accusedpersonal enmityAnti-Terrorism Actocular evidencedeath penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court for the murder of four individuals and the attempted murder of another. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of ocular testimony provided by interested witnesses, the possibility of the accused being substituted, and whether the incident, driven by personal enmity, fell within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court upheld the convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, finding the ocular evidence consistent and corroborated by medical and forensic reports. However, the Court set aside the convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, holding that the motive was personal enmity, which lacks the requisite nexus to terrorism. The key principles laid down are that the testimony of interested witnesses is not inherently unreliable absent evidence of ulterior motive, and that criminal acts stemming from personal vendettas do not constitute terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Consequently, the death sentence was confirmed, while the terrorism-related convictions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of an interested witness require corroboration in the absence of an ulterior motive?
  • Can a crime motivated by personal enmity be prosecuted under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Is the substitution of an accused by a complainant a common occurrence in murder cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and 4 others vs Government Of Gilgit Baltistan through Chief2021 YLR 414 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-09-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Learned Addl. District Judge, Bhakkar etc2021 PLJ Lahore 222 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Asj etc2021 LHC 4350, 2022 PLD Lahore 271 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-09
  superdariinterim custodyseized propertyopen transfer lettermotor vehicle ownershipcriminal revisioninherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 assailed an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby a criminal revision was accepted, setting aside the Judicial Magistrate's orders granting superdari of a seized tractor to the petitioner, and instead granting it to respondent No. 5 as the person from whose possession it was recovered. The core legal question concerned the entitlement to interim custody (superdari) of a seized vehicle and the validity of an open transfer letter to establish ownership. The Lahore High Court held that an open transfer letter is not a valid document of title and does not transfer ownership under the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, and that a petitioner seeking superdari as an owner must be the registered owner or a duly registered transferee. The court laid down that superdari should generally be passed in favour of the person entitled to possession or from whom the property was recovered, unless strong reasons exist otherwise, and that an unverified open transfer letter held by a claimant who failed to establish lawful ownership or connection to the registered lessee does not warrant the grant of superdari.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an open transfer letter constitutes a valid document of title to establish ownership for the grant of superdari of a vehicle?
  • Who is considered an owner of a motor vehicle for the purpose of interim custody under the relevant legal framework?
  • Can superdari of a seized vehicle be granted to a person who fails to establish a valid title or lawful connection to the registered owner?
  • Whether the person from whose possession a vehicle is recovered by the police has a preferential right to superdari in the absence of a better claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed Shar vs Ghulam Shabbir & Ghulam Mustafa2021 SHC 638 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed Mirza and others vs Commissioner Rehabilitation Azad2021 PLJ AJ&K 97 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed (deceased) through L.Rs vs Ghulam Qadir & others2021 SHC 1248 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim Shaikh vs The State2021 SHC 728 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-16
  murdercapital punishmentsolitary eye-witnessproof of motivesentence reductioncriminal appealmedical corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his sister-in-law and sentencing him to death, alongside compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case rested primarily on the testimony of a sole eye-witness, who was the husband of the deceased and the brother of the appellant, corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries of the weapon and empty cartridges, and a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through a solitary eye-witness and whether the unproven motive warranted a reduction of the death sentence. The Sindh High Court held that the testimony of the solitary natural witness, being confidence-inspiring and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to maintain the conviction. However, because the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive, the sentence of death was altered to imprisonment for life, while upholding the conviction and other penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a solitary eye-witness form the basis of a capital conviction if found reliable and corroborated?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive warrant the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the relationship of an eye-witness to the deceased alone is sufficient to discard their testimony as an interested witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim Gopang & another vs The State2021 SHC 1266 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-13
  pre-arrest baildelayed FIRB classmala fidecriminal procedurepolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal case where the applicants sought pre-arrest bail after being refused by the Court of Session, Shikarpur. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, a pre-existing property dispute, and police recommendations to dispose of the case under 'B' class. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants made out a case for pre-arrest bail on the ground of mala fide, considering the delayed FIR, the civil/plot dispute between the parties, the police report favoring cancellation under 'B' class, and the applicants' compliance with the interim bail terms without misuse. The court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail is justified where police investigation recommends cancellation under 'B' class and where mala fide is apparent due to an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR coupled with a prior underlying dispute between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR constitutes a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Does a police recommendation to dispose of a case under 'B' class support the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when a pre-existing dispute over property exists between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raheem Brohi vs Muhammad Sharif and Others2021 SHC 1228 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-09
  criminal appealtriple murderremandprocedural omissionamendment of chargere-examination of witnessjudgment requirements
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder and other related offences following a trial for a triple murder and assault. The core legal question concerns whether material procedural omissions, specifically failing to recall a medical officer for re-examination after an amendment of the charge and failing to properly record convictions and specify determinations on all counts under the Code of Criminal Procedure, vitiate the trial. The Sindh High Court held that such omissions occasioned a failure of justice and were contrary to mandatory statutory provisions. The court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh decision after re-examining the medical officer. The key principle laid down is that failure to follow mandatory procedural safeguards such as recalling witnesses upon charge amendment and failing to render judgments compliant with statutory requirements regarding all charged counts results in a mistrial necessitating remand.

  Questions settled

  • Does failure to recall a medical officer for re-examination after the amendment of a charge cause a failure of justice?
  • Is it mandatory for a trial court judgment to contain points for determination and decisions thereon for every offence charged?
  • Can procedural omissions in a criminal trial be cured by remanding the case to the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raheem and 2 others vs The State and another2021 PLJ Islamabad 86, 2021 P Cr. L J 882 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-02
  quashment of FIRinherent powerswrit jurisdictionalternate remedycriminal proceduremisappropriationtrial court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, read with section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under sections 408/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that the FIR was a retaliatory measure stemming from a business dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR when disputed facts exist and an alternate remedy is available. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s inherent powers under section 561-A are reserved for exceptional cases involving glaring illegality and undisputed facts, not for fact-finding or bypassing the trial court. The Court affirmed that where an adequate alternate remedy exists under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, allowing for premature acquittal, a constitutional petition for quashment is not maintainable. The judgment reinforces the principle that trial courts have the exclusive domain to scrutinize evidence and determine facts, and inherent powers cannot be used to short-circuit these proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR when disputed facts exist?
  • Is a constitutional petition for the quashment of an FIR maintainable when an adequate alternate remedy under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is available?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to engage in fact-finding activities during proceedings for the quashment of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raheem and 2 others vs State and another2021 PLJ Islamabad 86 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudoos vs The State2021 SHC 258 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-28
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequefurther inquirymala fidesdelayed FIRbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought pre-arrest bail under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after being refused the same by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case concerning a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry and mala fides, considering the delayed FIR, disputed transaction regarding the sale of a car, and the fact that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that a case for further inquiry and mala fides was made out, noting the delayed FIR, the contention of a stolen cheque, and that the applicant had joined the trial without misusing interim bail. The interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within one month, affirming the principle that courts should not ordinarily disturb bail when the trial is near conclusion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a delayed FIR and a civil dispute over a transaction make out a case for further inquiry justifying pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether bail should be interfered with or cancelled when the trial is at the verge of conclusion?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Khan and 2 others vs Deputy District Officer Judicial, Mardan and others2021 PLJ Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum and 6 other vs Muhammad Ishaq and others2022 YLR 2317, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 398 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-10-11
  murdereyewitness testimonymedical evidenceballistic reportmotivereduction of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(c) of the Azad Penal Code and sentencing him to 25 years imprisonment for the murder of the deceased by a firearm discharge following a dispute over cutting grass. The core legal questions involved the reliability of eyewitness accounts, corroboration through medical and forensic evidence, proof of motive, and the adequacy of the sentence. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon of offence. However, considering the overall circumstances of the case, the court modified the sentence from 25 years to 14 years rigorous imprisonment. The key principles laid down include the evaluation of eyewitness credibility, the corroborative value of ballistic and medical reports in homicide cases, and the discretion of appellate courts in adjusting sentences based on mitigating factors.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained on the testimony of a single eyewitness corroborated by medical and forensic evidence?
  • Does the delay in conducting the post-mortem examination alone render the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Whether an appellate court can reduce a sentence of imprisonment upon finding mitigating circumstances in a homicide case?
  • Is the recovery of the weapon of offence on the pointation of the accused sufficient to corroborate ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qaseem vs 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge (Central), Karachi and 2 others2021 YLR 2427 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-15
  criminal revisionrecalling of witnessesre-examination of witnessesfilling up lacunaeessential for just decisiontrial proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant filed a criminal revision application under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, which allowed an application under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for recalling and re-examining prosecution witnesses in a murder case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in recalling witnesses for re-examination at the final stage of the trial. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court passed the impugned order in a hasty and mechanical manner without providing valid reasons or showing that the evidence was essential for the just decision of the case, and that section 540 cannot be used merely to allow parties to fill lacunae or delay proceedings. The criminal revision application was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court recall witnesses for re-examination under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely to allow a party to fill lacunae in the case?
  • Whether the power to recall a witness under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be exercised as a matter of routine at the disposal stage of the trial?
  • Is it obligatory upon the court to summon or recall a witness under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 only when such evidence appears essential for the just decision of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs The State and 4 others2021 MLD 223 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others2021 PLC 87 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-03
  constitutional petitionfake medical certificatecancellation of appointmentregular inquirylabour appellate tribunaladmitted factsemployment dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed to challenge concurrent judgments of the labour fora which dismissed the Petitioner's grievance petition against the cancellation of his employment as an Upper Division Clerk. The Petitioner's appointment was initially withheld and subsequently cancelled ab-initio upon the discovery that the medical fitness certificate he submitted to secure employment was fake, a fact supported by official correspondence from the medical institution and an admission statement made by the Petitioner. The core legal questions revolved around whether a regular inquiry was mandatory despite an admitted factual controversy and whether the cancellation of the appointment was sustainable. The Lahore High Court held that where a fact is admitted and not disputed, a regular departmental inquiry is not required. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that an employer retains the inherent prerogative to verify documents at any stage of service, and an employee who admits to procuring employment through a fake medical certificate cannot claim procedural lapses when no disputed facts necessitate a regular inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory when the factual basis for an adverse employment action is admitted by the employee?
  • Does an employer have the prerogative to verify employment documents and certificates at any stage of service?
  • Whether an appointment procured through a fake medical certificate can be cancelled ab-initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mateen through guardian/father vs Bibi Khadija and others2021 PLD Balochistan 113, 2022 PLJ Quetta 93 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid son of Muhammad Bux vs The State2021 SHC 1196 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07
  narcotics offencesentencing discretionreduction of sentencecriminal appealreformation of offenderpossession of contraband
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirwah, for an offence under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the possession of 1100 grams of charas. The appellant was originally sentenced to four years and four months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. During the appeal, the appellant opted not to contest the conviction on merits, instead requesting a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, citing his time served and earned remissions. The State did not oppose this request. The Court held that while the prosecution successfully established the charge, it possessed the discretion to modify sentences in appropriate circumstances to balance deterrence with the potential for reformation. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the appellant's sentence to the period already undergone, including the fine. The judgment affirms the principle that courts may exercise discretion to depart from standard sentencing norms when the accused seeks reformation and the circumstances justify a lenient approach, provided the ends of justice are not frustrated.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone if the appellant does not contest the conviction on merits?
  • Does a court have the discretion to depart from standard sentencing norms for narcotics offences?
  • Is a court permitted to consider the reformation of an accused when determining the quantum of a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1486, 2022 YLR 1938 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-26
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtcommon intentionvicarious liabilityocular testimony contradictionsabsconsionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), Section 324, and Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced accordingly. The core legal questions involved the reliability of contradictory ocular testimony, the application of vicarious liability and common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the evidentiary value of absconsion and delayed forensic reports, and the proof required beyond reasonable doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that material contradictions among prosecution witnesses, the absence of overt acts attributed to the appellant, unexplained delays in sending forensic materials, and doubtful circumstantial evidence rendered the prosecution case untrustworthy. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of the charges, laying down that criminal liability must rest on evidentiary certainty and that mere presence or absconsion without independent corroboration cannot sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions in the statements of ocular witnesses can form the basis of a safe conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does mere presence at the crime spot ipso facto establish common intention and vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can absconsion alone establish the guilt of an accused when the primary prosecution evidence is unreliable?
  • What is the evidentiary value of blood-stained articles and forensic reports sent to the laboratory after a significant and unexplained delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Amjad Ali2021 YLR 440 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Sohail vs Muhammad Mahboob-Uz-Zaman Khan and 22021 CLC 1277 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed alias Muhammad Iqbal vs The State2021 YLR 2301 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-07-05
  criminal appealmurderrobberyocular testimonyballistic expertappraisal of evidencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment dated 01.03.2012 passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, whereby the appellant, Abdul Majeed alias Muhammad Iqbal, was convicted under Section 394 and Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case was that the appellant, along with unknown accomplices, robbed a motorcycle and, upon resistance, fired at the complainant party, causing the death of Amjad Ali. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, minor discrepancies in statements, the effect of sending weapon and empties together to the ballistic expert, and compliance with procedural requirements during examination. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, holding that prompt registration of the FIR, natural presence of eyewitnesses, corroboration by medical evidence, and uncontroverted recovery of the robbed motorcycle established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, while minor discrepancies and the discarded ballistic report did not undermine the otherwise trustworthy prosecution case. The key principles laid down include that minor discrepancies arising from delayed cross-examination do not vitiate eyewitness accounts, and the rejection of a corroborative piece of evidence like a ballistic report does not automatically discredit direct ocular testimony if it is otherwise reliable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies and time gaps in cross-examination are sufficient to discard otherwise trustworthy eyewitness testimony?
  • Does the rejection of a ballistic report due to simultaneous dispatch of weapon and empties invalidate the entire prosecution case?
  • Whether mere relationship of prosecution witnesses with the complainant is a ground to discard their testimony in the absence of enmity?
  • What is the effect of an irregularity in failing to confront an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with a piece of evidence that is ultimately discarded by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed alias Cheeta vs The State2022 YLR 587 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-23
  murderdacoitycriminal appealidentification paradebenefit of the doubtdishonest improvementsocular testimonyacquittalrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Abdul Majeed alias Cheeta, who was convicted under sections 302(b), 394, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a delayed identification parade, the evidentiary value of supplementary statements naming an accused nine months after an unwitnessed night-time crime without initial physical descriptions, and the sustainability of a conviction when eye-witnesses made dishonest improvements and a co-accused with identical allegations was acquitted. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish identity due to the dark winter night occurrence, absence of light sources in the FIR, delayed and flawed identification parade, and untruthful ocular testimony tainted by material improvements. The Court ruled that ocular testimony disbelieved regarding an acquitted co-accused cannot be used against a non-appellant co-accused without independent corroboration, and recovery evidence from an open place without forensic matching cannot sustain a capital conviction. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the principle of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an identification parade holds any evidentiary value when the accused is not nominated in the FIR and no physical features are described?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of ocular testimony that has been rejected with respect to an acquitted co-accused on the same set of evidence?
  • Does a delayed identification parade lose its sanctity when the witnesses had prior opportunities to view the accused after arrest?
  • Is a conviction for a capital charge sustainable solely on recovery evidence when the weapon and crime empties are not matched through forensic analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Abdani vs Rabia Construction Company through Sikandar A.2021 YLR 1683 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Maalik and another vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 257 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-09
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubteyewitness credibilitynighttime occurrenceprivate complaintacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder, murderous assault, and related offenses in a private complaint. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness accounts in a dark-hours incident, the plausibility of the prime target escaping unhurt, and the benefit of reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the photographic attribution of specific roles by eyewitnesses during a panic-stricken night incident illuminated only by vehicle headlights was highly improbable, that the failure of the accused to target the complainant cast doubt on the prosecution narrative, and that discrepancies warranted the extension of the benefit of doubt. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, thereby accepting the appeal, setting aside the convictions, answering the murder reference in the negative, and dismissing the connected petition for leave to appeal against acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses assigning specific roles to multiple accused during a nighttime incident seen in vehicle headlights is reliable?
  • Does the failure of assailants to injure the prime target of a perceived motive cast serious doubt on the prosecution case?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  • What is the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries when firearms matching reports from forensic science agencies are absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Noor Zaman and another2021 SCMR 1428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-28
  murderacquittalswapped witnessesfirst information reportre-appreciation of evidencecriminal petitionbenefit of the doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from an acquittal judgment passed by the Peshawar High Court, which set aside the conviction and death sentence of the respondent recorded by the trial court for the murder of a fifteen-year-old girl under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's case where the eyewitnesses originally named in the crime report were abandoned and replaced at trial by swapped witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was disputed and contradicted by the record. The Supreme Court held that while a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia, the wholesale replacement of named witnesses with un-named substitutes without credible explanation undermines the prosecution's case, and a conviction cannot be sustained on moral certainty alone without confidence-inspiring evidence. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined, affirming the High Court's acquittal based on the settled principles of safe administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on the testimony of witnesses who were never named in the First Information Report and replaced the original eyewitnesses?
  • Does the absence of the complainant and key cited witnesses at trial render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Can an accused be convicted and sentenced to death merely on the strength of moral certainty regarding his guilt in the absence of confidence-inspiring evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Narejo and others vs Employees' Old Age Benefits Institution2021 SHC 398 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Kodrani vs The State2021 SHC 894 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-06
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilityproclaimed offenderabsconsioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Latif, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, which denied him bail in a case involving offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was alleged to have pointed a weapon and engaged in aerial firing without causing direct injury to the deceased, was entitled to bail despite being a proclaimed offender in a separate case. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, reasoning that the specific role attributed to him did not involve a fatal blow, and the issue of his vicarious liability required further inquiry at trial. The Court emphasized that while absconsion is a factor, it does not automatically bar the grant of bail if the applicant has a strong case on merits. The key principle laid down is that where no overt act causing injury is attributed to an accused, and the question of vicarious liability remains to be determined, the case falls under the category of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of an accused as a proclaimed offender automatically disentitle them to the concession of bail?
  • Is an accused who is alleged to have only pointed a weapon and engaged in aerial firing, without causing injury, entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Can the question of vicarious liability be conclusively determined at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khameed vs Muhammad Shabbir, etc2021 PLD Islamabad 405, 2021 IHC 120 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-22
  malicious prosecutionregular second appealdamages for loss of reputationfundamental rightscosts of litigationabuse of legal process
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from judgments and decrees of the lower courts that decreed a suit for damages for malicious prosecution filed by the respondents against the appellant, awarding Rs. 500,000, which the first appellate court reduced to Rs. 200,000 on the grounds that the respondents were village dwellers. The core legal questions involved the scope of High Court interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in concurrent findings of fact regarding malicious prosecution, the essential elements of malicious prosecution, and whether the quantum of damages could be reduced based on the social standing or residential background of the victims. The Islamabad High Court held that the appellate court's reduction of damages based on the respondents being village dwellers was perverse, discriminatory, and violated Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, thereby setting aside the reduction and restoring the trial court's damage award. The key principles laid down include that the value of a citizen's liberty, dignity, and reputation does not depend on urban or rural residence, that malicious prosecution requires proof of malice and absence of reasonable cause, and that courts must robustly discourage frivolous litigation and abuse of the legal process through appropriate damage awards and litigation costs under Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding malicious prosecution in a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the quantum of damages for loss of liberty, dignity, and reputation in a malicious prosecution suit vary based on whether the victim is a resident of a village or an urban area?
  • What are the essential elements required to establish a claim for damages for malicious prosecution under Pakistani law?
  • Can a court award discretionary damages for mental anguish and loss of reputation even if specific pecuniary loss is not mathematically proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs The State2021 P SC (Crl.) 455, 2021 SCMR 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-04
  dying declarationSection 302(b) PPCmurdermedical evidenceforensic reportacquittal of co-accusedfailure to prove motiveevidentiary valuelife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged a judgment of the High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under clause (b) of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, while commuting his death sentence to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions pertained to the evidentiary value and reliability of a dying declaration, whether the presence of relatives at the hospital tainted the declaration, and whether the acquittal of a co-accused and failure to prove motive impaired the prosecution case against the principal accused. The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration was authentic and fully supported by medical testimony, as the attending doctor categorically affirmed the deceased's capacity to communicate. The Court ruled that the mere presence of relatives does not impair a dying declaration, nor does the acquittal of a distinguishable co-accused or failure on motive diminish the case where positive ocular, medical, and forensic evidence—including recovery of the weapon wedded to crime empties—corroborates the charge. Consequently, leave was declined.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of relatives accompanying an injured person to the hospital impair the evidentiary value of his dying declaration?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained despite the prosecution's failure to establish a motive?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused with a distinguishable role adversely affect the prosecution's case against the principal accused where independent corroboration exists?
  • Is a dying declaration sufficient to sustain a murder conviction when corroborated by medical evidence and matching forensic firearms analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Sher Ali and 3 others2021 YLR 1619 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-30
  appeal against acquittalaggrieved personhurt caseslocus standicontradictions in evidencebenefit of doubtdouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the trial court acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 427, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a complainant who has not sustained any injuries in a hurt case is competent to file an appeal against an acquittal under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Balochistan High Court held that in hurt cases, only the injured victim qualifies as 'a person aggrieved' competent to file an appeal under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, unless the victim is a minor or insane, in which case specific legal heirs may act on their behalf. The Court laid down that an uninjured complainant lacks the locus standi to maintain an appeal against acquittal in cases of hurt, and further noted that the trial court's acquittal judgment was based on proper appreciation of evidence with no jurisdictional defect or perversity.

  Questions settled

  • Who qualifies as a person aggrieved to file an appeal against an acquittal under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases involving hurt?
  • Can a complainant who sustained no injuries in the alleged incident maintain an appeal against acquittal under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances can an appeal against an acquittal be interfered with by an appellate court?
  • Who is competent to file an appeal on behalf of an injured victim who is a minor or insane in a hurt case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and 6 others vs Muhammad Anwar Nasir and others2021 MLD 1197 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kareem vs Sultan Badshah2021 PLD Balochistan 139, 2022 PLJ Quetta 48 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar and three others vs The State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1815, 2021 LHC 5156 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-01
  criminal revisionSection 420 PPCcheating and dishonest inducementcompounding of offencespartial compromiseSection 345 CrPCacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioners under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court, which was substantially upheld by the appellate court, following their acquittal under Sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Before the High Court, the petitioners submitted that a compromise had been reached with the complainant. The Court observed that under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an offence under Section 420 is compoundable by the person cheated; however, because multiple individuals were allegedly cheated and not all had entered into the compromise, a partial compromise could not form the sole basis for acquittal. Examining the case on merits, the High Court held that since the charges of forgery under Sections 468 and 471 failed, and the prosecution failed to produce evidence of money received, receipts signed, or incriminating items recovered from the petitioners, the basic ingredients of dishonest inducement under Section 420 were not established. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and acquitted the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Can a partial compromise executed with only one of several aggrieved victims justify an acquittal under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove receipt of property or dishonest inducement?
  • Does the failure to prove charges of forgery under Sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 undermine a conviction under Section 420 when no incriminating documents or money receipts are recovered?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar and others vs The Director General, National Accountability2021 P Cr. L J 1603 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-01
  National Accountability Ordinance 1999sentencing discretionmitigating circumstancescorruptioncriminal appealsentence reductionSection 382-B Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by an Accountability Court for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The appellants, having initially contested the charges, subsequently conceded the prosecution's case on merits and sought a reduction in their sentences based on mitigating factors, including advanced age, poor health, remorse, and the significant duration of incarceration already served. The core legal question concerned the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing and whether the original sentence was disproportionate given the mitigating circumstances. The High Court, while maintaining the conviction, held that sentencing is not a mechanical exercise but requires a conscious application of mind to the gravity of the offense and individual circumstances. Finding the original sentence harsh and noting the appellants had been denied the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court reduced the imprisonment to the time already undergone and modified the fine. The judgment affirms that courts must balance statutory sentencing ranges with equitable considerations when determining appropriate punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Is sentencing in a criminal case a mechanical exercise or a discretionary judicial function?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence based on mitigating factors such as age, health, and time already served?
  • Does the failure to grant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify a modification of a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar and another vs The State2021 YLR 367 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-06
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausemalafideagricultural land transactioncriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this criminal bail application, the applicants sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 489-F and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the dishonour of a cross-cheque issued in connection with an agricultural land transaction. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail when charged with an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite admitting the sale transaction and the issuance of the dishonoured cheque. The Sindh High Court held that the mere fact that an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause does not confer a right to bail, and bail can be declined where reasonable grounds connect the accused to the crime and immense monetary loss is caused. The court laid down the principle that bail in non-prohibitory clause offenses is not a universal rule and must be decided on merits, particularly where statutory ingredients of section 489-F are prima facie satisfied and mala fide on the part of the complainant or police is absent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused in an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the essential requirements of section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the mere fact that an offense does not attract the prohibitory limb entitle an accused to bail as of right?
  • Is pre-arrest bail maintainable when the accused fails to show mala fide on the part of the complainant or police?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs IInd Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate Badin and 32021 P Cr. L J 198 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-24
  cognizance of offencepolice reportSection 173 Cr.P.C.fair trialjudicial discretionalteration of chargesright to hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate who, upon receiving a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rejected the police's recommendation for offences under Sections 320 and 279 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (accidental death) and unilaterally took cognizance under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (murder). The applicant contended that the Magistrate exceeded their jurisdiction by altering the charges and failing to provide a hearing. The Court held that while a Magistrate is not bound by the police report and may disagree with the Investigating Officer's conclusions, they cannot unilaterally alter the charges or convert the nature of the case without providing an opportunity for a hearing to the parties. The Court emphasized that such an action, taken without notice, violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to pass a fresh order after hearing all concerned parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have the power to unilaterally delete or add sections of the Penal Code when taking cognizance of a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a Magistrate required to provide an opportunity of hearing to the parties before rejecting a police report and taking cognizance under different sections?
  • Can a Magistrate convert a case of accidental death into a murder case based on their own assessment of the police report without hearing the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Khan and 6 others vs Nasrullah and others2021 PLD Balochistan 59 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Asghar through Attorney vs VTH Additional District Judge-2021 MLD 919 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and others vs IVth Additional District Judge & others2021 SHC 984 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and others vs Abdul Baqi and others2021 CLC 1597 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and 4 others vs State and another2021 PLJ Lahore 1626 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-30
  pre-arrest bailgeneralized allegationsmala fiderecovery of weaponstentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of offences under Sections 337-D, 337-F(i), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when allegations against the petitioners are couched in generalized and collective terms without specific roles or attributed injuries, and where mala fide and false implication due to prior animosity and family relationship with co-accused are reasonably discernible. The Lahore High Court held that where roles are generalized, recovery of weapons does not necessitate police custody, and mala fide can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, pre-arrest bail is rightly confirmed. The key principle laid down is that generalized allegations combined with a background of longstanding dispute and relationship with principal accused can furnish reasonable grounds for inferring mala fide, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary for recovery purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the allegations in the FIR and statements are couched in generalized and collective terms without attributing specific injuries to the petitioners?
  • Is the need for the recovery of weapons a sufficient ground by itself to refuse pre-arrest bail?
  • How is the element of mala fide to be established at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Does joining the investigation and completion of the same regarding the petitioners support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed alias Hamid Son of Muhammad Shareef vs Nabi Bux Son of Haji Ahmad2021 SHC 1044 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed & others vs Water & Power Development Authority through its Chairman, Lahore, etc2021 SCP 242, 2021 SCMR 1230, 2022 PCTLR 405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-12
  Special WAPDA Allowanceservice appealsexecutive policyintelligible differentiadiscrimination in allowanceslimitation in service claimsrecurring cause of actiontrichotomy of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from Civil Appeals and Civil Petitions directed against judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed service appeals filed by WAPDA employees seeking retrospective payment of the 'Special WAPDA Allowance' with effect from 20.02.2009 instead of 26.11.2013. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether non-engineer/non-geologist employees could claim an allowance granted specifically to Graduate Engineers from an earlier date; whether recommendations of a Standing Committee bind a competent authority; whether a prior judicial order applied to these employees; and whether financial claims automatically escape the bar of limitation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and refused leave to appeal. The Court held that executive decisions determining service allowances and their effective dates based on job cadres, fiscal space, and policy fall within executive domain and cannot be interfered with by courts unless arbitrary or illegal. It further laid down that distinct job cadres provide intelligible differentia defeating claims of discrimination, recommendatory bodies cannot dictate executive policy, and limitation for financial claims is condoned only when entitlement is lawfully established.

  Questions settled

  • Can courts interfere in executive policy decisions regarding the grant and effective date of service allowances to specific cadres of employees?
  • Do recommendations made by a advisory or standing committee bind the competent executive authority in granting financial allowances?
  • Does the principle of non-applicability of limitation to financial claims apply where the employee's fundamental legal entitlement has not been established?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem Chachar & others vs P.O. Sindh & others2021 SHC 596 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem and others vs Province Of Sindh, through Secretary2021 MLD 1442 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem vs Provincial Ombudsman (Mohtasib) Sindh and Others2021 SHC 209 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez @ Mumtaz Kalhoro & another vs The State2021 SHC 722 · Sindh High Court
  criminal appealmurderextortionidentification paradebenefit of doubtocular evidenceanti-terrorismdeath sentenceFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and sentences, including a death penalty, imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court for murder and extortion. The core legal question concerned the reliability of ocular evidence and the validity of identification procedures. The High Court upheld the conviction of the primary appellant, Abdul Hafeez, finding the ocular testimony consistent, corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, and the motive of extortion established. Conversely, the Court acquitted the second appellant, Noor Muhammad, holding that his identification parade was fatally flawed because witnesses had viewed him at the police station prior to the formal parade. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to assign a specific role or motive to him. The Court reaffirmed that while minor contradictions in testimony do not discredit witnesses, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to an accused where the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the Court held that a delay in registering an FIR is not fatal when adequately explained by the priority of seeking medical aid for the victim.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in registering an FIR necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can an identification parade be considered valid if witnesses have previously identified the accused at the police station?
  • Does the relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Are minor contradictions in witness testimony sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez vs The State etc2021 LHC 6539 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20
  circumstantial evidencemurderlast seen evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittaltest identification parade
  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 for the murder of the deceased, whose body was discovered in a restaurant room. The core legal question revolves around whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—including testimonies of restaurant witnesses, last-seen evidence, motive, and subsequent recoveries—was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the circumstantial evidence failed to form a complete, unbroken chain connecting the accused to the crime, that the last-seen evidence was unconvincing and contradicted by medical evidence, that the motive was infirm, and that the recoveries did not incriminate the appellant given their friendly relations. The court laid down the principle that circumstantial evidence in capital cases must form a well-knit, unbroken chain leaving no hypothesis of innocence, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • What are the requisite standards of proof and quality for relying on circumstantial evidence to secure a conviction in a capital murder case?
  • Does in-court recognition of an accused by witnesses at a belated stage substitute for a formal test identification parade when the initial crime report is against an unknown person?
  • Whether the recovery of a victim's personal belongings from the house of an accused who shared a friendly relationship with the deceased constitutes conclusive proof of guilt?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the last-seen evidence is chronologically incompatible with the medical evidence regarding the time of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and others vs Haji Abdul Fatah and others2022 SCMR 743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-01
  ancient documentdowerQabin-namarevenue recordconcurrent findingssupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition assailing concurrent findings of lower courts and the High Court of Balochistan in favor of the respondent, who successfully claimed ownership of the suit property through a Qabin-nama dated 29.6.1949 (Ex.P-3) evidencing the transfer of land as dower to Mst. Sahib Khatoon. The core legal question involves the evidentiary value and legal presumption attached to an ancient title document that antedates a period far beyond thirty years and surfaces from proper custody, in contrast to subsequent revenue records and mutations favoring petitioners who claimed as residual successors and purchasers. The Supreme Court held that the ancient document of title, being a Qabin-nama protected by statutory presumption and emanating from proper custody, successfully establishes title and nullifies subsequent inconsistent claims or revenue entries. The Court laid down the principle that ancient documents dating beyond thirty years, when verified in the totality of circumstances, carry formidable evidentiary weight and command judicial recognition, warranting no interference with concurrent findings of lower forums. Leave to appeal was accordingly declined.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of an ancient Qabin-nama antedating a period beyond thirty years in establishing title to property?
  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding property ownership based on ancient title documents warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does a duly established dower transfer through an ancient document override subsequent entries in the revenue record?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State2022 PSC (Crl.) 633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-30
  criminal appealdelayed FIRbenefit of doubtcredibility of witnessesmurder convictionacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and causing injury, respectively. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given an eleven-day delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and significant contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained by any justifiable reasoning. Furthermore, the Court observed that the complainant’s contradictory stance regarding the role of the co-accused, who was subsequently acquitted, cast serious doubt on the credibility of the entire prosecution case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the established principle that any reasonable doubt arising in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused, and that the benefit of such doubt is a matter of right, not grace, for the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of eleven days in lodging an FIR constitute a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when prosecution witnesses provide contradictory testimony?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to provide unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 805, 2021 LHC 789 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-18
  narcotics recoverychain of custodypolice witness credibilitycriminal appealControl of Narcotic Substances Actsafe custody of case propertyconviction modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 1550 grams of opium. The appellant contended that CIA officials lacked authority to arrest, that the absence of private witnesses undermined the case, and that the chain of custody for the narcotics was broken. The Court held that police officials are competent to arrest and their testimony is admissible, and the absence of private witnesses does not invalidate the proceedings. However, the Court found that while the chain of custody for the sample parcel sent to the forensic laboratory was proven, the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody for the remaining bulk quantity. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but modified it from Section 9(c) to Section 9(a) of the Act, limiting the conviction to the 78 grams contained in the sample parcel. The principle established is that the prosecution must strictly prove the chain of custody for all recovered case property to sustain a conviction for the total quantity.

  Questions settled

  • Are CIA police officials competent to arrest and search for narcotics without a warrant?
  • Does the absence of private witnesses in a narcotics recovery case invalidate the prosecution's evidence?
  • Can a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be reduced to Section 9(a) if the chain of custody for the bulk narcotics is not proven?
  • Does the failure to prove the chain of custody for the bulk case property vitiate the entire trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State and another2022 SCMR 819, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 135, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-11
  narcotic substanceschain of custodychemical examinersafe transmission of samplesburden of proofcriminal appealconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from the conviction of the petitioner for the transportation of 500 kg of cannabis, discovered in an oil tanker by the Anti-Narcotic Force. The petitioner was convicted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment, a decision upheld by the High Court despite the acquittal of a co-accused. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody regarding the seized contraband, specifically the safe transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe transmission of samples, which is a critical evidentiary requirement to confirm the narcotic nature of the seized substance. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment establishes the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving every limb of its case, including the safe transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner, and failure to do so is a fatal flaw that undermines the entire prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove the safe transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner vitiate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is the prosecution required to produce the witness responsible for transmitting samples to the Chemical Examiner to establish the chain of custody?
  • Can a conviction for drug trafficking be sustained if the prosecution fails to confirm the narcotic character of the seized contraband through a verified chemical examination process?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Province of the Punjab, etc2021 LHC 5463, 2022 CLC 608 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Jatoi vs The State2021 SHC 1218 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-08
  narcoticspossession of charascriminal appealprocedural technicalitiesburden of proofconscious possessionexcise police evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions/Special Judge (CNSA) Jacobabad, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the transportation and possession of 75 K.Gs of Charas under Section 382(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding contentions regarding the lack of independent witnesses, unproven vehicle ownership, and procedural objections regarding chain of custody. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that procedural technicalities should be overlooked in narcotics cases where the prosecution establishes physical custody and direct connection, shifting the burden to the accused to disprove conscious possession under statutory presumptions. The key principle laid down is that official witnesses of the excise police can form the basis of a conviction without independent corroboration if their testimony remains consistent and credible, and that procedural defects do not vitiate a narcotics conviction when the substantive case stands proven.

  Questions settled

  • Whether procedural technicalities in narcotics cases should be overlooked when the prosecution proves physical possession of the contraband?
  • Can police officials be considered reliable witnesses without independent corroboration in narcotics recovery cases?
  • Does the failure to determine the ownership of the transport vehicle vitiate a conviction under narcotics laws?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the accused regarding conscious possession of a narcotic substance?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 65 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-26
  pre-arrest baildishonouring of chequemala fideguaranteecriminal breach of trustbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in respect of FIR No. 328 of 2019 under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Hajipura, District Sialkot. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail where the disputed cheque was allegedly issued merely as a financial guarantee in a transaction previously subjected to criminal proceedings and subsequent compromise involving the petitioner's son. The Lahore High Court held that the circumstances, including prior litigation over the same transaction resulting in an acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the investigating officer's finding that the cheque served as a guarantee, established mala fide and an ulterior motive on the part of the complainant. The petition was accepted, and the ad interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is designed to protect innocent persons where a criminal case is instituted with mala fide intent over a guarantee transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when a disputed cheque was issued as a guarantee rather than for an existing dishonoured debt?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail if the criminal complaint is found to be lodged with mala fide and ulterior motives?
  • Does a prior compromise and acquittal of a co-accused in a related FIR for the same transaction affect the grant of bail in a subsequent case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State & Habib ur Rehman Sub-Inspector, FIA_Acc_Karachi2021 SHC 770 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs M/s. Pakistan Steel Mills through Chief Executive Officer2021 PLJ Tr.C. (NIRC) 111 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2021-01-27
  unfair labour practiceshow cause noticetrade union activitiesdisciplinary proceedingsindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition under Section 54(e) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, seeking the determination and adjudication of an act of unfair labour practice allegedly committed by the respondents, and to set aside a show-cause notice dated 24-07-2012. The core legal question revolves around whether the issuance of the show-cause notice and subsequent inquiry against the petitioner constitute an unfair labour practice on account of his active trade union activities. The court examined the facts wherein the petitioner alleged victimization due to his association with the collective bargaining agent union, notwithstanding an investigation report favouring him and an existing restraining order passed by the High Court of Sindh in a constitutional petition. The judgment addresses the maintainability and merits of alleging unfair labour practice in relation to internal disciplinary proceedings and show-cause notices. The legal principle established is that an employer's right to proceed with disciplinary inquiries for alleged irregularities cannot be stifled as an unfair labour practice merely on apprehension, absent concrete evidence of anti-union bias.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the issuance of a show-cause notice for shortage of material constitutes an act of unfair labour practice under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Can the National Industrial Relations Commission interfere with domestic disciplinary proceedings on mere apprehension of adverse action?
  • Does active participation in a trade union exempt an employee from disciplinary inquiries regarding workplace irregularities?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 1270 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-17
  post-arrest bailmedical groundsNAB referenceaccountability courtdetrimental to lifemedical board report
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a 76-year-old individual facing a NAB reference, sought post-arrest bail on medical grounds, citing chronic heart conditions, diabetes, and hypertension. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's medical condition, as assessed by a Special Medical Board, warranted the grant of bail, particularly when the Board opined that his detention was detrimental to his life. The Court held that while the petitioner's health condition was unsatisfactory and required medical attention, bail is not an automatic remedy for such ailments. The Court emphasized that medical treatment can be effectively managed in a hospital setting rather than through release on bail. The key principle laid down is that the mere existence of a disease or a medical report stating that detention is detrimental to life does not automatically entitle an accused to bail if the required treatment can be provided in a hospital environment, and that bail is not a substitute for medical treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a medical report stating that detention is detrimental to an accused's life automatically entitle the accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Is bail the appropriate legal remedy for an accused suffering from chronic diseases that can be managed in a hospital setting?
  • Can an accused be denied bail on medical grounds if the court directs that they be provided medical treatment at a hospital of their choice at their own risk and cost?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basit vs The Secretary Sindh Worker Welfar Board and 02 others2021 SHC 842 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basit vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2021 SHC 840 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State2021 YLR 1166 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-06
  unlicensed armsoffshoot caseacquittal in main casedelay in sending weapon to FSLballistic expert reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Tharparkar alias Mithi, convicting the appellant under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for possessing an unlicensed pistol. The core legal questions involved whether an accused acquitted in a main criminal case is entitled to acquittal in an offshoot case, and whether an unexplained delay in sending the alleged crime weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiates the prosecution case. The Sindh High Court held that when an accused has been acquitted in the main case, he is entitled to acquittal in a case that is an offshoot of the said main case. Furthermore, unexplained delay in transmitting the weapon to the ballistic expert and the failure to exhibit official permission for such transmission creates a fatal doubt regarding the recovery. The court laid down the principle that prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal in a collateral case when he has already been acquitted in the main case from which it originated?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending a recovered firearm to the Forensic Science Laboratory create a fatal doubt in the prosecution case?
  • What is the effect of failing to produce or exhibit official permission required for dispatching a weapon to the ballistic expert?
  • Must the prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt irrespective of the defense raised by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Soneri vs Government of Sindh Karachi and others2021 SHC 202 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Azeem Khan and others vs The State (NAB) and others2021 P Cr. LJ 834 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-08
  suspension of sentenceaccountability courtbail pending appealshort sentenceconstitutional jurisdictionNational Accountability Ordinancejudicial backlog
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by four convicts seeking the suspension of their sentences and release on bail pending the disposal of their criminal accountability appeals. The petitioners were convicted by an Accountability Court for corruption-related offenses and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment ranging from three to five years. The core legal question was whether the High Court could suspend the sentences of the petitioners given the statutory framework of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the sentences should be suspended, granting the petitioners bail pending the final adjudication of their appeals. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that where sentences are relatively short and the hearing of appeals is likely to be delayed due to significant judicial backlogs, suspension of sentence is appropriate. Furthermore, the Court affirmed its jurisdiction to grant such relief under its constitutional powers, relying on the precedent set in Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan, noting that the petitioners had not misused their bail concession during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to suspend a sentence in a case under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is a sentence of three to five years considered a short sentence justifying suspension pending appeal?
  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to grant bail when statutory provisions appear to restrict such powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ahad Ansari vs Mst. Lubna Qaiser2021 CLC 297 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
• Abd-Ur-Rehman vs Aamir Khalil and another2021 YLR 362 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-03-24
  post-arrest bailvicarious liabilitynon-bailable offencetentative assessmentcriminal revisionjuvenile accusedbail as punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the dismissal of a post-arrest bail application by the Additional District Court in a case involving charges under sections 34, 337, 302, and 452 of the Azad Penal Code. The petitioner, a fifteen-year-old student, was accused of facilitating the principal offender by pushing the deceased, who was subsequently shot by a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the non-bailable nature of the offense and his nomination in the FIR. The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that no specific injury was attributed to him and that his mere presence, empty-handed, at the scene did not justify indefinite incarceration pending trial. The court emphasized that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment, especially when the investigation is complete, the challan is submitted, and reasonable grounds for guilt are lacking. The principle laid down is that where there is doubt regarding an accused's participation in a crime, particularly when no injury is attributed, the benefit of bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Is the age of an accused a relevant factor for the grant of post-arrest bail in a non-bailable offense?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment for an accused person?
  • Does the completion of investigation and submission of a challan entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail where no specific injury is attributed to them in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbu Hashim and another vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 2 others2021 PLD Sindh 492 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-19
  NADRACNIC blockingnational status verificationfundamental rightscitizenship deprivationspecial lawsshow cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking to declare show-cause notices issued by NADRA for blocking the petitioners' Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs) as unlawful, and to direct their restoration. The core legal questions revolved around whether NADRA has the legal authority under the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 to block CNICs without a final determination for cancellation, and how special statutes relating to registration and citizenship interact. The court held that while NADRA holds the power to cancel, impound, or confiscate cards under Section 18 of the NADRA Ordinance upon fulfilling strict statutory prerequisites and providing an opportunity of being heard, the law does not empower NADRA to block CNICs as a punitive or interim measure during a roving inquiry into national status. The court further established that the NADRA Ordinance, 2000 and the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 are both special laws governing different domains, and the deprivation of citizenship can only be effected through the specific mechanisms provided under Section 16 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, rather than through arbitrary administrative card-blocking.

  Questions settled

  • Whether NADRA has the legal authority under the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 to block a citizen's CNIC during an ongoing inquiry without a final order of cancellation?
  • Can one special law override the provisions of another special law when both govern different aspects such as registration and citizenship?
  • What are the statutory prerequisites under Section 18 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 for cancelling, impounding, or confiscating a national identity card?
  • Does the deprivation of citizenship fall exclusively within the domain of Section 16 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbu Hashim and another vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary2021 PLJ Karachi 127 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-10Read full judgment →
• Abbu Hashim & another vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 474 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-19Read full judgment →
• Abbas Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 216 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-30
  post-arrest bailabductionprinciple of consistencyfurther inquirychild marriagecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of abduction under Section 364/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Islamabad High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail, particularly in light of the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused had already been granted bail by the Court in similar circumstances. The petitioner contended that the alleged abductee had contracted a voluntary marriage, that the investigation was complete, and that the trial had commenced. The prosecution argued that the marriage violated the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. The Court, observing that the case against the co-accused had been deemed one of further inquiry and that the co-accused had been granted bail, held that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds, while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months. The holding emphasizes the principle of consistency in bail adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of consistency apply when granting bail to a co-accused in a criminal case?
  • Is a case involving conflicting evidence regarding the age of an alleged abductee and the validity of a marriage considered a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can a court grant post-arrest bail while simultaneously directing the trial court to conclude the trial within a specific timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Haider Naqvi and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 SCP 174, 2023 PSC (Crl.) 1, 2022 PLJ SC 379, PLD 2022 Supreme Court · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal breach of trustentrustmentNAB referenceacquittalSection 265-K Cr.P.C.regulatory compliancefiduciary relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions filed by employees of Shell Pakistan Limited challenging NAB proceedings regarding the alleged illegal sale of aviation fuel (JP-1) as Super Kerosene Oil, which allegedly caused a loss to the public exchequer. The core legal question was whether the alleged act of selling fuel in the open market, contrary to regulatory directives, constitutes the offence of criminal breach of trust under Sections 405 and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby falling under Section 9(a)(x) and (xi) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The Court held that the essential ingredient of 'entrustment' was absent because the fuel was purchased by the company in its own right, not entrusted by the public or refinery companies in a fiduciary capacity. Consequently, no offence under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 was made out. The Court established that regulatory control over the distribution of a commodity does not alter the private nature of a commercial transaction or create a fiduciary relationship. Without 'entrustment,' there can be no criminal breach of trust. The Court acquitted the petitioners and quashed the NAB reference.

  Questions settled

  • Does the regulatory control over the distribution of a commodity alter the private nature of a commercial transaction to create a fiduciary relationship?
  • Is 'entrustment' an essential ingredient for the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be entertained when the ground for acquittal does not require the appraisal of prosecution evidence?
  • Does the sale of a commodity owned by a company in its own right, in violation of government supply directives, constitute criminal breach of trust under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali and another vs The State2021 SCMR 349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-22
  homicidemurderous assaultocular accountinjured witnessnon-recovery of weaponsacquittal of co-accuseddaman
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition arose from the conviction of the petitioners for homicide and murderous assault under multiple counts, resulting in life imprisonment and other concurrent sentences, which were upheld by the High Court. The prosecution's case was based on the ocular account of three eyewitnesses, including an injured witness, who detailed the firearm assault motivated by a family dispute. The petitioners challenged the convictions, arguing that the motive was discarded, the injured witness was biased, no weapons were recovered, and the acquittal of a co-accused on the same evidence undermined the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the failure to recover weapons does not undermine a prosecution case firmly founded on reliable ocular evidence. The Court further ruled that the acquittal of a co-accused with a distinguishable role does not affect the integrity of the charge against the principal accused. While maintaining the convictions, the Court reduced the amount of Daman to Rs. 1,000/- due to the advanced age of the convicts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the investigating officer to recover the weapons used in an offense shake a prosecution case that is otherwise firmly founded on reliable ocular account?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused with a distinguishable role on the same set of evidence automatically require the rejection of the prosecution case against the remaining accused?
  • Can the amount of Daman imposed on a convict be reduced by the court on account of the extreme advanced age of the convict?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ahmed vs The State2021 IHC 28 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-16
  post-arrest bailrecovery of charasprohibitory clausenarcotics controlstatutory periodtrial expeditious conclusion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 3080 grams of charas from his house. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the heavy quantity of narcotics recovered, which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that a huge quantity of charas was recovered from the petitioner's direct possession, positive chemical examiner reports matched the seized substance, and the petitioner was implicated in other similar cases. The Court established that where an accused is charged with an offense falling within the prohibitory clause involving a commercial quantity of narcotics and positive forensic reports, bail ought to be withheld, while directing the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused found in possession of a large quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does a positive chemical examiner report regarding recovered narcotics prima facie connect the accused to the crime for bail purposes?
  • Can a bail petition be dismissed when the trial is already at an advanced stage and challan has been submitted?
  Read full judgment →