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.

• Waseem Khan vs Asim Hussain and 5 others2020 YLR 1886 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
• Waseem Hyder Memon vs The State through Director General (NAB)2020 MLD 207 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-21
  plea bargaincriminal revisionaccountability courtvoluntary returnconviction finalitylimitation periodSection 265-K Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order of the Accountability Court dismissing the applicant's request under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for acquittal. The applicant, having previously entered into a plea bargain under Section 25(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, sought acquittal on the grounds that his co-accused had been acquitted and that his plea bargain was executed under duress. The core legal questions were whether the applicant could seek acquittal after a plea bargain conviction and whether the trial court could review its own final order. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the plea bargain was entered into voluntarily and the resulting conviction had attained finality. The Court affirmed that under Section 369, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a court cannot review its own signed judgment except for clerical errors. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the applicant’s failure to challenge the conviction for thirteen years rendered the application time-barred, emphasizing that plea bargain convictions are binding and cannot be set aside based on the subsequent acquittal of co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person challenge a conviction based on a plea bargain after a significant delay?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused automatically entitle an accused who entered into a plea bargain to acquittal?
  • Is a court empowered to review or alter its own judgment after it has been signed?
  • Does a plea bargain under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 constitute a voluntary admission of guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Waseem Ahmed vs The Director General, Accountability Bureau, Sindh and another2020 SHC 638, 2022 MLD 476 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-13Read full judgment →
• Waseem Ahmed and others vs The State2020 SHC 680 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-18
  post-arrest bailGutka and Manpuri Actfurther inquiryprohibitory clauseindependent witnesspolice officials as witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants Waseem Ahmed and Aijaz Ahmed in Crime No.63/2020 registered under section 8 of the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storing, Sale and Using Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019 at P.S City, Hyderabad. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail where the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and involves police officials as witnesses without independent corroboration. The Sindh High Court held that a case for further inquiry was made out, allowing the bail application. The key principles laid down include that pre-trial incarceration should not be used as a form of punishment, mistaken relief of bail can be repaired upon conviction unlike unjustified incarceration, and lack of independent witnesses alongside non-prohibitory clause offenses tilts the scale in favor of granting bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses at a public place during an arrest make the case one of further inquiry?
  • Can further detention of an accused be justified when the trial has not commenced and all prosecution witnesses are police officials?
  Read full judgment →
• Waris and another vs The State and others2020 SCMR 2044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-23
  leave to appealcapital chargereappraisal of evidenceco-accused acquittalindependent corroborationcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a jail petition and criminal petitions seeking leave to appeal against concurrent findings of lower courts involving a murder conviction. The core legal question is whether the same set of judicial evidence, disbelieved by the courts below regarding acquitted co-accused, can be safely relied upon to sustain the capital conviction of the remaining petitioner without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised merit consideration and granted leave to appeal to reappraise the entire evidence on record for the safe administration of justice. The key principle laid down is that evidence disbelieved for co-accused requires careful scrutiny and independent corroboration before being used to sustain the conviction of another accused on a capital charge.

  Questions settled

  • Can the same set of evidence disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused be relied upon to convict the remaining petitioner on a capital charge without independent corroboration?
  • Does a delay in the registration of the FIR warrant the grant of leave to appeal for reappraisal of evidence?
  • When is leave to appeal granted by the Supreme Court for the reappraisal of evidence in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqas Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1747 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-08
  narcoticscriminal appealsentence reductionpossession of charasquantum of sentenceremorse
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Waqas Khan, who was found guilty of possessing 2400 grams of charas under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to five years and six months of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant's counsel did not contest the conviction but requested a reduction in the sentence, citing the appellant's remorse and repentance. The Special Public Prosecutor did not oppose this request. Upon reappraisal of the evidence, the Lahore High Court upheld the conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. However, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, the appellant's remorse, and the agony of the trial, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to three years, while maintaining the fine and extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence for a narcotics conviction if the appellant expresses remorse and the prosecution does not object?
  • Is a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 sustainable when the appellant does not press the conviction on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqas Ilyas vs Reema Rehman and another2020 YLR 2693 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-06Read full judgment →
• Waqas Habib s/o Muhammad Habib Khan, r/o Banjosa, Tehsil Rawalakot,2020 SC AJK 30 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Waqas Ahmed vs Arshad Mehmood and 2 others2020 YLR 437 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-24
  criminal acquittal appealacquittaldelayed FIRdouble presumption of innocencehostile witnessunnatural conductdishonest investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the private respondents were acquitted of the charge under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pursuant to an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question revolved around the propriety of the acquittal order and whether the prosecution successfully established the presence of ocular witnesses, a credible motive, and a reliable chain of evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, doubtful presence and unnatural conduct of the eyewitnesses, material contradictions, a hostile witness, and a flawed investigation including belated recovery of crime empties. The court reaffirmed the principle that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence which cannot be interfered with unless found perverse or suffering from misreading of evidence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal order under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be interfered with in the absence of perversity or misreading of evidence?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • Whether the natural conduct of eyewitnesses is a material factor in determining their presence at the scene of the crime?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of an acquittal and the strength of the presumption of innocence attached to it?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqas Abid and 12 others vs Sajid Hussain and others2020 YLR 1108, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 78 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-08
  double murderocular testimonyinterested witnessesunproved motivemitigating circumstancesdeath sentence reductionlife imprisonmentacquittal appealrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference originated from a judgment of the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Dadyal, convicting the appellant Sajid Hussain under sections 302(b), A.P.C. (Pakistan Penal Code) and other provisions for the double murder of Master Muhammad Ayub and Abid Hussain, and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony from related and interested witnesses, the legal effect of an unproved prosecution motive, and the justification for interfering with an acquittal order. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the convict-appellant beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness accounts corroborated by medical and recovery evidence. However, because the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and the complainant died without testifying, the court found mitigating circumstances present, setting aside the death penalty and converting it to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the rest of the convictions and confirming the acquittal of the co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • What is the legal evidentiary value of expert forensic reports regarding crime weapons when direct ocular evidence is available?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqarullah Korejo vs The Government of Sindh and 03 others2020 SHC 838 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
• Waqar Haneef, SDO Electricity, SubDivision Mirpur vs Azad Govt. through Chief Secretary AJK, Govt. Muzaffarabad2020 SC AJK 18 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Waqar Baig vs Federation of Pakistan & Ors2020 SHC 1186 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-15Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Director Legal WAPDA, WAPDA House Lahore vs Iftikhar Ali2020 SC AJK 66 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• WAPDA through Director Legal WAPDA, WAPDA House Lahore vs Community through Khadim Hussain s_o Qutab Din, r_o Dhok Moura Qadir, Kalyal Bainsi, Tehsil and District Mirpur, Azad Jammu & Kashmir and others2020 SC AJK 110 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA House and others vs Syed Sajjad2020 PHC 430, 2021 CLC 1061, 2022 KLR Revenue Cases 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Chairman WAPDA Lahore vs Ghulam Farooq s/o2020 SC AJK 68 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Waliullah and 2 others vs The State2020 YLR 1421 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-25
  post-arrest bailcompromisediyat amountminor legal heirssindh high court
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following their inability to immediately deposit the Diyat amount ordered by the trial court upon accepting a compromise between the parties. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail could be granted to accused persons who had entered into a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased but were detained due to their inability to immediately deposit the required share of Diyat for minor legal heirs. The Sindh High Court held that further detention of the applicants would not serve any useful purpose, particularly given the compromise accepted by the trial court and the State's lack of objection. The Court laid down that bail may be granted to accused persons pending the deposit of the Diyat amount, subject to furnishing solvent sureties and granting a reasonable extension of time for depositing the minors' share of Diyat.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be granted post-arrest bail when a compromise has been accepted by the trial court but the Diyat amount remains unpaid due to poverty?
  • Whether further detention serves any purpose when a compromise is effected between the parties in a murder case?
  • Can the court grant extended time to an accused for depositing the share of Diyat concerning minor legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The State2020 MLD 980 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-05
  kidnapping for ransomidentification paradecriminal appealbenefit of doubtanti-terrorismeye-witness testimonypolice custody
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence for kidnapping for ransom under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on identification parade evidence and eye-witness testimony. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's involvement. The Court found the identification parade legally flawed, as it was conducted while the appellant was in police custody, and noted that the eye-witnesses were unreliable, including a chance witness whose presence was unexplained. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the lack of credible evidence regarding ransom demands and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the recovery of incriminating items. The key principle laid down is that where an identification parade is conducted while an accused is in police custody without adhering to procedural safeguards, and where eye-witness testimony is inconsistent or lacks corroboration, the prosecution cannot be said to have met the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an identification parade be relied upon when conducted while the accused is in police custody?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, combined with lack of evidence regarding ransom, warrant the acquittal of an accused in a kidnapping case?
  • Is the testimony of a chance witness sufficient to sustain a conviction for kidnapping for ransom?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade where the magistrate fails to follow procedural safeguards?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and another vs The State2020 MLD 512 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-18
  criminal appealexplosive substancesanti-terrorismremand of caseexamination of accusedsanction for prosecutionfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants filed criminal jail appeals impugning their conviction and sentence passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The core legal questions involved the omission to put questions regarding Ballistic/Forensic Expert reports to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the absence of sanction or consent from the Provincial Government necessary for proceedings under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the trial court to rewrite the judgment after curing the pointed defects and ensuring a fair trial. The key principle laid down is that material pieces of evidence like forensic reports must be put to the accused during examination under Section 342, Cr.P.C., and mandatory statutory sanctions must be on record before proceeding with prosecution under special penal laws, failing which the judgment is liable to be set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether omission to put questions regarding forensic reports to an accused under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the trial requiring remand?
  • Is the sanction or consent of the Provincial Government necessary for proceeding with a case under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a conviction and remand the matter to the trial court to cure procedural defects and rewrite the judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Waleed Hassan vs The State and another2020 LHC 1543 · Lahore High Court · 2020-07-08
  post-arrest bailjuvenile offenderstatutory delayJuvenile Justice System Act 2018speedy trialdetermination of age
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on behalf of the petitioner, Waleed Hassan, who was booked under sections 324, 334, 336, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(1), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves whether a juvenile accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 when such delay is not attributable to him. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was declared a juvenile and the trial had not concluded within the statutory period of six months without any delay being occasioned by his acts or omissions, he was entitled to bail as a matter of right. The court laid down the principle that the time spent in determining the age and declaring an accused a juvenile is a statutory obligation of the police and the court, and cannot be construed as delay caused by the accused to defeat his right to statutory bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the time spent in obtaining a declaration of juvenility can be termed as delay caused in the trial by the accused so as to deprive him of statutory bail?
  • Does the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 apply retrospectively to pending proceedings and cases registered prior to its promulgation?
  • Whether a juvenile offender is entitled to bail if his trial is not concluded within six months and the delay is not occasioned by his own act or omission?
  • What is the effect of the repeal of the proviso to section 10(7) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 regarding heinous offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Wakil Khan vs The State etc2020 PHC 464 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-21Read full judgment →
• Wajid Shabbir vs Zubeda and another2020 MLD 684 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-17
  revision petitionacquittalpremature acquittalcriminal trialprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition is directed against the order of the Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, dismissing the petitioner's application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an application for acquittal under section 249-A can be accepted prematurely before the examination of material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the investigating officer. The High Court held that for the safe administration of justice, recording the evidence of remaining important witnesses is essential for a just decision, and the trial court rightly dismissed the application when only two prosecution witnesses had been examined out of seven. The key principle laid down is that while an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. can be moved at any stage, acquittal at a premature stage is not warranted when crucial prosecution evidence remains to be recorded and the possibility of conviction cannot be ruled out.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be allowed before recording the statements of essential prosecution witnesses?
  • Is it mandatory to record the evidence of the complainant, recovery witnesses, and Investigating Officer before dismissing an acquittal application under section 249-A?
  • Can an accused be acquitted under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. when multiple material witnesses remain unexamined and the probability of conviction exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajid Hussain and others vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 543 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-24
  criminal appealdeath sentenceretracted confessionidentification paradedelayed FIRAnti-Terrorism Actburden of proofcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court for abduction and murder. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt given the evidentiary challenges. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. The court noted an unexplained one-month delay in filing the FIR, rendering the entire case suspicious. Furthermore, the identification parade was deemed a nullity due to the failure to conceal the accused's distinctive physical marks and the significant delay in conducting the parade. The court also rejected the retracted, exculpatory confessional statement, noting it was recorded after court hours in violation of the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders. Additionally, the recovery of the deceased's personal effects six years post-occurrence was found implausible. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that material improvements in witness testimony, procedural irregularities in recording confessions, and unexplained delays in investigation undermine the prosecution's burden of proof in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of a confessional statement after court hours without exceptional justification render the proceedings illegal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on a retracted, exculpatory confessional statement lacking corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained, inordinate delay in the registration of an FIR on the prosecution's case?
  • Does the failure to conceal distinctive physical marks of an accused during an identification parade render the parade a nullity?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajid Ali vs The State & 1 other2020 PHC 312 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-30Read full judgment →
• Wahid vs The State2020 SHC 6 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-10Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bux vs The State2020 SHC 620 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bukhsh vs Judge, Family Court, etc2020 [M] C L R 673 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-31Read full judgment →
• Waheed Shah etc vs Shahzad etc.PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 422 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-11
  video link evidencecriminal procedureoral evidencerecording of testimonyjudicial legislationCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mardan, which permitted the recording of a prosecution witness's testimony via video link. The core legal question was whether, in the absence of specific statutory provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, a trial court possesses the authority to allow oral evidence to be recorded through video conferencing. The Peshawar High Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable. The Court reasoned that while the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 mandates that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused, it contains no provision authorizing the recording of oral testimony via video link. The Court emphasized that the power to alter procedural law rests exclusively with the legislature, not the judiciary. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's order, establishing the principle that judicial interpretation cannot modify established criminal procedure to permit video-conferencing for oral evidence without explicit legislative amendment, distinguishing such matters from the handling of documentary evidence under the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court permit the recording of oral evidence via video link in the absence of specific legislative authorization in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 authorize the recording of oral testimony through video conferencing?
  • Is the judiciary empowered to alter established criminal procedure regarding the recording of evidence without legislative amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Waheed Shah and others vs Shahzad and others2020 YLR 718 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-11
  video link evidencerecording of evidencecriminal procedureoral testimonyrevision petitionwitness abroad
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mardan, which accepted an application to record the testimony of an eye-witness through a video link. The core legal question is whether Pakistani criminal courts possess the legal authority under existing statutes to record oral witness testimony via video conference in the absence of an enabling legislative amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Peshawar High Court held that the prevailing legal framework, including the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, does not permit the recording of oral evidence through video links, as courts must apply procedures established by law rather than creating them through judicial interpretation. The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order permitting video link evidence was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether oral evidence can be recorded through a video conference under the existing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002 provide for the recording of oral testimony through video links?
  • Can courts alter or modify established procedural law to permit video link witness examinations without legislative amendments?
  Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ali vs Zahir Hussain & others2020 SHC 626 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11
  criminal acquittal appealnon-prosecutiondismissal for defaultabsence of appellant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter is a criminal acquittal appeal filed before the Sindh High Court. The core legal question concerns the disposal of the appeal upon the repeated absence of the appellant and their counsel despite being called. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the lack of interest shown by the appellant. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may dismiss criminal appeals for non-prosecution when the appellant and their legal representative fail to appear and prosecute the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal acquittal appeal be dismissed on account of non-prosecution when the appellant and their counsel are absent?
  • What action can the court take when the appellant fails to appear after being called in a criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat, Islamabad, etc vs SNGPL, Lahore, etc2020 PLD Supreme Court 586, 2021 P SC 1185, 2020 SCP 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-11
  Wafaqi Mohtasiblocus standiquasi-judicial neutralityjurisdiction of OmbudsmanOGRAfrivolous litigationaggrieved person
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat challenging a High Court order which held that disputes regarding gas detection bills and meter tampering fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) rather than the Wafaqi Mohtasib. The core legal question was whether the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat or the Ombudsman has the locus standi to maintain a petition against a judicial order interpreting the Ombudsman's statutory jurisdiction and powers. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat is not a legal entity with the power to sue, and that a neutral quasi-judicial forum like the Ombudsman cannot challenge an order interpreting its powers, as it is not an aggrieved person and must maintain its institutional neutrality. The Court established that a statutory adjudicatory body cannot defend its decisions before higher courts or challenge legislative curtailment of its powers, and directed an inquiry into the filing of the frivolous petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat possess the legal status or locus standi to file a petition before the Supreme Court?
  • Can the Wafaqi Mohtasib be considered an aggrieved person when a constitutional court interprets or determines the scope of its statutory powers?
  • Is a neutral quasi-judicial forum empowered to defend its decisions or challenge an order of a higher court touching upon its jurisdiction?
  • Does challenging the statutory powers of the Ombudsman amount to challenging the intent of the Parliament?
  Read full judgment →
• Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors B.V. vs Federation of Pakistan2020 PTD 2008, 2020 SHC 890 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-13Read full judgment →
• Vadiyya S. Khalil and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division and others2020 IHC 15 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-30
  Competition Commission of Pakistantenure postpremature terminationstatutory tenurenatural justicedelegation of powerswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges notifications issued by the Government of Pakistan terminating the appointments of the petitioners as Chairperson and Members of the Competition Commission of Pakistan (C.C.P.) prior to the expiration of their statutory three-year terms. The core legal questions involve whether a statutorily fixed tenure of office can be prematurely curtailed by the executive without invoking the specific removal and disqualification procedures prescribed by the governing statute, and whether the Federal Government can rescind such appointments under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 on the ground of alleged irregularity in delegation. The Islamabad High Court held that the C.C.P. is a quasi-judicial body whose members hold tenure posts protected by statute, and their appointments cannot be arbitrarily terminated outside the specific provisions of Section 14(6) and Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2010. The Court established that an appointing authority cannot take advantage of its own procedural irregularities to the detriment of appointees, and that general powers under the General Clauses Act cannot override special statutory tenure protections. The petition was allowed and the termination notifications were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government can prematurely curtail the statutory tenure of the Chairperson and Members of the Competition Commission of Pakistan without following the removal procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2010?
  • Can the Federal Government rescind or terminate tenure appointments under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, when a special statute provides specific grounds and procedures for removal?
  • Whether an appointing authority can take advantage of its own alleged irregularity in the appointment process to terminate the services of an appointee holding a fixed-term statutory post?
  Read full judgment →
• Vaddiya S. Khalil and others vs Faderation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 460 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-03
  statutory tenurepremature terminationCompetition Commission of Pakistannatural justicedelegation of powerestoppelwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed as Chairperson and Members of the Competition Commission of Pakistan for a three-year statutory tenure, challenged the Federal Government's notifications terminating their appointments prematurely. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government could unilaterally curtail a fixed statutory tenure, particularly when the government alleged the initial appointment process was flawed due to improper delegation of authority. The Court held that the termination notifications were unlawful. It reasoned that the Competition Act, 2010, provides a specific mechanism for the removal of Members and the Chairperson, requiring proof of disqualification under Section 14(6) and adherence to procedural safeguards in Section 19. The Court affirmed that the government cannot benefit from its own procedural irregularities or lapses in the appointment process to justify premature termination. Furthermore, the Court established that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, cannot be invoked to override specific statutory tenure provisions. Consequently, the premature termination of the petitioners' appointments, without following the mandatory statutory procedure, was declared to be without lawful authority and set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Government prematurely terminate a statutory tenure post without following the removal procedure prescribed by the governing statute?
  • Does Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, authorize the government to rescind appointments made to a statutory tenure post?
  • Is the government estopped from terminating an appointment on the ground of procedural irregularity where the government itself was responsible for that irregularity?
  Read full judgment →
• Uzma Shereen, Advocate High Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and another vs Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 3 others2020 [M] C L R 169 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Uzair Ahmed vs The District Coordination Officer (DCO) District Jamshoro2020 MLD 1293 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-23Read full judgment →
• Usman Hamid son of Hamid Pervaiz vs Mst. Sundus Wahid d/o Abdul2020 SHC 1172 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Usman alias Shanaan vs The State2020 MLD 1097 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-30
  murderconvictiondeath sentence conversionimprisonment for lifemotiveocular accountabscondancequantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, murder reference, and criminal revision arose from a judgment convicting the appellant, Usman alias Shanaan, under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death, alongside compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case was founded on an incident where the deceased was shot dead inside a barber's shop by multiple armed assailants due to a prior blood feud. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related eye-witnesses, the effect of unproven motive on the quantum of sentence, and whether death or imprisonment for life was the appropriate penalty under Section 302(b). The Lahore High Court held that the ocular account, supported by medical evidence and the appellant's prolonged abscondance, conclusively established guilt. However, because the prosecution failed to prove the motive against the appellant and attributing specific fatal fires was difficult, extenuating circumstances existed. The Court laid down that death is not the mandatory or normal penalty under Section 302(b), and life imprisonment is a viable alternative where mitigating circumstances exist. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but converted the death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-production of independent witnesses such as a local shopkeeper creates a fatal flaw in the prosecution's ocular account?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive against a specific accused serve as a mitigating circumstance warranting the conversion of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Whether death is the mandatory or normal penalty under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or if life imprisonment stands as an equal alternative depending on the circumstances?
  • Can prolonged abscondance of an accused after the commission of an offense be used as an incriminating corroborative circumstance?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Ali vs Secretary Excise Department Government of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 158 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-17Read full judgment →
• Usman Ali Chachhar vs Moula Bux Chachhar and others2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 50 · N/A · 2019-11-17Read full judgment →
• Usman Ali and 17 others vs The Secretary, Religious Affairs and Inter-2021 PLJ Quetta 123, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 242 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-30
  constitutional petitionappointment ordersrecruitment processselection committeepublic functionariesequal treatmentfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by successful candidates seeking directions against the Religious Affairs and Inter-Faith Harmony Department, Government of Balochistan, to issue their appointment orders for the posts of Stenographer (B-14) and Junior Clerk (B-11). The petitioners had qualified the written tests and interviews conducted by the Departmental Selection Committee, which recommended their appointment in August 2018. However, due to a temporary ban on recruitments and subsequent queries raised regarding age limits, the department withheld their appointment letters while issuing them for lower-grade posts. The core legal issue was whether public functionaries could arbitrarily withhold appointment letters of candidates who had successfully completed the recruitment process. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the respondents' inaction lacked plausible justification and violated the petitioners' fundamental rights. The Court laid down the principle that public functionaries are constitutionally bound under Articles 4 and 5 to act strictly within the framework of the law and treat citizens in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether public functionaries can arbitrarily withhold appointment orders of candidates who have successfully qualified the complete selection process?
  • Does failure to issue appointment letters to successful recruitment candidates without valid reason violate Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a administrative ban on recruitments affect candidates whose selection process was already completed prior to the ban?
  Read full judgment →
• Universal Cables Industries Limited through Chief Executive vs Federation2020 PLD Sindh 601 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-30
  jurisdictionFederal Investigation Agencytax evasionprivate disputescheduled offencescorporate mismanagementquashment of inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an unlisted public limited company challenging an inquiry initiated against it by the Assistant Director, Corporate Crime Circle, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The inquiry, prompted by a private complaint regarding alleged mismanagement and tax violations, required the petitioner to produce income tax and sales tax records. The petitioner argued that the FIA lacked jurisdiction over private corporate affairs and specialized tax matters, which are governed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The High Court of Sindh allowed the petition and quashed the inquiry. The Court held that the FIA's jurisdiction is strictly confined to the scheduled offences under the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, which do not include offences under tax laws. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the FIA cannot initiate inquiries into disputes between private parties or bypass the procedural requirements of Section 3 of the FIA Act and Rule 5 of the FIA (Inquiries and Investigations) Rules, 2002.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency have jurisdiction to initiate inquiries into matters falling under specialized tax laws such as the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Can the Federal Investigation Agency initiate an inquiry against private individuals or companies over disputes that do not involve public servants or scheduled offences?
  • What is the legal effect of an inquiry initiated by the Federal Investigation Agency without complying with the procedural requirements of Section 3 of the FIA Act, 1974 and Rule 5 of the FIA Rules, 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• United States Patent And Trademark Office Et Al vs Booking.Com B.v_2020 SCMR 1638 · Supreme Court of United StatesRead full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. through Authorised Attorneys of the Bank and 2 others vs Muhammad Ashraf and another2020 PLD Lahore 400 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-22Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd vs Muhammad Ismail2020 PLJ Tr.C (NIRC) 28 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-04-24
  revision petitioninquiry officersubstitute witnesslabor courtgrievance petitiondismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant bank filed a revision petition against the order of the Sindh Labour Court No. 5 Karachi, which refused to allow the bank to examine a substitute witness in place of the original Inquiry Officer who was posted abroad and later retired. The core legal question was whether a substitute witness can be examined to prove an inquiry report and proceedings when the original Inquiry Officer becomes unavailable for cross-examination. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that the non-examination of an Inquiry Officer is not fatal to the maintainability of a dismissal order and that a party should be permitted to produce a substitute witness when the original witness's availability is out of reach, provided it is done in the interest of justice. The Commission set aside the impugned order and granted the bank a single opportunity to conclude its evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-examination of an Inquiry Officer in support of an inquiry report is fatal to the maintainability of a dismissal order?
  • Can a party be permitted to examine a substitute witness when the original Inquiry Officer is unavailable for cross-examination?
  • Whether a labor court is justified in refusing the production of a substitute witness to prove inquiry proceedings and reports?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Gull Zaman Khan2020 CLD 1093 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-04Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Ghulam Rafiq2020 CLD 129 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-08
  banking recoverylimitation periodtime-barred suithypothecationcondonation of delayrunning finance facility
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Banking Court order that dismissed a recovery suit filed by the appellant bank as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the suit, involving a finance facility secured by a letter of hypothecation, was governed by the six-year limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908, or the standard three-year period. The Court held that the suit was time-barred, affirming the dismissal. It ruled that the presence of a hypothecation agreement does not alter the nature of the underlying finance relationship, which remains subject to the three-year limitation period. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that limitation is not a mere technicality; it is a mandatory threshold issue that courts must determine at the outset. The appellant failed to seek condonation of delay under Section 24 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, which allows for discretionary relief if sufficient cause is shown. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, reinforcing that statutory limitation periods are substantive and must be strictly adhered to in banking recovery litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a letter of hypothecation extend the limitation period for a banking recovery suit to six years under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Is a court obligated to determine the issue of limitation in a banking recovery suit even if the defendant does not raise it as an objection?
  • Can a banking court entertain a suit filed after the expiry of the statutory limitation period without an application for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Unilever Pakistan Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2020 PTD 2052, 2020 SHC 888 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
• Umer Tanveer Butt vs Muhammad Ibrahim and others2020 IHC 72, 2020 YLR 2269 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-16Read full judgment →
• Umedoo vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1170 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-10
  trial in absentiaabsconderanti-terrorismright to counseldue processretrialcriminal jail appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal impugns the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced in absentia under section 324 read with section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 353 read with section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the trial and conviction of an accused person in absentia by an Anti-Terrorism Court is valid and sustainable under the law. The Court held that conducting a trial in absentia without providing the accused an opportunity of hearing violates Articles 9 and 10(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and section 10(11-A) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, rendering the conviction unsustainable. The key principle laid down is that trial in absentia violates fundamental constitutional rights regarding liberty and the right to counsel, necessitating setting aside the judgment and remanding the case for a fresh trial in the presence of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial of an accused person in absentia by an Anti-Terrorism Court is violative of Articles 9 and 10(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does conviction of an absconding accused without affording an opportunity of hearing contravene the principles of natural justice?
  • What is the legal effect of conducting a criminal trial in the absence of the accused under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Zada vs State through Additional Advocate -General and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 406 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-25
  criminal appealmurdercircumstantial evidenceburden of proofabsconsionbenefit of doubtunwitnessed occurrence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Umar Zada, who was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the appellant could be convicted solely based on the fact that the deceased died an unnatural death within his premises, in the absence of any eye-witness testimony or direct evidence linking him to the crime. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proof, as the occurrence was entirely un-witnessed and the evidence was purely circumstantial. The Court emphasized that while an accused may have a duty to explain unnatural deaths occurring within their private domain, this duty only arises after the prosecution has established its initial case. Since the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence, the Court acquitted the appellant, ruling that absconsion, while a corroborative factor, holds no weight in the absence of substantive direct evidence. The principle laid down is that the burden of proof does not shift to the accused unless the prosecution has first established a prima facie case.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of an unnatural death occurring within their premises without direct evidence?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to explain an unnatural death if the prosecution has failed to establish its initial case?
  • Is absconsion sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of direct evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of absconsion when the prosecution's case lacks direct proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Mukhtar vs The State through Director General Regional2020 MLD 696 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-27
  corruptionmisuse of authorityNAB Ordinanceburden of proofpresumption of guiltmens reawheat subsidyaccountability appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of three Criminal Ehtesab Appeals filed against a single judgment of the Accountability Court-I, Balochistan Quetta, which convicted the appellants under Section 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 for alleged embezzlement of wheat quota and causing loss to the public exchequer. The High Court analyzed the evidentiary material and provincial food policies, noting that monitoring wheat distribution was the explicit statutory responsibility of the District Administration (DCO and local representatives), yet the prosecution failed to record statements from administrative officers, DCOs, union council officials, or Fair Price Shop owners. Furthermore, no reliable evidence was produced to prove that one appellant was the owner of the flour mill or that the deceased officials misused their authority for personal gain. Reaffirming established precedent, the High Court held that under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999, the initial burden of proving a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt remains on the prosecution before any presumption of guilt can arise or shift onto the accused. Consequently, all appeals were allowed, and the convictions were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the initial burden of proving a prima facie case under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 rest upon the prosecution before any presumption of guilt shifts to the accused?
  • Can an accused be called upon to prove innocence under Section 14 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 without the prosecution establishing misuse of authority under Section 9(a)?
  • Is proof of mens rea and criminal intention mandatory to establish an offence under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Islam and 8 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary2021 PLC (C.S.) 92, 2020 PLD Peshawar 137 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-01
  Pakistan Air Forceremoval from serviceconstitutional jurisdictionmala fidefair trialBoard of Inquiryarmed forces
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Airmen in the Pakistan Air Force, challenged their removal from service under Section 20 of the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, following allegations of indiscipline and misconduct. The core legal question was whether the removal orders, passed without a fair trial by court-martial or proper adherence to procedural safeguards, were sustainable, and whether the constitutional bar under Article 199(3) precluded judicial review. The Peshawar High Court held that the action taken against the petitioners was tainted with mala fides in law, as inadmissible findings of a Board of Inquiry were utilized and mandatory procedural rules were bypassed. The court laid down the principle that while the constitutional bar under Article 199(3) restricts interference in armed forces service matters, it does not oust the court's jurisdiction where the impugned action is shown to be mala fide, coram non judice, or without jurisdiction. Consequently, the court set aside the removal order and directed that the petitioners be treated as discharged from service.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the constitutional bar under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bars a writ petition by a member of the armed forces where the impugned action is alleged to be mala fide or without jurisdiction?
  • Can the findings of a Board of Inquiry held under the Pakistan Air Force Act Rules 1957 be used as substantive evidence to inflict a major penalty without a proper trial?
  • Whether an airman removed from service under Section 20 of the Pakistan Air Force Act 1953 is entitled to a show-cause notice and adherence to the procedure prescribed in Rule 31-B of the Pakistan Air Force Act Rules 1957?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs The State2020 SHC 1318 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-11Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd2020 CLC 581 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-29Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat and another vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1614 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-28
  murder referencebenefit of the doubtocular accountmedical contradictiondelayed FIRburden of proofcriminal appealcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the Qatal-e-Amd of his wife, along with a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the ocular account, motive, and medical evidence establishing suffocation as the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether an adverse inference could be drawn from the delayed FIR and post-mortem examination. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses were untrustworthy chance witnesses whose passive conduct rendered their presence doubtful, that the medical evidence contradicted the allegation of death by suffocation, and that the prosecution failed to establish its case. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt and answered the murder reference in the negative, establishing that an accused cannot be convicted on weak evidence merely due to an unnatural death occurring within a shared household.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination casts serious doubt on the availability of eyewitnesses and the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a dead body recovered from the accused's house when the eyewitness and medical evidence are found to be completely unreliable?
  • Does the principle of shifting the burden of proof onto an accused for an unnatural death inside a house apply when the prosecution has failed to produce any credible evidence?
  • Whether contradictory medical evidence that negates the specific mode of commission alleged by the prosecution is sufficient to create reasonable doubt warranting the accused's acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Umair vs The State2020 SHC 16 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-13
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustdelay in FIRbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused seeking confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of dishonoured cheques and criminal breach of trust. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the grant of bail given the nature of the alleged offences and the circumstances of the case. The court held that the accused is entitled to bail, confirming the interim order previously granted. The court reasoned that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of 29 days, the investigation was complete with the challan submitted, and the accused was not required for further investigation. Crucially, the court noted that while the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is non-bailable, it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, absent exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted to the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Umair vs The State and another2021 MLD 527, 2020 PHC 80 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-02Read full judgment →
• Umair Shoukat vs The State etc2021 YLR 2224, 2020 PHC 340 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-18Read full judgment →
• Umair Shahab (since deceased) thr. his LRs Shahab Mazhar Bhalli & others2020 SHC 396 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-25Read full judgment →
• Umair Maqbool vs The State2020 PLD Sindh 487 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-15
  criminal investigationmedico-legal reportpolice rulesexpert opinioninvestigating officer dutiespost-mortem examinationcoordination mechanism
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose during criminal proceedings where a discrepancy emerged between the prosecution's theory of asphyxia and the applicant's claim of hanging, highlighting a critical lack of coordination between the investigation wing and medical experts. The core legal question concerned the procedural obligations of investigating officers and medical personnel in ensuring a thorough, objective investigation. The Court observed that the current system lacks a proper mechanism for the specialized appointment and training of Medico-Legal Officers (MLOs) and Police Surgeons, often resulting in general cadre appointments without necessary expertise. The Court held that the investigation wing must be trained to identify all reasonable possibilities of an offense, as mandated by the Police Rules 1934. The key principle laid down is that the 'expert opinion' of medical officers is vital for guiding investigations, and there must be a formal, structured coordination mechanism between investigating officers, prosecutors, and medical experts. The Court directed the competent authorities to establish a policy ensuring that future appointments are based on specialized skills rather than general cadre status to facilitate effective criminal investigation.

  Questions settled

  • What are the duties of an investigating officer at the scene of a death under the Police Rules 1934?
  • Is an investigating officer required to investigate a matter from all possible angles including all versions of the incident?
  • Does the lack of coordination between the investigation wing and medical officers constitute a failure in the investigative process?
  Read full judgment →
• Umaid Ali vs The Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary2021 PLJ SC 113, 2020 P SC 1226, 2020 SCMR 1058, 2020 SCP 140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-11
  local government electiondisqualification of candidatestatutory interpretationgovernment contractorreading inElection Commission of PakistanSindh Local Government Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the Election Commission of Pakistan's disqualification of the appellant from holding the office of Chairman of a Town Committee. The core legal question was whether the appellant, a government contractor, was disqualified under Section 36(1)(i) or Section 36(1)(j) of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, given that Section 36(1)(i) specifically mentions contracts with a "council" and not the government. The Supreme Court held that Section 36(1)(i) only disqualifies those under contract with a local council, not government contractors. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that Section 36(1)(j) functions as a blanket provision incorporating all disqualifications from Article 63(1) of the Constitution, finding the clause vague and noting that the legislature had already selectively incorporated specific disqualifications. The Court established that judicial interpretation should not "read in" or "read down" provisions to cure ambiguity unless the legislative intent is manifest or literal construction causes absurdity. Consequently, the disqualification was set aside, and the Provincial Government was directed to amend the provision for clarity.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 36(1)(i) of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013 disqualify a person who is a government contractor from being a member of a local council?
  • Can a court use the doctrine of 'reading in' to interpret a vague statutory provision where the legislative intent is not clear?
  • Does Section 36(1)(j) of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013 function as a blanket provision incorporating all disqualifications listed in Article 63(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Umaid Ali vs The Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary2020 CLC 344 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Uber Technologies Inc and others vs David Heller2020 SCMR 1279 · Supreme Court of Canada
  unconscionabilityarbitration agreementstandard form contractaccess to justiceemployment standardsstay of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal determined whether the courts of Ontario or an international arbitrator in the Netherlands have the authority to decide if an Uber driver is an employee under Ontario's Employment Standards Act, 2000. David Heller initiated a class proceeding against Uber alleging violations of the employment statute. Uber moved to stay the proceedings in favor of arbitration in the Netherlands pursuant to its standard form services agreement, which mandated mediation and arbitration under International Chamber of Commerce rules and required substantial up-front fees. The Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause is invalid because it is unconscionable, as there was a gross inequality of bargaining power and the prohibitive administrative fees rendered the arbitration process inaccessible, effectively barring the driver from vindicating his rights. The Court laid down key principles regarding the contextual application of the unconscionability doctrine to standard form contracts of adhesion, affirming that such clauses are unenforceable when they create an insurmountable financial barrier to dispute resolution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an arbitration clause that imposes prohibitive up-front administrative fees making arbitration inaccessible is unconscionable and invalid?
  • Does an employment dispute fall within the scope of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration?
  • Can a court determine the validity of an arbitration agreement rather than referring the question to the arbitrator under the competence-competence principle?
  • What are the core elements required to establish unconscionability in the context of standard form contracts?
  Read full judgment →
• Ubedullah Pahore vs The Chairman, National Accountability Bureau and 32020 PLD Sindh 739 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-05Read full judgment →
• Ubaidullah & Others vs Province Of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 1372 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
• Ubaid and others vs ICI Pakistan Ltd. and others2020 PLC 251 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-07-09
  National Industrial Relations Commissiontrans-provincial establishmenttrade union registrationmaster-servant relationshipcontract laborjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a stay application filed by the petitioners and an application by the respondents for the dismissal of the main petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission. The core legal questions relate to whether the petitioners are regular employees of the respondent company or independent contractors, and whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a petition concerning a trade union registered under provincial law rather than with the Commission. The Commission held that the petitioners were employees of independent contractors and that their trade union, being registered with the provincial Registrar of Trade Unions, fell outside the trans-provincial jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission. The key principle laid down is that trade unions registered at the provincial level must seek their legal remedies under provincial legislation before the provincial labour forums rather than invoking the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has jurisdiction to entertain petitions concerning trade unions registered with provincial registrars?
  • Does a worker deployed through an independent contractor establish a direct employment relationship with the principal employer?
  • Where should a provincially registered trade union seek its legal remedies for the enforcement of rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Tulsi vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (F.S.C) 163, 2020 MLD 89 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-22
  criminal appealprohibition of liquorsection 342 examinationbenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportmaterial contradictionsHadd Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession and manufacture of liquor. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically addressing material contradictions in prosecution witness testimony, the failure to associate independent witnesses from the vicinity, and the legal effect of omitting to put the Chemical Examiner’s report to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge, noting that material contradictions between witnesses, the failure to comply with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the omission to confront the accused with the Chemical Examiner's report during his Section 342 examination rendered the evidence unreliable. The Court reaffirmed the principle that any evidence not put to an accused during their Section 342 examination cannot be used against them, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Chemical Examiner's report be used against an accused if it was not put to them during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a material contradiction between prosecution witnesses regarding the nature of sample containers and the number of samples sent for analysis create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the failure to associate independent witnesses from the vicinity fatal to the prosecution's case in a recovery matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Tufail Abbas Kazmi vs The State2020 YLR 2618 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-08
  narcotics possessionchemical analysis delaySection 342 Cr.P.C.safe custody of samplescriminal appealacquittalprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of heroin and charas. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically addressing the impact of an unexplained five-day delay in transmitting samples for chemical analysis and the trial court's failure to present the recovered case property to the accused during his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Islamabad High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the conviction was unsustainable due to procedural irregularities. Specifically, the unexplained delay in sending samples violated the 72-hour requirement under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, and the failure to put incriminating evidence—the recovered narcotics—to the accused during his Section 342 statement constituted a fatal flaw. The court reaffirmed the principle that mandatory procedural safeguards, including the proper examination of the accused regarding incriminating evidence, are essential to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples for chemical analysis vitiate a conviction?
  • Is the failure to put recovered case property to an accused during his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Must the prosecution prove the safe custody of narcotic samples from the time of recovery until their transmission to the laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan Employees Union Karachi vs Chairman Trading Corporation of Pakistan and another2020 PLJ Tr.C (NIRC) 26 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-02-01
  unfair labour practicesalary deductionshow-cause noticecollective bargaining agentindustrial relationsnatural justicetrans-provincial establishment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a trade union, filed a petition under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, challenging the respondent corporation's decision to deduct salary amounts from employees for late attendance. The petitioner alleged that these deductions, initiated through letters dated April 27 and 28, 2016, constituted unfair labour practice and were implemented without issuing show-cause notices or explanations. The respondent argued that late attendance constitutes misconduct and that the petition was filed with malafide intent. The National Industrial Relations Commission observed that the petitioner union, registered provincially, faced jurisdictional issues regarding its standing in a trans-provincial establishment. Furthermore, the Commission held that the deduction of salary for individual late attendance does not constitute a collective cause that a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) can agitate. Crucially, the Commission ruled that the management's action of deducting salary without providing an opportunity for explanation or issuing a show-cause notice violates fundamental principles of justice and Islamic norms, which require an inquiry before punishment. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with the observation that no one can be punished without a show-cause notice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Collective Bargaining Agent agitate a grievance regarding salary deductions for individual late attendance?
  • Is it permissible for an employer to deduct salary for late attendance without issuing a show-cause notice or seeking an explanation?
  • Does a trade union registered provincially have standing to represent workers in a trans-provincial establishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Messrs. Cox & King Agents Ltd2020 SHC 380 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-29Read full judgment →
• Total Parco Pakistan Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & others2020 SHC 1120 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
• Toor Jan vs The State2020 KLR Criminal Cases 368, 2021 PLJ Cr.C.(Quetta) 89, 2020 YLR 1099 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-25
  dishonestly issuing a chequedishonoured chequebusiness transactioncriminal revisionburden of proofbenefit of doubtdelayed witness statementacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the judgments of the lower courts whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code for issuing a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question revolves around whether the mere issuance and dishonour of a cheque, without proving an underlying business transaction or enforceable liability, constitutes an offence under Section 489-F, and whether unexplained delays in recording witness statements vitiate the conviction. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any genuine business transaction, agreement, or vehicle documents supporting the alleged debt, and that unexplained delays in recording witness statements create fatal doubts in the prosecution case. The court ruled that an offence under Section 489-F requires a proved underlying transaction creating an instant liability, and mere dishonour of a cheque without consideration does not attract criminal liability. The petition was consequently accepted, and the petitioner was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere issuance and subsequent dishonour of a cheque constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of a proved underlying business transaction or liability?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in recording the statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right even if the defence creates only a slight doubt in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Tooba Saeed vs Chairman, Admission Committee Bolan University Of Medical And Sciences Quetta Balochistan and 3 others2020 MLD 1510 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-13Read full judgment →
• TMA Kohat vs Iftikhar Ali Shah2020 CLC 1243, 2020 PHC 32 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-06Read full judgment →
• The Water and Power Development Authority etc vs Jehansher, Junior2021 PLC (C.S.) 285, 2020 LHC 2776 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-10
  ad-hoc appointmentregularization of servicewalk-in-interviewpublic recruitmentmerit and transparencyWAPDAservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges a Single Bench order that set aside a corrigendum and an administrative order, effectively directing the regularization of respondents' services as Junior Engineers in WAPDA. The core legal question was whether employees recruited on an ad-hoc basis through a 'walk-in-interview' process, bypassing competitive examinations, possess a legal right to regularization. The Court held that the respondents were appointed on an ad-hoc basis, not contract, and that such appointments, made in relaxation of prescribed rules, do not confer a vested right to regularization. The Court emphasized that ad-hoc appointments are stop-gap arrangements and that public office recruitment must adhere to principles of merit, transparency, and fairness. Regularization cannot be granted to bypass the prescribed competitive selection process, as doing so would provide an undue advantage and frustrate the legal mode of appointment. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and dismissed the respondents' writ petition, affirming that ad-hoc appointees have no inherent right to hold posts beyond their appointment period or to claim regularization without following established recruitment policies.

  Questions settled

  • Does an ad-hoc employee have a legal right to regularization of service without undergoing the prescribed competitive examination process?
  • Can appointments made through a 'walk-in-interview' process, which bypasses established recruitment rules, be considered valid for the purpose of claiming regular status?
  • Is the government or a statutory authority obligated to maintain the continuity of ad-hoc employees beyond the period for which they were appointed?
  • Does the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 entitle ad-hoc employees to regularization simply because they have served for a certain period?
  Read full judgment →
• The State/Anti-Narcotics Force through Deputy Director (Law) vs Shah2020 YLR 1861 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-11
  Criminal Acquittal AppealControl of Narcotic Substances ActDouble presumption of innocenceSafe custody and transmissionSearch warrantAppraisal of evidenceBenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Acquittal Appeal was filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) against the trial court's judgment acquitting respondents of offences under sections 6, 9(C), 8-B, 12, 13, 19, and 37 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that 748 kilograms of charas were recovered from two vehicles and an office room, with two co-accused escaping and one arrested on site. The core legal questions pertained to whether the trial court correctly appraised the evidence regarding the unconvincing escape of two accused in the presence of 14 armed ANF officials, unexplained delay in sample dispatch, chain of custody failures, non-compliance with statutory search procedures under section 21, and the scope of appellate interference in acquittal orders. The High Court affirmed the acquittal, holding that the trial court's findings were neither perverse nor arbitrary. It reiterated the established principle that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence into a double presumption, which appellate courts will not disturb unless the trial judgment is palpably perverse or artificial.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard and scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Does failure by the prosecution to prove the safe custody and timely transmission of narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner create a fatal defect in the prosecution case?
  • Can an acquittal judgment be reversed merely because a contra view of the evidence is possible on re-appraisal?
  Read full judgment →
• The State/Anti-Narcotics Force through Assistant Director vs Special Judge2020 YLR 2401 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →
• The State/ANF through Assistant Director ANF vs Hazar Khan and 2 others2020 P Cr. L J 1035 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-31
  Criminal revisionGuilty pleaNarcotics offenceDue processIncharge JudgeSentencing discretionFair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed by the State/ANF challenging an order passed by an Incharge 3rd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CNS) Sukkur, which disposed of a narcotics case by accepting the accused's guilty plea and imposing a lenient sentence. The core legal question was whether an Incharge Judge possesses the jurisdiction to finalize a trial by accepting a guilty plea and sentencing the accused without providing the prosecution an opportunity to be heard, particularly when the decision was based on the accused's age and financial status. The High Court held that the impugned order was illegal and passed in improper exercise of jurisdiction. The court determined that an Incharge Judge is limited to urgent matters and that disposing of a serious narcotics case based on extraneous factors like poverty or age, without hearing the prosecution, violates the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case afresh in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Incharge Judge have the jurisdiction to dispose of a criminal case by accepting a guilty plea and sentencing the accused?
  • Is it mandatory for a court to provide the prosecution an opportunity to be heard before accepting a guilty plea and passing a sentence?
  • Can a court base a sentence on the age and financial condition of the accused in a narcotics case?
  • Does the word 'may' in Section 265-E(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandate the conviction of an accused upon a plea of guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• The State / A.N.F vs Ajab Gul2020 SHC 52 · Sindh High Court
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencenarcotics possessionbenefit of doubtrecovery memochemical examiner delaycriminal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the State/Anti-Narcotics Force's appeal against the acquittal of three respondents by the trial court in cases involving the possession of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal, based on alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, thereby warranting appellate interference. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted significant flaws in the prosecution's evidence, including the failure to associate private witnesses with the recovery despite the public location of the incident, a two-day delay in sending contraband for chemical analysis, and inconsistencies in the recovery memo. The Court affirmed the principle that an acquittal by a competent court creates a double presumption of innocence, which places a heavy burden on the prosecution to rebut. Finding no illegality or misreading of evidence by the trial court, the High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal by a trial court create a double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt extended to an accused as a matter of right or as a concession?
  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses in a narcotics recovery case create a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Zaheer Gul & others2020 MLD 1685, 2020 PHC 346 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-28Read full judgment →
• The State vs Zafran Mehmood Satti2020 KLR Criminal Cases 387 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-19
  appeal against acquittalunlicensed weaponarms ordinancebenefit of doubtrecovery witnessforensic expert opinionsealing of weaponprosecution evidencereasonable doubtdouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  The State filed an appeal under Section 417(2), Cr.P.C., challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate, Islamabad-East, in a case registered under Sections 13, 20, and 65 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The respondent was accused of possessing an unlicensed 30-bore pistol with six live cartridges. The trial court acquitted the respondent due to material contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, failure to associate independent public witnesses from a thickly populated area during recovery, non-sealing of the recovered weapon at the spot, and the absence of a forensic/ballistic expert opinion on the weapon's functionality. The High Court, applying the principle of double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal, found no perversity or misreading of evidence in the trial court's judgment. It reiterated that the benefit of doubt, even if arising from a single circumstance, must go to the accused as a matter of right, and the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an acquittal be interfered with if it is not found to be capricious, perverse, arbitrary, or based on misreading of evidence?
  • Is it necessary for the prosecution to associate independent public witnesses during a recovery from a populated area?
  • Is a conviction under the Arms Ordinance maintainable if the recovered weapon was not sealed at the spot and no forensic expert opinion on its functionality was obtained?
  • Does the benefit of doubt go to the accused as a matter of right, even if only a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  • What is the standard for interference in an appeal against acquittal compared to an appeal against conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Sardar Muhammad alias Sardara Gujjar, etc2020 LHC 3071, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 143 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-01
  narcotics controlforfeiture of assetsfreezing of assetsacquittalcriminal appealstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order passed by the Special Court CNS, Lahore, which directed the release of forfeited property belonging to the respondent, Muhammad Amjad Ali. The respondent had been an accused in a narcotics case but was acquitted by the trial court in 2001. The State appealed the release of his assets, arguing that because the respondent's relatives (his father and brothers) were convicted in the same case, his assets remained subject to forfeiture under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The High Court examined Sections 19 and 37 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, noting that forfeiture under Section 19 requires a conviction and a sentence exceeding three years. Regarding Section 37, the Court held that while assets of relatives can be frozen, the respondent was tried and acquitted of all charges himself. Consequently, the Court held that the State could not maintain the forfeiture of assets of an acquitted person simply based on his familial relationship to convicted co-accused. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the release of the property.

  Questions settled

  • Can the assets of an accused be forfeited under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 if the accused has been acquitted of all charges?
  • Does the mere familial relationship of an acquitted person to convicted co-accused justify the continued forfeiture of the acquitted person's assets?
  • What are the statutory prerequisites for the forfeiture of assets under Section 19 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Owais Khan Niazi2020 SHC 1438 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-30
  criminal acquittal appealnarcotics recoveryterritorial jurisdictionbenefit of doubtdefense pleapolice rulesanti-narcotics force
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force against the judgment of the Special Court-II, CNS Karachi, whereby the respondent was acquitted of a charge under Section 6/9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that four kilograms of heroin were recovered from a truck following spy information. The core legal questions involved the legality of conducting a raid outside territorial jurisdiction without informing the local police station in violation of police rules, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in light of reliable defense evidence regarding a conflicting place of arrest. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the raiding officer acted without lawful authority outside his jurisdiction and that the prosecution's case was severely compromised by credible defense evidence and missing station diary entries creating shadow of doubt. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and a substantiated defense plea creating doubt in the prosecution's narrative entitles the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an action taken by a police officer outside his territorial jurisdiction without informing the local police station violate mandatory police rules?
  • Can an acquittal appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution and lack of serious pursuit by the appellant state authorities?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when a defense plea regarding a conflicting place of arrest is substantiated by contemporaneous evidence?
  • Does the burden of proof shift from the prosecution even when an accused raises a specific defense plea in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Zubair2020 LHC 1905 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-21
  murderQatl-i-Amdchance witnessmedical contradictionbenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRdefective recoveryunproven motivedeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Muhammad Zubair, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside a compensation order under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions pertained to the credibility of related and chance witnesses, irreconcilable contradictions between ocular and medical evidence regarding the seat of injury, the legal value of delayed FIR registration, defective weapon recovery violating section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and unproven motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the presence of the eyewitnesses at the crime scene, that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, and that corroborative pieces like motive and recovery were tainted and unreliable. Consequently, the court laid down that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. The appeal was accepted, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration of their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a major contradiction between the ocular account regarding the seat of injury and the medical evidence vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Can a weapon recovery made in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as incriminating evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of motive and recovery when the primary ocular account has been found unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Zahid2020 LHC 577 · Lahore High Court
  murderstrangulationmedical evidenceconfession vs admissionsection 342 Cr.P.C.benefit of the doubtcapital punishmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Zahid, who was found guilty by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his mother by strangulation. The Lahore High Court examined the medical evidence, noting the absence of external marks of violence, injuries to the hyoid bone, or classic signs of asphyxia, alongside inconclusive forensic reports. The court also addressed the appellant's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, clarifying the legal distinction between a confession and an admission, and reaffirming that an admission cannot substitute for a valid confession or serve as the sole basis for a capital conviction, especially when the prosecution fails to prove its case. Concluding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted of a capital charge on the sole basis of an admission made in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution fails to prove its case?
  • What is the legal distinction between a confession and an admission under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 in criminal trials?
  • Does the absence of external marks of violence and characteristic signs of asphyxiation in medical evidence weaken a prosecution case alleging death by strangulation?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Safdar2020 LHC 269 · Lahore High Court
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtchance witnessesdelayed FIRdelayed post-mortemmedical contradictionweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, along with a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular and medical evidence, the effect of unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem, the reliability of chance and related witnesses, and the legal efficacy of recoveries and unproven motive. The Lahore High Court held that multiple glaring discrepancies, including doubtful presence of eyewitnesses, medical contradictions regarding firing distance, unexplained delays, and defective recoveries, created serious reasonable doubts in the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that once the presence of eyewitnesses is rendered doubtful and material loopholes exist in the prosecution story, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, and an eyewitness cannot corroborate themselves through recoveries.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem create a reasonable doubt regarding the fabrication of the prosecution story?
  • Can related eyewitnesses who are chance witnesses corroborate their own testimony through acting as recovery witnesses?
  • What is the legal effect of a material contradiction between the ocular account regarding the firing distance and the medical evidence showing blackening on the injuries?
  • Can a piece of evidence regarding motive be used against an accused if it was never put to him during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Ajmal2020 LHC 282 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-14
  Qatl-i-Amdmitigating circumstancesdeath sentence alterationimprisonment for lifeocular testimonyrelated witnessesunproven motivedelayed weapon recoverycriminal intent
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Muhammad Ajmal, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside an acquittal of his co-accused. The core legal questions involve the reliability of related eye-witnesses, the establishment of intent for Qatl-i-Amd when using a blunt object like a brick, the evidentiary value of delayed weapon recovery and unproven motive, and whether such factors constitute mitigating circumstances for altering a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular testimony of the related witnesses was trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, because the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and the recovery of the weapon was legally unreliable due to delayed forensic examination, the Court held these constituted mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the High Court maintained the conviction for Qatl-i-Amd but altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life, while answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be relied upon to sustain a conviction for murder without independent corroboration?
  • Does the use of a blunt weapon like a brick to inflict fatal blows on the head constitute Qatl-i-Amd or Qatl Shibih-i-Amd?
  • Can the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery and its forensic serological report when there is a significant delay in sending the item for chemical examination?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mir Umar son of Sain MuhammadPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1413, 2020 PHC 290 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-21Read full judgment →
• The State vs Malik Amin Aslam & others2020 IHC 134 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-08-18
  contempt of courtanimal welfareendangered speciesshow cause noticejudicial mandatewildlife conservationstate liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a show-cause notice issued by the Islamabad High Court regarding the persistent mismanagement of the Marghazar Zoo and the failure of the Ministry of Climate Change and the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board to ensure the welfare of endangered animal species. Despite previous court directives mandating the relocation of animals to appropriate sanctuaries and establishing joint liability for their wellbeing, the authorities failed to prevent the inhumane treatment and subsequent death of endangered animals. The core legal question addressed is whether the acts and omissions of the responsible officials, which resulted in irreversible harm to these animals, constitute a violation of the Court’s prior judgment and warrant contempt proceedings. The Court held that the respondents' failure to adhere to judicial mandates regarding the protection of endangered species, leading to continued suffering and death, prima facie attracts proceedings under the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. The Court emphasized the legal obligation of state authorities to protect endangered wildlife and directed the respondents to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for their non-compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to comply with court directives regarding the protection of endangered species constitute grounds for contempt of court?
  • Are the Ministry of Climate Change and the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board jointly and severally liable for the welfare of animals under their control?
  • Can a show-cause notice be issued for acts and omissions that result in the death of endangered animals in violation of a court judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Khalil-ur-Rehman2020 LHC 1958 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-22
  Qatl-i-Amdfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencemurder referenceperjuryrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the offence of Qatl-i-Amd. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on a sole eyewitness whose testimony was previously rejected regarding acquitted co-accused, and the absence of independent corroboration for the motive and recovery. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, including the unnatural conduct of the eyewitness, the failure to name the eyewitness in the initial report, and discrepancies between the medical evidence and the alleged time of occurrence. Applying the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the Court found the eyewitness testimony entirely unreliable. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was deemed inadmissible due to non-compliance with statutory requirements. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant as a matter of right. The key principle laid down is that where a witness is found to have lied on a material aspect, their entire testimony must be discarded.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a witness be relied upon against an accused if that same witness has been found to have deposed falsely against co-accused in the same case?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery violate the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a matter of right for an accused when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Does the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to criminal proceedings in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Intikhab Ameer and three others2020 LHC 1925 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-28
  Qatl-i-Amdmitigating circumstancesocular accountprivate defencedeath sentence commutationforensic evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of four appellants for the Qatl-i-Amd of Qalab Abbas Shah and causing injuries to others, under sections 302, 324, 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 337-D, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had sentenced one appellant to death and others to varying terms of imprisonment. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the ocular account, the validity of the plea of private defence, and whether the failure to prove the alleged motive and the delay in forensic analysis of recovered weapons warranted a reduction in sentence. The Lahore High Court upheld the convictions, finding the ocular account corroborated by medical evidence and rejecting the appellants' plea of private defence. However, the Court held that the prosecution's failure to establish the alleged motive and the unreliability of the weapon recoveries due to delayed forensic analysis constituted mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the Court commuted the death sentence of the primary appellant to life imprisonment and reduced the sentences of two other appellants, while maintaining the remaining convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive in a murder case constitute a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing?
  • Can a recovery of a weapon be considered reliable evidence if the forensic analysis is delayed to the point where blood samples would have disintegrated?
  • Is the testimony of related witnesses in a murder case reliable if they are corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the accused to substantiate a plea of private defence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Imran2021 YLR 1120, 2020 PHC 440 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-05Read full judgment →
• The State vs Arif Momen2020 PHC 442, 2022 MLD 617 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-04Read full judgment →
• The State vs Akash Khan alias Kashi2020 MLD 686 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-09-16
  sentence enhancementcriminal revisioncircumstantial evidencedying declarationmurder triallife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  The State filed a criminal revision petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking enhancement of the respondent's sentence from life imprisonment to death following his conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in Sessions Case No. 03/2015. The core legal question was whether the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court should be enhanced to death based on the evidence, including circumstantial evidence and a statement treated as a dying declaration. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that in cases resting primarily on circumstantial evidence and a statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without direct ocular testimony, the sentence of death is normally not awarded unless exceptional and strong circumstances exist. The court found no justification to enhance the sentence and dismissed the revision petition, maintaining the trial court's judgment in toto.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of life imprisonment be enhanced to death in a case based on circumstantial evidence without exceptional and strong circumstances?
  • Whether a statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be treated as a dying declaration under the circumstances?
  • Are recoveries made in the presence of a Magistrate and marginal witnesses admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 as corroboratory evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abbas and two others2020 LHC 2723 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-05
  qatl-i-amdchance witnessbenefit of the doubtfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusmedical evidencemotiveabscondencemurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302(b) PPC for qatl-i-amd and sentencing them to death and imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular testimony, motive, recoveries, and medical evidence. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and answered the murder reference in the negative, thereby acquitting the appellants. The court held that the eyewitnesses were unverified chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, that the omission to produce natural witnesses and blood-stained clothing warranted an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, that the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applied as the witnesses had falsely implicated an acquitted co-accused, and that corroborative pieces like motive, forensic reports, and abscondence could not sustain convictions in the absence of reliable substantive evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses who fail to satisfactorily explain their presence at the crime scene can be relied upon for conviction?
  • Does the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to reject the entire testimony of a witness found to have lied regarding the role of an acquitted co-accused?
  • Can corroborative pieces of evidence such as motive, recoveries, and abscondence form the basis of a conviction when the substantive ocular account has been disbelieved?
  • What is the evidentiary value of medical and forensic reports in identifying the culprit when eyewitness testimony is discarded?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through prosecutor General Sindh vs Dr. Zulfiqar Mizra and 112020 YLR 568 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-06
  criminal acquittal appealSection 249-A Cr.P.C.probability of convictiondeterrence of public servantgroundless chargeabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged an order passed by the trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which acquitted the respondents in a case involving allegations under Sections 353, 146, 147, and 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused without a full trial when the allegations, even if accepted as true, lacked the necessary ingredients to constitute the charged offences. The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the trial court is competent to exercise powers under Section 249-A if the charge is groundless or there is no probability of conviction. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the charged offences, specifically the intent to deter public servants from discharging their official duties. The key principle laid down is that for an acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C., the court must assess whether the available material, even if taken as true, provides a reasonable probability of conviction; if the allegations are vague and fail to meet the statutory requirements of the offences charged, the proceedings are an abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a trial court exercise its power to acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove the intent to deter a public servant from discharging official duties to sustain a charge under Section 353 or Section 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal order passed under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial court's reasoning is not perverse or illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through P.G. Sindh and others vs Ahmad Omer Shaikh and others2020 SCMR 2096, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 425, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-28
  criminal appealleave to appealre-appraisal of evidenceabductionterrorismcircumstantial evidenceconfessional statementmiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal petitions filed by the State and the parents of the deceased, challenging a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondents of murder and terrorism charges in the Daniel Pearl kidnapping case, while maintaining a conviction for abduction. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court erred in its appraisal of the circumstantial, forensic, and confessional evidence, and whether it was legally consistent to uphold a conviction for abduction while acquitting the accused of the associated murder and terrorism charges. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-appraise the evidence, noting the potential for miscarriage of justice and the need to examine the consistency of the High Court's findings. The Court also ordered that the respondents remain in custody pending the final adjudication of the appeals. The judgment emphasizes the Court's duty to re-examine evidence when lower court findings appear self-destructive or fail to account for the totality of the prosecution's case, particularly regarding the nexus between abduction and terrorism.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a criminal appeal where the High Court's findings appear self-destructive?
  • Is a conviction for abduction sustainable when the accused has been acquitted of the associated murder and terrorism charges?
  • Does the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 provide a right of appeal to the parents of a deceased victim against an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• The State Through Muhammad Ibrahim vs Peer Bukhsh & Ors2020 SHC 30 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-13Read full judgment →