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.

• Abadat Ali vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1844 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-16
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtacquitted co-accusedindependent corroborationmotivedelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the complainant's son. The core legal question before the court was whether the ocular testimony, which had already been disbelieved to the extent of an acquitted co-accused whose role was identical to the appellant's, could be sustained against the appellant without independent and strong corroboration. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that where evidence is rejected against an acquitted co-accused, a conviction against remaining accused based on the same set of witnesses requires independent corroboration on material particulars. Finding no such corroboration—as the motive was unproved, the weapon recovery was inconclusive due to lack of crime empties, and unexplained delays in reporting suggested deliberation—the court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquitted him.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony disbelieved against an acquitted co-accused can be relied upon to convict another co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does an inconclusive weapon recovery without matching crime empties provide sufficient corroboration to sustain a murder conviction?
  • Whether an unproved motive weakens the prosecution case when ocular evidence lacks independent support?
  Read full judgment →
• Abad-Ul-Haq vs Secretary Elementary And Secondary Education and 72022 MLD 161 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-07-14
  upper age limitage relaxationcivil servantstemporary service exclusionconstitutional petitionservice appointmentwaiting merit list
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 as a Primary Teacher on the ground of being overage. The core legal question is whether a candidate seeking the benefit of upper age limit relaxation under Rule 4(v) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of age limit) Rules, 1997 due to prior continuous government service must formally apply for relaxation prior to submitting a job application, unlike cases falling under Rule 6 governed by factors beyond human control. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that Rule 4(v) operates automatically to exclude the period of continuous temporary government service from the candidate's age, making prior formal application unnecessary in such circumstances. The Court laid down the principle that the requirement to obtain prior relaxation applies only to cases under Rule 6 involving extraordinary factors beyond human control, whereas statutory exclusions under Rule 4 apply automatically based on qualifying prior service.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prior application for age relaxation is mandatory when claiming automatic exclusion of previous government service under Rule 4(v) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of age limit) Rules, 1997?
  • Does Rule 6 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of age limit) Rules, 1997 apply to cases of age relaxation claimed on the basis of prior continuous government service?
  • How does continuous temporary service affect the computation of the upper age limit for civil posts under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of age limit) Rules, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Abad Ali alias Imran and another vs City Police Officer, Faisalabad and 62021 PLD Lahore 274 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-17
  constitutional jurisdictionEx-Officio Justice of Peaceregistration of FIRpolice hierarchyalternative remedycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking implementation of an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for the registration of a criminal case under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question addressed was the recurring practice of invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court due to non-implementation of orders passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and the procedural framework required to curb such unnecessary litigation. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that an alternative remedy before the trial court was already available since the FIR had been registered. However, the Court laid down comprehensive mandatory directions for the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, police hierarchy, and prosecutors. The key principles laid down include that a petition under sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not maintainable unless the aggrieved party has first approached the Station House Officer and exhausted remedies before the higher police hierarchy, that proposed FIRs must be annexed to such petitions, and that police authorities are bound to implement orders of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace within five days.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition under sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable without exhausting remedies within the police hierarchy?
  • What are the mandatory pre-requisites for filing and processing a petition before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for the registration of a case?
  • Within what timeframe must the police hierarchy implement an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for the registration of an FIR?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained for the implementation of an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace when the FIR has already been registered?
  Read full judgment →
• Aasia Sikander, Advocate vs Chairman Higher Education Commission2021 PLJ Lahore 635 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-04Read full judgment →
• Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwala vs Deputy Commissioner Inland RevenuePTCL 2021 CL. 227, 2021 PTD 335, 2022 PCTLR 1352 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-22Read full judgment →
• Aam Loeg Itehad & another vs The Election Commission of Pakistan &2021 SCP 428, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 39 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-16
  quo warrantoElection Commission of Pakistanpost-retirement baroffice of profitquasi-judicialconstitutional interpretationreading injudicial appointments
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a quo warranto challenge against the appointment of retired judges and a civil servant as members of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The petitioners contended that the appointments violated the two-year post-retirement bar for judges holding an 'office of profit' under Article 207(2) of the Constitution. The High Court had dismissed the petition, ruling that the ECP is a 'quasi-judicial' office and thus exempt from the bar. The Supreme Court, while setting aside the High Court's reasoning, held that the inherent nature of the ECP is administrative/executive rather than quasi-judicial, despite certain ancillary judicial functions. However, the Court dismissed the appeal by applying the doctrine of 'reading in'. It determined that constitutional amendments (18th and 22nd) requiring ECP members to be retired judges would be rendered practically unworkable if the Article 207(2) bar applied. Consequently, the Court held that the words 'member of the Election Commission' must be read into the exceptions of Article 207(2) alongside the Chief Election Commissioner to give effect to the constitutional intent.

  Read full judgment →
• Aachee Garments (Pvt.) Ltd., through duly Authorized Representative and another vs Federation Of Pakistan through Chairman FBR and 2 others2021 PTD 1576 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-25Read full judgment →
• A.Subramanian & Anr vs R. Pannerselvam2021 SCInd 62 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-02-08Read full judgment →
• A. P. Moller Maersk and others vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue and othersPTCL 2021 CL 285 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• A. Navinchandra Steels Private Limited vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited2021 SCInd 116 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-03-01Read full judgment →
• A&Z Agro Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 1062 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• 123 Household Ehliyan-E-Pati Dechy, Shougroot And Hopuk, through Representatives and 8 others vs Late Molvi Yaqeen Shah through L. Rs2021 MLD 1739 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-09-04Read full judgment →
• (1) Salih Muhammad alias Sawal son of Kashmalay (2) Mustamir Khan2022 P Cr.L J 173, 2021 PHC 218 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-19
  criminal appealdying declarationchance witnessbenefit of doubtmurderocular evidencecorroboratory evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Buner, which convicted the appellants for murder and violations of the Arms Act. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the deceased's dying declaration and the credibility of eyewitness testimony. The Court held that the dying declaration was unreliable because the deceased, having sustained severe, life-threatening injuries, was likely in shock or unconscious, rendering the detailed statement improbable. Furthermore, the Court rejected the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses, classifying them as "chance witnesses" whose presence at the crime scene lacked credible justification and whose narratives appeared rehearsed and unnatural. The Court reiterated the principle that corroboratory evidence, such as weapon recoveries, cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable substantive evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted the appellants by extending them the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration be relied upon when the deceased has sustained severe injuries to vital organs?
  • Is the testimony of a chance witness sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Can a conviction be based solely on corroboratory evidence like recoveries when substantive evidence is discarded?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Resham Khan s/o Falak Sher (2) Zahid Iqbal s/o Resham Khan vs The2021 SCP 380, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 1009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-07
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryocular evidencemedical evidenceinvestigation reportcriminal jurisprudencetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioners in a murder case. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given that the investigating agency had placed them in Column No. 2 of the challan, declaring them innocent, and considering significant contradictions between the ocular account in the FIR and the medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that while the investigating officer's opinion is not binding, it cannot be discarded without cogent reasons. Furthermore, the discrepancy between the FIR's description of the injury location and the post-mortem report, combined with the lack of incriminating material, established a case for "further inquiry" under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reiterated that the object of bail is to secure attendance at trial, not to punish, and that the prosecution must establish reasonable grounds for detention, which were absent here.

  Questions settled

  • Does the placement of an accused's name in Column No. 2 of the challan entitle them to bail?
  • Can bail be granted when there are significant contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence?
  • Is the opinion of the investigating officer binding on the court during bail proceedings?
  • What is the scope of tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Zur Gul Pathan (Zargun Ali) & others vs The State & others2020 SHC 590 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• Zulfiquar vs The State2020 SHC 20 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-13Read full judgment →
• Zulfiquar Ahmed and 2 others vs Mst. Sagheeran and another2020 P Cr. L J 1203 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-15
  double jeopardyautrefois acquitdirect complaintsubsequent trialacquittalconstitutional protectionmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a direct complaint filed by the complainant after an earlier police-registered FIR concerning the exact same incident and occurrence had already resulted in the acquittal of the main accused, which acquittal had attained finality. The core legal question was whether initiating a subsequent direct complaint and convicting the appellants on the same facts and charges after an un-challenged final order of acquittal in the initial State case violates the constitutional and statutory protection against double jeopardy. The Sindh High Court held that the subsequent trial and conviction were barred under the principle of autrefois acquit, as a final verdict of acquittal rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction grants immunity from retrial or double prosecution for the same offence. The court laid down the principle that once an initial criminal proceeding arising from an occurrence culminates in a final, unchallenged acquittal, a subsequent private complaint or retrial based on the same facts and incident violates Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering any subsequent conviction legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does a subsequent direct complaint on the same facts violate the protection against double jeopardy when an earlier police FIR for the same incident has resulted in a final acquittal?
  • Can a person be tried and convicted for an offence after having been tried and finally acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction for the same occurrence?
  • What is the legal effect of an unchallenged order of acquittal passed in a State case upon a subsequent private direct complaint involving the same parties and incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs The State and anotherPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 208, 2020 P SC (Crl.) 827, 2020 P SC (Crl.) 831, 2020 SCMR 417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-15
  post-arrest bailmurderabetmentfurther probeevidentiary discrepancycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the rejection of post-arrest bail by the lower courts in a murder case. The petitioner, aged in his late sixties, was accused of involvement in a fatal shooting stemming from a property dispute. While the initial crime report attributed the first shot to the petitioner, the Investigating Officer subsequently concluded that the petitioner merely abetted the crime without being physically present at the scene. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence regarding his presence and the discrepancy between the number of shots fired and the injuries sustained by the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's culpability required further inquiry, particularly in light of the Investigating Officer's findings and the petitioner's advanced age. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case against an accused is subject to significant evidentiary doubt, particularly regarding presence at the scene and the nature of the role played, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further probe and release on bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail when the Investigating Officer's report contradicts the initial FIR regarding the accused's presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a discrepancy between the number of shots fired and the injuries sustained by the deceased warrant further probe for the purpose of bail?
  • Can the advanced age of an accused be considered a relevant factor in granting post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Haider vs Province of Sindh and others2020 SHC 1356 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-17Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs The State2020 SHC 552, 2022 PCRLJ 653 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseillicit liquorrecovery proceedingsindependent witnesseschemical report
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant, who was charged with the possession of illicit liquor. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to confirmation of bail given the circumstances of the alleged recovery and the nature of the offences charged. The Court held that the bail should be confirmed. The reasoning centered on the fact that the alleged contraband was not recovered from the applicant's exclusive possession, as the accused reportedly fled the scene upon seeing the police. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a populated area, and the lack of a chemical report in the police file. Crucially, the Court determined that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure code. The key principle laid down is that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, absent exceptional circumstances justifying detention.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery in a populated area entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be confirmed when the alleged contraband was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Shera through Attorney vs Shaukat Ali through L.Rs2020 YLR 2418 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-10Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali and another vs The State2020 MLD 1404 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-07
  pre-arrest bailmala fidesprohibitory clausefirearm injurymurderbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal matter where the applicants sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the rejection of their bail plea by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, particularly regarding allegations of false implication, medical inconsistency, and the absence of mala fides. The Sindh High Court held that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted unless the accused satisfies the court regarding mala fides on the part of the complainant or police, or that no offence is made out from the record, which conditions were not met. The court laid down the principle that the mere fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not a relevant primary consideration for granting pre-arrest bail, which requires an extraordinary showing of mala fides and unjustified humiliation.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted solely on the ground that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to be established by an accused seeking the concession of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does inconsistency between medical evidence and the ocular version regarding a single firearm injury warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali & another vs The State2020 SHC 574 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10
  pre-arrest baildismissal for non-prosecutionbail recallcriminal bail applicationinterim bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by the applicants seeking pre-arrest bail. The court had previously granted the applicants extraordinary relief in the form of ad-interim pre-arrest bail on 05.05.2020. When the matter was called for hearing for confirmation or otherwise, neither the applicants nor their counsel appeared, and no intimation was received by the court. Observing that the applicants appeared to have lost interest in pursuing their application, the court dismissed the criminal bail application for non-prosecution. Consequently, the court recalled the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants. The court directed the office to immediately inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station and the trial court regarding this order for compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal bail application be dismissed for non-prosecution if the applicant fails to appear?
  • Does the dismissal of a bail application for non-prosecution result in the recall of previously granted interim pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zufar Saeed vs The State & Gul Daraz Khan2020 PHC 448 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-16
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidenceFIR delayabscondencecapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in the ocular evidence, unexplained delays in FIR registration, and contradictions between the medical report and the prosecution's version of events. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found that the ocular evidence was unreliable due to material contradictions, the failure to explain the delay in reporting, and the lack of independent corroboration for interested witnesses. Additionally, the court noted that the alleged motive remained unproven and that abscondence cannot serve as a substitute for direct evidence when the prosecution's case is otherwise doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can abscondence alone serve as a basis for conviction when other prosecution evidence is doubtful?
  • Does a failure to prove an alleged motive require the court to scrutinize ocular evidence with greater caution?
  • Is it safe to convict an accused based on uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses when such testimony conflicts with medical evidence?
  • Does the unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, coupled with material contradictions in the prosecution's narrative, entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair vs The State2020 MLD 1808 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-02
  pre-arrest bailabsconsioncriminal theftdiscretionary reliefbail applicationFIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, who sought relief in a criminal case registered under FIR No. 264/2008 at Police Station Shah Latif Town, Karachi, involving allegations of theft and criminal intimidation. The core legal question was whether the applicant, having remained an absconder for approximately eleven years, was entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant failed to justify his prolonged absence or substantiate his claim of being abroad during that period. The Court emphasized that an accused who has absconded for an extended duration is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision establishes that absconsion for a significant period disentitles an accused from seeking pre-arrest bail, as the applicant must demonstrate bona fide conduct and availability to face the legal process. Consequently, the Court declined the bail application and recalled the interim bail previously granted, clarifying that these observations are tentative and shall not prejudice the trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused who has remained an absconder for a significant period entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the failure to produce evidence of being abroad during the period of absconsion affect the court's discretion in granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Javed vs Speaker Sindh Assembly & Ors2020 SHC 332 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-29Read full judgment →
• Zubair and another vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 826 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-11
  post-arrest bailabductionNikah Namafurther inquirybenefit of doubtFamily Court jurisdictioncriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail by two petitioners charged under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction of two women. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the existence of Nikah Namas and affidavits suggesting a valid marriage, despite the prosecution's allegations of abduction. The Court held that the significant delay in reporting the FIR, the existence of valid Nikah Namas, and the lack of medical evidence created reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the petitioners' guilt. Relying on the principle that disputes regarding the validity of marriage in abduction cases are best adjudicated by Family Courts, and that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage extends to the accused, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The judgment reaffirms that where the prosecution's case is weakened by contradictory evidence and the accused are previous non-convicts, continued incarceration is not justified, and the matter should proceed to trial for a final determination of the evidentiary worth of the claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a Nikah Nama in an alleged abduction case necessitate further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a criminal court stay proceedings regarding the validity of a marriage if a related dispute is pending before a Family Court?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused person at the bail stage?
  • Is the delay in reporting an FIR a factor in determining the reliability of the prosecution's case for bail purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubaid Begum, wido of Raj Muhammad vs Shahid Mehmood2020 SC AJK 114 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
• Zoom Marketing Oils (Pvt.) Limited through Authorized Attorney vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Energy and 3 others2022 [M] CLR 1223, 2020 PLD Islamabad 372 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-25Read full judgment →
• Zohaib Model Industries (Pvt.) Limited and 2 others vs Summit Bank Limited2021 PLJ Lahore 102, 2020 CLD 1086, 2022 [M] CLR 921, 2022 PCTLR 1011 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-14Read full judgment →
• Ziauddin Gabol s/o Amin Gabol vs The State2020 SHC 448 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-19
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequescivil disputecriminal liabilityfurther inquirysecurity cheques
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant Ziauddin Gabol sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of FIR No. 22/2020 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi, concerning the dishonour of two cheques valued at Rs. 30,000,000/-. The applicant contended that the dispute was of a civil nature, a civil suit was pending, and the cheques had been issued merely as security and paid off in cash, though no receipts were produced. The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the applicant was a habitual offender issuing cheques from a closed account. The Sindh High Court held that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not bar criminal proceedings under Section 489-F, and the failure to substantiate the cash payment claim warranted the denial of relief. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail application, directing the trial court to conclude the trial within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a civil suit bar criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when claiming cash payment for security cheques without producing receipts?
  • What are the legal consequences under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonestly issuing a cheque towards repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia-Ud-Din vs Collector Of Customs, MCC, Peshawar and 2 others2020 PTD (Trib.) 2004 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-07-22Read full judgment →
• Zia Ul Haq vs The State2020 MLD 1298 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-22
  criminal appealrash and negligent drivingbenefit of the doubtmotor vehicle accidentconviction set asidediyat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 320 and 279 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of a levies constable. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved that the appellant was driving in a rash or negligent manner and established a close proximity between such driving and the fatal injuries. The Balochistan High Court held that mere high speed or the fact of an accident does not suffice to prove rashness and negligence, especially where eyewitnesses admitted they did not witness the incident occurring in pitch darkness, the site map lacked crucial details, and no independent witnesses were examined. Setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant on the benefit of the doubt, the court laid down the principle that rashness and negligence are conditions precedent requiring proof through surrounding circumstances and lack of reasonable care, rather than mere assertions of speed or vehicle operation.

  Questions settled

  • Does driving a vehicle at a high speed automatically constitute a rash and negligent act under criminal law?
  • What are the essential elements required to bring home a charge under section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for vehicular homicide be sustained solely on the testimony of witnesses who did not actually witness the accident?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia alias Ziai vs The State & another2020 LHC 1464 · Lahore High Court
  abductionrapeprivate complaintinvestigating officeradverse presumptionDNA testSection 540 CrPCbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against a conviction for abduction and rape under a private complaint. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the evidentiary value of the prosecutrix's sole testimony, and whether the trial court's failure to examine the Investigating Officer, who had previously recommended the case for cancellation, caused prejudice to the accused. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable, citing significant contradictions in the complainant's testimony, the lack of corroboration, and the complainant's refusal to undergo a DNA test, which justified an adverse presumption. Furthermore, the court held that the trial court's failure to summon the Investigating Officer under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite the existence of a prior cancellation report, caused serious prejudice to the defense. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment affirms that while the Investigating Officer's non-examination is not per se fatal, it becomes a ground for acquittal if it causes prejudice to the accused by depriving them of the opportunity to impeach prosecution evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the sole testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case sufficient for conviction without corroboration?
  • Can an adverse presumption be drawn against a complainant who refuses to undergo a DNA test?
  • Does the non-examination of an Investigating Officer in a criminal trial automatically invalidate a conviction?
  • Under what circumstances is it mandatory for a trial court to summon a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Zewar Khan son of Maleet Ullah vs The State etc2021 MLD 855, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 646, 2020 PHC 376 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-27Read full judgment →
• Zeshan Ali and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 776 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-21
  pre-arrest bailmala fide involvementprevious civil litigationimprobable storycriminal procedurebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 815 registered under Sections 324, 448, 148, 149, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Bhikhi, District Sheikhupura. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the implausibility of the prosecution story, the absence of any injuries sustained by the complainant despite alleged heavy firing, delayed recovery of the targeted tractor, and undisputed prior civil litigation between the parties indicating possible mala fide. The Lahore High Court held that since no one was injured, the narrative did not appeal to a prudent mind, and previous civil litigation existed, the possibility of mala fide involvement could not be ruled out. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners, laying down the principle that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where the prosecution's narrative appears improbable and mala fide implication arising from previous enmity or litigation is plausible.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the FIR story lacks plausibility and no injuries are sustained by the complainant?
  • Does previous civil litigation between the parties raise a possibility of mala fide implication to warrant pre-arrest bail?
  • Is delayed recovery of case property a relevant factor in considering the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Usmani vs Federation of Pakistan & 02 others2020 SHC 280 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-07Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Pervez vs Muhammad Nasir2021 MLD 241, 2020 SHC 438 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-31Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Ahmad Khan vs Chairman KPK PSC and others2020 PHC 452 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-13Read full judgment →
• Zareen Khan vs The State2020 SHC 660 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-17
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseGutka and Mainpuri Actindependent witnessbail not jail
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by Zareen Khan seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No.110 of 2020 registered under Section 8 of the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation Manufacturing Storage Sale & Use of Gutka, Mainpuri Act, 2019 at Police Station Jamshoro. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and independent witnesses were not associated with the recovery. The Sindh High Court held that since the offense carries a maximum punishment of three years, thus falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and the accused was no longer required for investigation, the basic rule of 'bail not jail' applies. The Court laid down the principle that where an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the trial is likely to take time, pre-trial detention should not be used as a punishment, and granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to surety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to associate private independent witnesses from a busy locality during an alleged recovery create a further case for the grant of bail?
  • Whether pre-trial detention can be ordered indefinitely when the investigation is complete and the trial is likely to take time?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarar Ismail and others vs Senior Superintendent Police, District2020 P Cr. L J 111 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-29
  quashment of FIRconstitutional jurisdictioncivil and criminal proceedingsbreach of contractalternate remedyfraudpending civil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought the quashment of an FIR registered against them under sections 419, 420, and 34 of the Azad Penal Code, contending that the dispute arose from a breach of contract and was purely civil in nature. The primary legal question was whether criminal proceedings and an FIR can be quashed through a constitutional petition on the ground that the underlying dispute involves a civil obligation or is subject to a pending civil suit. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the High Court has limited scope under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, and should not interfere with police investigations or short-circuit normal trial procedures through constitutional jurisdiction when alternate remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure are available. The court laid down the key principle that criminal and civil proceedings can proceed simultaneously, and the mere pendency of a civil suit or the civil nature of a dispute does not bar criminal proceedings or serve as sufficient ground for quashing an FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings and an FIR be quashed under constitutional jurisdiction merely because the underlying dispute involves a civil obligation or breach of contract?
  • Whether criminal proceedings are barred in the presence of pending civil proceedings between the same parties regarding the same subject matter?
  • Can the High Court assume the role of an investigating agency or trial court to resolve factual controversies during the investigation stage of a criminal case?
  • Whether an accused person should be relegated to alternate remedies before the trial court under the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarak Arif Shah, Advocate High Court, Peshawar vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Chief Secretary Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others2021 PLD Peshawar 45, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 88, 2020 PHC 382 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-06Read full judgment →
• Zamir Ahmed Khan and others vs Muhammad Hassan Chiniyoon and others2020 CLC 1189 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16
  res judicatarejection of plaintappointment of receiverirrevocable power of attorneystatus quoland regularizationcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns competing claims over two acres of land, involving a sale agreement and a registered Power of Attorney. The core legal questions addressed whether the rejection of a previous plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, constitutes res judicata barring a subsequent suit, and whether the appointment of a Receiver is warranted under Order XL, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, where property is subject to ongoing encroachment despite status quo orders. The Court held that the rejection of a plaint is distinct from the dismissal of a suit and does not preclude a fresh suit. Furthermore, the Court determined that where a party demonstrates a prima facie case of an irrevocable Power of Attorney under Section 202, Contract Act 1872, and where property is being dissipated despite judicial restraint, the appointment of a Receiver is just and convenient. The judgment clarifies that an enquiry report initiated by revenue authorities during the subsistence of a status quo order is legally ineffective, affirming the Court's authority to preserve the res pending final adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, constitute res judicata for a subsequent suit?
  • Is a Power of Attorney executed for consideration irrevocable under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can a Receiver be appointed under Order XL, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to preserve property subject to ongoing encroachment despite a status quo order?
  • Does an enquiry report initiated by administrative authorities during the subsistence of a court-ordered status quo hold legal validity?
  Read full judgment →
• Zamir Ahmed Abbasi vs Lt Cdr (R) Kashif Ahmed Abbasi and OrsLt Cdr (R)2020 SHC 166 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-18Read full judgment →
• Zamin vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 440 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-20
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryfurther inquiryjoint house recoverybenefit of doubtCNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by the petitioner Zamin seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 4000 grams of chars from a room and 50 grams of ice from his personal possession. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the joint habitation of the house, lack of public witnesses, and multiple similar FIRs registered on the same day. The Peshawar High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner, noting that the house appeared to be joint, no public witnesses corroborated the recovery, and other accused persons in similar cases registered on the same day had already been granted bail. The court laid down the principle that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage can be extended to an accused person, especially where investigation is complete and the petitioner is no longer required for further interrogation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of narcotics from a joint house makes the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused person at the bail stage?
  • Whether registration of multiple similar FIRs on the same day by the police affects the tentative assessment of the prosecution's case for bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zameer Hussain Ujan & 18 others vs Province of Sindh & 03 others2020 SHC 210 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
• Zaman Khan vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1017 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-24
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtcontradictory testimonyeyewitness credibilityacquittalocular accountappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, along with convictions under Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony and corroborative evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the eyewitnesses made major contradictions and dishonest improvements, failed to justify their presence, and their conduct of remaining unhurt during indiscriminate firing rendered their presence doubtful. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the charge without independent corroboration and that multiple circumstances created reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt. The appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses containing material contradictions and improvements can form the basis of a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of close relative eyewitnesses to sustain any injury during an alleged indiscriminate firing incident cast serious doubt on their presence at the crime scene?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when multiple circumstances create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can medical evidence alone serve as a substitute for reliable direct ocular testimony in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakia Naz vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2020 SHC 1170 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-02Read full judgment →
• Zaka Ullah vs The State2020 LHC 1362, 2021 PCr.LJ 1 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-05
  dying declarationres gestaeadmissibility of evidenceburn injuriescorrosive substanceforeign documentscriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a woman who died from burn injuries. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of an unsigned dying declaration, the admissibility of foreign death records, and the applicability of res gestae evidence. The Court held that the absence of a signature on the dying declaration was an ignorable omission due to the victim's severe burn injuries. However, the Court found the prosecution failed to prove the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt because the foreign death certificate and Interpol report were not issued by government-appointed experts under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the murder conviction was set aside. Applying the principle that a dying declaration remains relevant for other offenses under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the Court convicted the appellant under Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing hurt by corrosive substance, sentencing him to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration be admitted in evidence if the deceased was unable to sign it due to physical disability?
  • Are foreign death certificates and Interpol reports admissible in a criminal trial under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the charge of murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 invalidate a conviction for a lesser offense based on the same dying declaration?
  • Can statements made by witnesses immediately after an occurrence be admitted as res gestae under Article 19 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaka Ullah vs The State and another2020 P SC (Crl.) 729, 2020 SCMR 452 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-15
  post-arrest bailhomicidedying declarationconflicting evidencefurther inquirycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Zaka Ullah, who has been in custody since May 17, 2019, in connection with a homicide case involving a motive of runaway marriage. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence regarding his specific role in the crime. The First Information Report (FIR) implicated the petitioner, yet the dying declaration omitted his name and role, and the Investigating Officer’s report suggested the petitioner was present at the scene but played no active role in the shooting. The Supreme Court held that these discrepancies created a dichotomy that required further inquiry during the trial. Consequently, the Court found that a case for further probe into the petitioner's culpability was established. The petition was converted into an appeal, allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the FIR and the dying declaration regarding the accused's role justify the grant of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation report suggests presence at the crime scene but omits an active role in the commission of the offense?
  • When should a bail petition be converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaid Shah alias Jogi vs The State2020 SCMR 497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-29
  second review petitionconcurrent sentencesabduction for ransomlife imprisonmentcriminal reviewsentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, convicted in six separate cases of abduction for ransom and sentenced to life imprisonment following the commutation of his initial death sentences, filed second review petitions before the Supreme Court seeking concurrent running of his sentences. The core legal question was whether a second review petition is maintainable and whether concurrent commutation of sentences can be granted based on the convict's life expectancy. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that a second review petition is not maintainable under the law, and that discretion regarding concurrent sentences under the Code of Criminal Procedure must be exercised with judicial circumspection rather than as a concessionary package based on life expectancy, particularly given the heinous and repetitive nature of the crimes. The key principle laid down is that second review petitions are barred, and the grant of concurrent sentences is not a matter of course but depends on the facts, circumstances, and enormity of the offenses committed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner maintain a second review petition before the Supreme Court?
  • How is judicial discretion under sections 35 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to be exercised regarding concurrent sentences?
  • Does life expectancy alone warrant the concurrent commutation of multiple sentences for heinous crimes?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaiba Kably vs Tariq Nazir Bukhari2020 CLC 751 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Khan vs The State & 05 others2021 P Cr. L J 446, 2020 PHC 226 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-21
  quashment of FIRconstitutional jurisdictioncognizable offenceinvestigationinherent powersfactual controversy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under Sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent or constitutional jurisdiction to quash an FIR involving cognizable offences when the investigation is ongoing and factual controversies exist. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the police possess a statutory duty and right to investigate cognizable offences under Section 154 and Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that it cannot usurp the role of the investigating agency, especially when factual disputes require the recording of evidence. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will only quash an FIR in exceptional circumstances, such as when allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence or are patently illogical, and that parties should instead pursue alternate remedies like applications under Section 249-A or Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Under what exceptional circumstances can the High Court quash an FIR?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to interfere with the statutory duty of the police to investigate a cognizable offence?
  • Is the quashment of an FIR appropriate when the case involves a factual controversy requiring the recording of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Khan vs Akhter Muhammad and another2020 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-05-21
  post-arrest bailmurdertentative assessmentocular accountmedical evidencereasonable groundsfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case, having been arrested over five years after the alleged incident, which involved the fatal shooting of the deceased. The petitioner argued that there was a conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence. The Supreme Court examined the record and held that arguments regarding discrepancies between witness testimony and medical reports cannot be entertained during the bail stage, as this requires a tentative assessment of evidence. The Court found that the ocular account, supported by medical evidence and investigative findings, established reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was involved in the crime, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a case for further inquiry and that the lower courts' decisions to deny bail were legally sound. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, and bail was declined.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conflict between ocular account and medical evidence be resolved during the bail stage?
  • What constitutes reasonable grounds for denying bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a long delay in arrest sufficient grounds to grant bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahir Ullah etc vs Samin Jan Khan etc2021 YLR 1575, 2020 PHC 478 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-10Read full judgment →
• Zahid Mehmood vs Member (Judicial-VII), Board Of Revenue, etc.2020 PLJ Lahore 88 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-03Read full judgment →
• Zahid Mehmood vs Member (Judicial-VII), Board Of Revenue and others2020 YLR 869 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-03Read full judgment →
• Zahid Khan vs Mst. Razia Khatoon and another2020 YLR 192 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-05Read full judgment →
• Zahid Kamal vs Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace_Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura and 2 others2020 PLJ Lahore 288, 2020 PLD Lahore 358 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-12Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs Ajeeb and others2020 YLR 1733 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-03-01
  criminal appealacquittaldelay in FIRidentification paradebenefit of doubtdacoityre-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, whereby respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were acquitted of charges relating to a dacoity and wrongful confinement. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically addressing the evidentiary value of a delayed First Information Report, lack of corroboration, flaws in the identification parade, and the parameters for interfering with an acquittal judgment. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence, as the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR cast serious doubt on the prosecution's version, the identification parade suffered from incurable legal and factual infirmities, and no incriminating corroborative evidence linked the respondents to the crime. The court reiterated the strict parameters for setting aside an acquittal, emphasizing that appellate courts must accord due weight to the trial court's findings unless manifest perversity or illegality is shown. Finding no such infirmity, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What are the parameters for an appellate court to consider when re-appraising evidence to interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  • Does an unexplained and considerable delay in lodging the First Information Report create a fatal dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Can an identification parade be relied upon when the accused persons' physical descriptions are omitted from the initial crime report?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade when the supervising magistrate is not produced and the witnesses have prior opportunity to see the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain Khan vs Shams Ullah2020 PLD Balochistan 78 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hameed vs Siraj Shah and another2020 P Cr. L J 1621 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-12
  insanity defenseschizophreniaburden of proofmurder convictionmitigating circumstancesmental disordercriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and connected revisions challenging a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who suffered from Schizophrenia, was entitled to the defense of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or alternatively, whether the sentence should be mitigated under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that while the appellant suffered from a chronic mental disorder, the burden of proof under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not discharged, as the evidence failed to establish that he was in a state of insanity at the time of the offense. The Court observed that the crime was committed with clear planning, motive, and intent. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were upheld, with the Court noting that the trial judge had already considered the mental illness as a mitigating factor in awarding life imprisonment rather than the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Does the diagnosis of Schizophrenia automatically entitle an accused to the defense of insanity under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the defense of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a court consider a history of mental illness as a mitigating factor to avoid the death penalty without applying Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid & Riaz Ali vs The statePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 238, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 426, 2020 SCMR 590, 2020 SCP 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-03
  rapegang rapeFIR delayDNA reportmedical evidencesexual assaultcorroboratory evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition arose from a conviction under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the gang rape of a married woman. The petitioners challenged their ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentences, primarily arguing that a one-day delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of a DNA report were fatal to the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that in cases involving sexual assault and personal honor, a delay in reporting is often understandable due to societal stigma and the victim's apprehension. The Court further ruled that the absence of a DNA report does not necessitate acquittal where substantial corroboratory evidence exists, such as medical reports confirming human sperm and physical marks of violence. The Court noted that the victim's testimony remained unshaken during cross-examination and there was no evidence of animosity between the parties. Consequently, the conviction was maintained as the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed vs Province of Sindh and others2020 SHC 928 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-05Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed vs Province of Sindh & 04 others2020 SHC 144 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-10Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal, Ex-Equivalence And Attestation Clerk vs Federation Of Pakistan2020 PLC (C.S.) 541 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-10
  service contractde novo inquirydepartmental appealcriminal acquittaltermination of servicesdisciplinary proceedingsspeaking order
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an ex-equivalence and attestation clerk, challenged the failure of the Inter Board Committee of Chairmen (I.B.C.C.) to restore his services following his acquittal in a criminal case and the setting aside of his initial termination via a departmental appeal that ordered a de novo inquiry. The core legal question was whether the employer could rely on an initial termination order that had been washed out by an appellate order directing a de novo inquiry, or on mere recommendations of an inquiry committee without a formal penalty order by the competent authority. The Islamabad High Court held that once an appellate authority orders a de novo inquiry, the original termination order stands washed out, and mere recommendations of an inquiry committee cannot substitute for a formal order of a competent authority. The Court laid down the principle that departmental inquiry recommendations do not take effect as punitive orders until formally passed by the competent authority, and that an appellate order for a de novo inquiry supersedes the prior penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate order directing a de novo inquiry wash out the original termination order?
  • Can mere recommendations of an inquiry committee be equated with an order passed by a competent authority?
  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case automatically bar the continuation or initiation of departmental proceedings?
  • Is an employer bound to decide a reinstated employee's pending application through a speaking order after affording a hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The Judge Accountability Court-I, Balochistan, Quetta and another2020 P Cr. L J 486 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-12
  trial in absentiawillful abscondencefair trialdue processNational Accountability Ordinancecriminal appealnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Ehtesab Appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Accountability Court-I, Quetta, under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The appellant was convicted in absentia for willful abscondence following the publication of a proclamation in a local newspaper. The core legal question was whether a conviction under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 can be sustained when the trial court failed to frame a charge, record evidence, or prove willful abscondence, and when the trial proceeded in absentia. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, ruling that trial in absentia violates the constitutional right to a fair trial. The Court emphasized that Section 31-A constitutes a distinct offence requiring the prosecution to prove willful abscondence through evidence, following the framing of a charge and providing the accused an opportunity for cross-examination. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a trial conducted in accordance with due process and the principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 be sustained without framing a charge or recording evidence?
  • Is a trial in absentia constitutionally permissible under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving willful abscondence to secure a conviction under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Zabiullah vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2020 SHC 724 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-24Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Siddique vs Govt. of the Punjab and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 392, 2020 LHC 749 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-28
  public employmentfundamental rightsnatural justicefamily backgroundpolice recruitmentdue processconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the exclusion of the petitioner from a list of recommended Sub-Inspectors by the Punjab Police Department. Despite being recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission, the petitioner was dropped due to adverse reports regarding his brothers' past associations with a defunct organization. The core legal question was whether a candidate’s appointment can be denied based on the criminal history or background of their family members. The Court held that the exclusion was unlawful, arbitrary, and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights. The Court determined that recruitment must be based on the candidate's personal character, not the conduct of their relatives, as no individual can be held responsible for the misdeeds of others. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioner was denied the right to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the respondents were directed to issue the appointment letter. The judgment establishes the principle that family background cannot serve as a valid ground for disqualification in public employment, and that administrative actions affecting fundamental rights must adhere to due process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate for public office be disqualified solely based on the criminal history or bad character of their family members?
  • Is an administrative authority required to provide a hearing to a candidate before excluding them from an appointment list based on adverse security reports?
  • Does the exclusion of a candidate from a merit-based appointment list without notice violate the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Yousaf and others vs State2021 YLR 843, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1541 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-20
  post-arrest bailpolice encounterfurther inquiryright to fair trialrecovery memoindependent witnessesexpeditious trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves post-arrest bail applications filed by accused persons charged with offenses including police encounter, illegal arms possession, and narcotics trafficking. The core legal question is whether the applicants are entitled to bail given the alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative, the lack of independent witnesses, the applicants' prior acquittal in a connected narcotics case based on the same recovery evidence, and the inordinate delay in the trial process. The High Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicants. The court held that where the prosecution's narrative of an encounter is inherently doubtful—evidenced by the lack of injuries to police personnel and the absence of independent witnesses—and where the accused has already been acquitted in a connected case based on the same recovery evidence, the case warrants further inquiry. Furthermore, the court emphasized that an inordinate delay in trial, violating the right to an expeditious trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, justifies the grant of bail, as bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of an accused in a connected case based on the same recovery evidence entitle them to bail in a pending case?
  • Can bail be granted where the prosecution's narrative of a police encounter is contradicted by the absence of injuries to police personnel?
  • Does an inordinate delay in the commencement of a trial constitute grounds for the grant of bail under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area a valid ground for further inquiry at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Younas Hassan vs The State and another2020 LHC 1514 · Lahore High Court · 2020-07-01
  post-arrest baillalkarafurther inquiryabscondencevicarious liabilitycriminal proceduremurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in respect of offences under sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an accused person attributed only with raising a lalkara while being empty-handed, and whose case falls within the scope of further inquiry, is entitled to post-arrest bail despite an extended period of abscondence. The court held that the petitioner made no attempt to cause injury, his role was distinguishable from the principal accused, and the case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering the element of abscondence insufficient by itself to deny bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused person's case falls squarely within the domain of further inquiry, mere abscondence or being a proclaimed offender does not disentitle them to the concession of bail as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person attributed only with raising a lalkara while being empty-handed is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the mere abscondence or being a proclaimed offender disentitle an accused person to bail when their case falls under further inquiry?
  • Can the element of abscondence override the statutory right to bail in cases calling for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1485, 2020 YLR 464 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-01
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsrule of consistencyseizing officer authoritycase property productioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Yasir, who was charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 7000 grams of charas and 9000 grams of opium from a vehicle he was driving. The core legal questions were whether the accused was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, given that a co-accused had already been granted bail, and whether the recovery was vitiated by the seizing officer's lack of authorization and the failure to produce case property before the trial court. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the co-accused had already been released, invoking the rule of consistency. Furthermore, the court noted that the seizing officer, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, lacked the statutory authority to seize narcotics under the relevant Act, and the failure to produce the case property before the court further weakened the prosecution's case. The court established that heinousness of a crime alone does not disentitle an accused to bail when procedural irregularities exist.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused has already been granted bail in a narcotics case?
  • Is an Assistant Sub-Inspector authorized to seize narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Does the failure to produce case property before the trial court impact the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
  • Can the heinous nature of a crime alone justify the denial of bail when procedural irregularities are present?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir Sajjad vs Mst. Rani Nasir and another2020 PLD Sindh 596 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-17
  private counselhostile witnesscross-examinationPublic Prosecutorrehabilitation of witnesscriminal trial procedurerevision application
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged an order by an Additional Sessions Judge allowing a privately engaged counsel for the complainant to move an application to declare a prosecution witness hostile and to conduct cross-examination upon said witness. The core legal question was whether a private counsel, engaged by a complainant, possesses the authority to request that a witness be declared hostile and to conduct cross-examination, or if such powers are exclusively reserved for the Public Prosecutor under Section 493 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while the Public Prosecutor remains the primary authority in charge of the prosecution, a privately engaged counsel is not restricted to mere assistance. The Court ruled that such counsel may perform acts including cross-examining a hostile witness, provided these actions are conducted under the direction and control of the Public Prosecutor. The Court established that the term 'act' in Section 493 is broad, and as long as the Public Prosecutor does not object, a private counsel may conduct such cross-examination to rehabilitate the prosecution's case, provided the application is filed through or countersigned by the Public Prosecutor.

  Questions settled

  • Can a privately engaged counsel for the complainant conduct cross-examination of a prosecution witness declared hostile?
  • Does Section 493 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restrict a private counsel to only assisting the Public Prosecutor?
  • Is the consent or direction of the Public Prosecutor required for a private counsel to move an application to declare a witness hostile?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir Mughal vs Fawad & Another2020 SHC 668 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-17Read full judgment →
• Yasir Mazhar vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1570 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-06
  post-arrest bailmurderprinciple of consistencytrial delaymedical evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition filed under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Yasir Mazhar, in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 109, 148, and 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of a murderous assault resulting in the death of the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the medical evidence, the principle of consistency regarding a co-accused who had been granted bail, and the significant delay in the trial process. The Court observed that while the petitioner was alleged to have fired from close range, the medical report noted an absence of blackening or burning around the wound. Furthermore, noting that a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court, and considering that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over two and a half years without the trial concluding due to procedural delays, the Court held that the petitioner had earned the right to release. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and bail was granted subject to furnishing bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of blackening or burning around a firearm wound entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused be granted bail on the principle of consistency when a co-accused with a similar role has already been released?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of trial proceedings constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasin Khan vs The Collector of Customs MCC, Peshawar & others2020 PHC 438, 2020 PTD 2136, 2022 PCTLR 473 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-01Read full judgment →
• Yasin Baig, Senior Superintendent Police District Poonch and others vs State through Advocate General, Azad Govt. of State of J&K and others2020 PLJ AJ&K 32 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Yaseen vs The State2020 SCMR 1182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-03-12
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefirearm recoveryFSL reportleave to appealcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 924 registered under sections 324, 353, 216, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 15 of the Arms Act. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when apprehended at the spot with a firearm and supported by positive forensic reports. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was apprehended at the spot, a pistol was recovered from his possession, the FSL report matching the weapon with empties recovered from the spot is positive, and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when apprehended at the spot with a firearm and supported by a positive FSL report?
  • Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bar the grant of bail under the circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Yaseen vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 484 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-09
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseattempt to commit qatl-i-amdvicarious liabilitygrant of bail as rulecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Yaseen, who was charged under Sections 337-F(vi), 337-A(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injury to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the alleged offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically regarding the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the injury inflicted on the wrist did not demonstrate an intent to kill, thus excluding the application of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at this stage. Consequently, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that for non-bailable offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception, applicable unless extraordinary circumstances—such as risk of abscondence, tampering with evidence, repetition of the offence, or prior conviction—are established by the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Does an injury inflicted on the wrist of a complainant necessarily establish an intention to commit qatl-i-amd under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the grant of bail a rule and refusal an exception for non-bailable offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the extraordinary circumstances that justify the refusal of bail in cases not covered by the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Yar Shah vs The State Through Advocate-General, Kyber PakhtunkhwaPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1441, 2020 P Cr. L J 493 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-06-20
  narcotics recoverybenefit of the doubtcriminal appealdelayed FSL dispatchsuspicious arrestconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, rendered by the Special Court (CNS), Peshawar. The prosecution alleged that 24 kilograms of Charas were recovered from a motorcar occupied by the appellants following an interception by Anti-Narcotics Force officials. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics and the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court held that serious doubts existed regarding the time and manner of the arrest, the place of recovery, the preparation of recovery memos after FIR registration, and the delayed Forensic Science Laboratory dispatch. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt, and even a single or slightest circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a favorite child of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the preparation of recovery memos after the registration of an FIR render the prosecution's case regarding the recovery of narcotics doubtful?
  • What is the legal effect of a considerable delay in sending allegedly recovered contraband to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when material contradictions and shaky evidence create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's story?
  Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad vs National Bank Of Pakistan through Manager2020 CLD 362 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-22Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad vs National Bank of Pakistan through its Manager2020 PCTLR 993 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-22Read full judgment →
• Yar Mohammad son of Ghulam Hussain vs Province Of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 902 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-03Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Khan vs State2020 PHC 350 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-05
  post-arrest bailfurther probemurdertentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner Yaqoob Khan sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.57 dated 28.09.2019, registered under Sections 302/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Bara, District Khyber, on allegations of catching hold of the deceased while co-accused fired fatal shots. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's alleged act of catching hold of the victim while co-accused fired from close proximity made his case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the improbability of the petitioner risking his life by holding the victim while co-accused fired at close range qualified the case for further probe. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail on tentative assessment, laying down the principle that unnatural attribution of roles in proximity to firearm use warrants further inquiry entitling the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether catching hold of a victim while co-accused fire at him from close proximity qualifies a case for further probe under bail jurisdiction?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when tentative assessment of the record creates doubt regarding his active participation in the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Ahmed vs Fed. of Pakistan and Ors2020 SHC 920 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-02Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Ahmed through Attorney and others vs Federation of Pakistan2020 PTD 1407 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-02
  Income Support LevyMoney BillConstitutional petitionDiscriminatory classificationLegislative competenceRepeal of statuteEqual protectionFiscal legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the Income Support Levy Act, 2013, on grounds of legislative competence and discriminatory classification, and contested assessment proceedings initiated post-repeal. The core legal questions were whether the Income Support Levy (ISL) constituted a "tax" validly introduced via a Money Bill, whether it violated Article 25 of the Constitution due to discriminatory classification, and whether proceedings initiated after the Act's repeal without a saving clause were lawful. The Court held that the ISL was not a "tax" because it was a specific-purpose levy for social welfare rather than a common burden for general revenue, rendering its introduction through a Money Bill unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Court ruled the ISL discriminatory as it targeted only existing taxpayers filing wealth statements while excluding others with similar assets. Finally, the Court held that in the absence of a saving or validation clause in the repealing Finance Act, 2014, any assessment proceedings initiated after the repeal were without jurisdiction. The judgment affirms that fiscal legislation must adhere to constitutional mandates regarding legislative procedure and equal protection.

  Questions settled

  • Can a levy intended for a specific social welfare purpose be introduced through a Money Bill under Article 73 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the exclusion of non-filers of wealth statements from the Income Support Levy constitute discriminatory classification in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can assessment proceedings be initiated or continued under a repealed statute if the repealing enactment lacks a specific saving or validation clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Yameen son of Jam Ghatto Chandio vs The State2020 SHC 1282 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-09
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRvicarious liabilityacquittalfirearm injuryanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7(1)(c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions involve the credibility of delayed FIR, omission of the appellant's name from the initial police entry, and the application of vicarious liability where no active role is attributed. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the initial omission of the appellant's name in the Roznamcha entry, and the absence of any active role attributed to him rendered his involvement doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt and acquitting him of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR creates a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused?
  • Does the omission of an accused person's name from the initial police entry render their subsequent involvement doubtful?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the basis of vicarious liability when no active role in the commission of the crime is attributed to him?
  Read full judgment →
• Yameen & another vs The State2020 SHC 106 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-31
  post-arrest baildismissal for non-prosecutionnon-appearancetrial proceedingscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed before the Sindh High Court. The core legal question concerns the prosecution of the bail application when the applicants and their counsel repeatedly fail to appear, and the trial has progressed to the stage of recording statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the continuous non-appearance of the applicants and their counsel indicates a loss of interest in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail application for non-prosecution and directed the office to transmit a copy of the order to the trial court immediately. The key principle laid down is that where an accused or their counsel persistently fails to appear and prosecute a bail application, particularly at an advanced stage of the trial, the court may dismiss the application for non-prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bail application be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the continuous non-appearance of the applicants and their counsel?
  • What is the procedural consequence when an accused fails to appear at the hearing of their bail application while the trial is at the stage of recording statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Wishandas S/o Gharo Mal Meghwar vs Kelash, Rano @ Ranio, Ghulam2020 SHC 64 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Williams vs The Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance2020 P SC 225 · Supreme Court of IrelandRead full judgment →
• William Rodney Swan vs The Queen2020 SCMR 939 · High Court of Australia · 2020-03-18Read full judgment →
• Wazir Muhammad vs Abdul Jabir ctc2021 YLR 2294, 2020 PHC 498 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-01
  acquittal appealhostile witnessretracted judicial confessiondouble murderbenefit of the doubtcorroborationFSL reportpresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a double murder case. The complainant, who was the husband of one of the deceased, initially lodged an FIR charging his nephews with the murders, but subsequently turned hostile during trial, stating he was sleeping under the influence of tranquilizers and did not witness the occurrence. The prosecution also relied on retracted judicial confessions, forensic recovery of crime empties with a matching FSL report, and medical evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the hostile complainant's testimony lacked credibility and could not be safely relied upon without independent corroboration, that the retracted judicial confessions were involuntary and suffered from blatant procedural violations of statutory safeguards, and that expert forensic and medical evidence only corroborates substantive evidence rather than independently identifying the assailants. Upholding the double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, dismissed the appeal, and maintained the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the sole testimony of a witness declared hostile by the prosecution?
  • What are the essential legal requirements for a retracted judicial confession to form the basis of a conviction?
  • Does an FSL report matching crime empties with a recovered weapon suffice by itself to convict an accused in the absence of substantive ocular testimony?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court set aside a judgment of acquittal that carries a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazir Khan vs Nazar Jaffar and others2020 KLR Criminal Cases 73 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
• Wazir Khan and another vs Sherin Dad and others2020 SCMR 1264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-27
  criminal petitionmurderleave to appealacquittalreduction of sentenceimprisonment for liferevaluation of evidenceSupreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against concurrent findings and High Court judgments concerning convictions and sentences for murder and related offences. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court's acquittal of the accused on certain murder counts and the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life were sustainable based on the evidence, and whether the petitioner's conviction for murder was liable to be set aside. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of guilt against the petitioner were well-founded, supported by prompt FIR naming, consistent ocular testimony of the injured complainant, and medical evidence, while the High Court's reasons for partial acquittal and sentence reduction due to suppression of the immediate cause and inability of witnesses to view part of the incident were valid and free from perversity. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's acquittal or sentence reduction unless a jurisdictional infirmity, illegality, or misreading of the record is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's judgment reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life when valid reasons grounded in the record are provided?
  • Can delay in filing a criminal petition against a murder conviction be condoned in the interests of justice?
  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt by the courts below based on prompt FIR, injured witness testimony, and medical evidence warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Is a High Court's acquittal on certain murder counts sustainable when eyewitnesses were not in a position to see that part of the incident and a material witness was given up as won over?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ali and others vs The State2020 SHC 1108 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-27Read full judgment →
• Water And Sanitation Authority (WASA), Faisalabad Development Authority2020 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 77 · Punjab Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Wasiq Nazir Satti vs The State2020 MLD 1564 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-04
  murder convictionbenefit of doubtocular evidenceforensic reporttattooing markscriminal appealmurder referenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence for the murder of the deceased under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony from the deceased's brothers, who claimed to witness the appellant shooting the deceased at an under-construction house. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the evidence. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case. The court noted that the ocular testimony was contradicted by both the scaled site plans and the medical evidence, particularly regarding the presence of tattooing marks on the deceased, which indicated a close-range firing inconsistent with the witnesses' accounts. Furthermore, the forensic report failed to link the recovered weapon to the crime. Applying the principle that reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused when the evidence is not confidence-inspiring, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of tattooing marks on a deceased's body necessarily contradict ocular testimony claiming a specific firing distance?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the forensic report explicitly states that the recovered crime weapon does not match the recovered bullet empties?
  • Is a conviction valid when the ocular testimony is materially contradicted by the scaled site plan prepared by the draftsman?
  • What is the standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases involving capital punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Wasif M. Khan vs Executive Director, Corporate And Supervision2020 CLD 1440 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-12-30Read full judgment →
• Waseem Sajjad vs The District Health Authority, etc2020 LHC 2820 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-20
  civil servantsDistrict Health AuthorityDistrict Education Authoritytransfer and postingterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional jurisdictionbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a batch of constitutional petitions filed by employees of the Health and Education Departments questioning their transfer, posting, and disciplinary orders on the grounds of malice and lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question revolves around whether the creation and establishment of the District Education Authority and District Health Authority under the Punjab Local Government Act changed the status of these employees, removing them from the category of civil servants and thereby bypassing the jurisdictional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court held that the establishment of these authorities did not alter the status of the employees, who remain civil servants governed by the Civil Servants Act. Consequently, matters relating to their postings and transfers pertain to the terms and conditions of service, attracting the absolute bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the creation and establishment of District Education and Health Authorities under the Punjab Local Government Act 2013 changes the status of departmental employees from civil servants?
  • Does a transfer of a civil servant to an autonomous or semi-autonomous body or local authority alter their status as a civil servant?
  • Whether constitutional petitions filed by civil servants regarding their transfer and posting are barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Do matters relating to transfer, posting, and disciplinary proceedings fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Waseem Majid Malik vs Federation of Pakistan etc2020 LHC 1483, 2020 CLD 1207 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-26Read full judgment →