Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- State Of New South Wales vs Bradford James Robinson2020 SCMR 875 · High Court of Australia · 2019-12-04Read full judgment →
- State of Madhya Pradesh vs Babbu Rathore & Anr2020 P SC (Crl.) 619 · Supreme Court of India · 2020-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh confirming the discharge of the respondents from offenses under Sections 302/34 and 404/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at an advanced stage of trial. The core legal question was whether an investigation conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, in violation of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, vitiates the entire prosecution including distinct offenses punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that while the investigation regarding offenses under the Special Act is invalid and cannot proceed due to the lack of a competent-ranking investigating officer, offenses under the Indian Penal Code investigated by a competent police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be quashed on this ground. The trial for Indian Penal Code offenses must therefore proceed. The key principle laid down is that a defect in the investigation of a special statutory offense does not invalidate the prosecution of distinct Indian Penal Code offenses investigated properly under the general criminal procedure code.
Questions settled- Does an illegal investigation of an offense under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 vitiate charges under the Indian Penal Code arising from the same incident?
- Can an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police investigate offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?
- What is the legal consequence when a charge-sheet contains offenses under both the Indian Penal Code and a special statute but the special statute's mandatory investigation rules were breached?
- State Life Insurance Employees Cooperative Housing Society and another2020 CLC 1005, 2020 LHC 390 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-10Read full judgment →
- State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Zonal2020 CLD 249 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-23Read full judgment →
- State Life Insurance Corporation Of Pakistan and another vs Muzafar Ali2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 379, 2020 P C T L R 1168, 2020 P SC 1052, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the State Life Insurance Corporation against concurrent judgments of lower courts, which upheld a claim by the respondent for benefits under an Accidental Death and Indemnity Benefit Policy. The respondent, having suffered a road accident leading to permanent disability, sought annuity payments under the policy. The petitioner challenged the claim on grounds of late filing, lack of evidence regarding permanent disability, and the imposition of liquidated damages. The Supreme Court declined to entertain the late filing argument as it was not framed as an issue before the Tribunal. Regarding the disability, the Court held that the respondent's un-cross-examined testimony, combined with the petitioner's own internal medical assessment and the petitioner's prior reliance on the same evidence to grant sickness benefits, sufficiently established the permanent disability. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the imposition of liquidated damages, ruling that Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 mandates such payments for late settlement of claims. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the concurrent findings were maintained.
Questions settled- Does the failure to cross-examine a witness on a material fact in examination-in-chief constitute an admission of that fact?
- Is an insurer entitled to reject evidence for the purpose of an annuity claim while simultaneously relying on the same evidence to grant sickness benefits?
- Are liquidated damages mandatory under the Insurance Ordinance 2000 in cases of late settlement of insurance claims?
- Standard Chartered Bank Limited vs Nice N Easy (Pvt.) Limited, etc2020 PCTLR 59 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-17Read full judgment →
- Soomar vs Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate, Khipro District Sanghar and 8 others2020 P Cr. L J 835 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 30.05.2018 passed by the respondent Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, whereby a police summary recommending disposal of the case in "B" class was accepted in "C" class. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate can discharge accused persons or accept a negative police report when prosecution eye-witnesses have fully implicated the accused in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The Sindh High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order of the Magistrate. The Court held that where prosecution witnesses fully implicate the accused in their statements, a Magistrate cannot discharge the accused or rely blindly on police opinion or defence statements at the initial stage, as a tentative assessment of the material collected by the investigating officer must be made. The key principle laid down is that an investigating officer's opinion cannot be accepted to exonerate accused persons when incriminating material and supporting statements of prosecution witnesses exist on record.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate discharge an accused on the basis of police opinion when prosecution witnesses have fully implicated the accused under Section 161, Cr.P.C.?
- Whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence despite a negative report submitted by the police?
- Is a Magistrate justified in accepting a police summary based on the statements of defence witnesses at the initial stage without assigning cogent reasons?
- Soneri Bank Limited vs Province of Punjab and others2020 PLJ Lahore 239 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions filed by various banks challenging the imposition of advertisement tax or fees by the Parks and Horticulture Authority (PHA), Cantonment Boards, and Local Government on signboards displayed at bank premises. The core legal question is whether these authorities possess the statutory power to levy such fees on mandatory business signage, and whether the principle of quid pro quo applies. The Court held that banks are legally obligated under the Companies Act, 2017 and State Bank of Pakistan policies to display their names at business locations, and such displays do not constitute 'advertisement' subject to taxation. The Court further ruled that the Cantonment Boards lack statutory authority under the Cantonments Act, 1924 to levy such fees, and the PHA cannot charge fees for signage on private property where no specific service is rendered to the payer. Additionally, the Local Government failed to produce the requisite notification under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2019. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notices, establishing that mandatory business signage is exempt from advertisement levies absent specific statutory authority and corresponding service provision.
Questions settled- Can a Cantonment Board levy an advertisement fee on mandatory business signage without specific statutory authorization?
- Does the display of a bank's name on its premises, as required by the Companies Act 2017, constitute an 'advertisement' subject to municipal taxation?
- Is a government authority entitled to charge a fee for signage on private property where no corresponding service is rendered to the owner?
- Can a local government levy an advertisement tax without a notification published in the Official Gazette as required by the Punjab Local Government Act 2019?
- Sohail Uddin vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 957 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application arose from the dismissal of the applicant's pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court regarding allegations of gas theft at a factory premises. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in the illegal extraction of gas through unauthorized connections. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the defense's claims of mala fide. The Court observed that while the raiding party recovered various pipes used for the illegal connection, the absence of any raw manufacturing material or finished products at the site cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the Court held that the case against the applicant fell within the scope of further inquiry under the relevant statutory provisions. The Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that where the prosecution's case lacks essential corroborative evidence such as raw materials in a manufacturing-related offense, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry, thereby satisfying the criteria for bail.
Questions settled- Does the absence of raw materials or finished products at an alleged illegal manufacturing site constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is the failure to associate private witnesses in a recovery case a ground for granting bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the prosecution's case regarding the nature of the premises is disputed?
- Sohail Maqbool vs Fahad Idrees2021 MLD 556, 2020 PHC 406 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-15Read full judgment →
- Sohail Imran Siddique vs The Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad2020 PTD 1250 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2020-01-21Read full judgment →
- Sohail Ilahi and others vs Usman Elahi and others2020 SHC 454 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-09Read full judgment →
- Sohail Akhtar and another vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 P SC 1985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil review petitions filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had disposed of constitutional petitions regarding the admissibility and impact of a video recording relevant to a pending criminal appeal before the Islamabad High Court. The petitioner contended that the initial order was passed without notice and allegedly restricted the High Court's discretion in deciding the pending criminal appeal. The Supreme Court held that the initial order was passed in proceedings that had not been admitted to regular hearing, thus negating the necessity of notice, and that the order did not preclude the High Court from exercising its independent jurisdiction. The Court clarified that its previous observations regarding the admissibility of video evidence were merely a summary of existing legal opinions and not exhaustive, nor were they intended to bind the High Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petitions while granting the requested clarification that the petitioner remains free to agitate all relevant legal questions before the appellate court without being influenced by the Supreme Court's prior observations.
Questions settled- Is a notice required to be issued to a party when a constitutional petition is disposed of without being admitted to regular hearing?
- Does a Supreme Court order summarizing existing case law on evidentiary admissibility preclude a High Court from exercising its own discretion in a pending criminal appeal?
- Can a party seek clarification in a review petition to ensure that prior observations of the Supreme Court do not influence the lower appellate court's decision-making process?
- Sohail Ahmed vs Mst. Tehniat and another2020 CLC 1489 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-31Read full judgment →
- Sohail Ahmad vs The State, etc2020 P SC (Crl.) 920 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition, converted into an appeal, challenges the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which had refused post-arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 168 dated 15.03.2015 registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Muzaffarabad, District Multan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail considering the period of incarceration already undergone and the fact that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant, holding that since the accused had been in custody since 2015 without the conclusion of the trial and the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the case warranted the grant of bail as a rule, given that refusal in such circumstances is an exception.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be granted when an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Is grant of bail the general rule in cases falling outside the prohibitory clause?
- Sohail Ahmad Ghauri vs State etc2020 MLD 1873, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 906 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of F.I.R. No. 1391 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the dishonour of cheques. The core legal question concerns whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused and the complainant have effected a compromise in a compoundable offence. The Lahore High Court held that the petition should be allowed, granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that a compromise between parties in a compoundable offence is a redeeming feature fostering societal peace, and where a complainant voluntarily compounds the case and raises no objection to bail, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering further detention of the accused unnecessary.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted on the basis of a compromise between the parties in an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does a compromise in a compoundable offence constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the complainant submits an affidavit stating no objection to the allowance of the bail application?
- Sodhal Khan vs The State2020 MLD 1340 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, by the trial court, which sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment for the alleged possession of an unlicensed shotgun and cartridges. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the alleged recovery of the weapon and the credibility of the prosecution's narrative of an encounter. The High Court held that the prosecution's story was inherently implausible, noting contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the duration of the alleged firing and the absence of any injuries or damage despite a prolonged exchange. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the failure to send the recovered weapon for forensic analysis to verify its working condition rendered the recovery inconsequential. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case, and granted the appellant the benefit of the doubt, leading to his acquittal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any slight doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the failure to send a recovered weapon for forensic analysis to determine its working condition create a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case?
- Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution's narrative of an encounter is inherently implausible and contradicted by witness testimony?
- Does the principle of benefit of doubt apply when the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Soba Khan vs Gul Sher and 2 others2020 CLC 756 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-29Read full judgment →
- SMT. P. Leelavathi (D) by LRs. vs V. Shankarnarayana Rao (D) byLRs.2020 P SC 895 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
- Sirhind Zada vs Amir Zada & others2021 YLR 1373, 2020 PHC 390 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-20Read full judgment →
- Sirajuddin Sikandar vs L.A.O.and others2020 SHC 672 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-17Read full judgment →
- Sirajuddin Shaikh vs Spl; Judge Anticorruption Provicial Sukkur An Other2020 SHC 1444 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges an order dated 17-11-2020 passed by the Special Judge Anticorruption (Provincial), Sukkur, which dismissed the applicant's request under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall a prosecution witness, Ghulam Hussain, for cross-examination. The applicant contended that the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine a crucial witness violated the principles of a fair trial. The Deputy Prosecutor General for the State did not oppose the application. The Court held that cross-examination is an essential mechanism that assists both the accused and the Court in reaching a just decision. The Court emphasized that denying such an opportunity undermines the right to a fair trial. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to recall the witness for cross-examination. The judgment affirms the principle that the right to cross-examine witnesses is integral to the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, ensuring that the determination of rights and obligations in criminal proceedings remains transparent and just.
Questions settled- Does the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness violate the constitutional right to a fair trial?
- Is the recall of a witness for cross-examination permissible under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 apply to the process of cross-examination in criminal proceedings?
- Siraj Hussain vs Aashiq Hussain and 2 others2020 MLD 1893 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-01Read full judgment →
- Siraj Ahmed Advocate High Court vs SHO, P.S. Old Anarkali Lahore and 62020 PLJ Lahore 198 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-11Read full judgment →
- Sindh Revenue Board vs M/s. Hafiz Brothers Media Solution (Pvt) Ltd2020 SHC 1126 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
- Silk Bank Limited vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited etc2021 PLD Lahore 15, 2020 LHC 2182 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-13Read full judgment →
- Sikandar vs The State2020 SHC 1246 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving charges of double murder and attempted murder. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated due to enmity over landed property, that the FIR was delayed, and that no specific role was attributed. The State and complainant opposed the application, pointing out that the applicant was specifically named in the FIR for causing a firearm injury to one of the deceased and that a crime weapon was recovered from him upon arrest. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was prima facie connected with the commission of the offence based on the specific allegations and recovery of the weapon, and that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage. The court concluded that reasonable grounds existed to believe the applicant was guilty, distinguished the case law cited by the applicant, and dismissed the bail application with a direction to expedite the trial.
Questions settled- Whether an accused named in the FIR with a specific firearm injury attribution is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further enquiry?
- Does the relationship of the complainant and prosecution witnesses inter se furnish sufficient ground to disbelieve them at the bail stage?
- Can deeper appreciation of facts and circumstances be undertaken by the High Court while deciding a post-arrest bail application?
- Sikandar Hayat vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1445 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a private complaint arising from a murder case. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, given significant material improvements and contradictions in the ocular account, the acquittal of co-accused with identical roles, and doubtful medical and recovery evidence. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant on the benefit of the doubt. The court held that when eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding some accused persons attributed effective roles, their testimony cannot be relied upon against another accused with a similar role without independent corroboration. Furthermore, shifting stances, inconsistent roles assigned to the appellant across the crime report and private complaint, discarded motive, and inconsequential weapon recovery rendered the prosecution case untrustworthy.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused can be relied upon against another co-accused with an identical role without independent corroboration?
- Does a significant deviation and improvement in a private complaint compared to the initial crime report make the prosecution's case doubtful?
- Is the recovery of a weapon consequential when no crime empty was recovered or sent to the forensic laboratory for comparison?
- Whether an appellant is entitled to an acquittal by extending the benefit of the doubt when material contradictions exist regarding the attribution of fatal injuries?
- Sikandar Hayat Maken vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 IHC 148, 2021 [M] CLR 358, 2022 KLR Labour & Service 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses multiple constitutional petitions filed by civil servants challenging their supersession to higher grades (BS-20 and BS-21) by the Central Selection Board and the subsequent approval by the Prime Minister under the Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019. The core legal questions involve the vires of the Rules of 2019, the justiciability and structure of subjective evaluation and marks assigned by the Board, and whether the petitioners' fundamental rights were violated due to alleged arbitrariness, lack of due process, and absence of an opportunity to be heard regarding adverse material. The Court held that promotion does not constitute a vested right, eligibility is distinct from fitness, and the subjective evaluation of fitness by an expert Selection Board based on structured objective criteria is not open to substitution by a court under judicial review. Furthermore, the Rules of 2019 were validly framed in consonance with previous superior court judgments, and the petitioners failed to establish mala fide or rebut the presumption of regularity attached to official acts. The petitions were consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant has a vested right in claiming promotion or being considered under particular promotion rules?
- Does the evaluation of fitness and suitability for promotion by the Central Selection Board fall within the exclusive domain of the executive and remain non-justiciable before a court or tribunal?
- Whether the Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019 are ultra vires the Constitution and the principles enunciated by the superior courts?
- Is a civil servant entitled to a right of audience or to be confronted with intelligence or adverse reports considered by the Selection Board during promotion evaluations?
- Sikandar Hayat and another vs Sughran Bibi and 6 others2020 P SC 922, 2020 SCMR 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Civil Appeal, filed under Article 185(2) of the Constitution, challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that restored a Trial Court's decree for declaration of title. The original suit contested a mutation of Hiba (gift) attested by a father in favor of his minor son, alleging fraud and connivance of revenue officials. The core legal questions involved the necessity of joining revenue officials and the Province as parties when their connivance is alleged, the burden of proof for a minor donee in a Hiba, and the rebuttal of the presumption of regularity attached to official acts. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Appellate Court's decision. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove any defect in the mutation's attestation or the alleged fraud. Key principles laid down include that revenue officials and the Province are necessary parties when their connivance is alleged in a mutation challenge, a minor donee is not required to independently prove offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession, and the presumption of regularity under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, must be rebutted by the challenging party.
- Sikandar Hayat & others vs Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2020 PHC 176 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Hameed vs Muhammad Aslam Kamboh and others2020 PLD Lahore 38 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Ali vs The State2020 SHC 1056 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Ali Lashari vs The State2020 YLR 2543, 2020 SHC 308 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-20Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Ali and others vs The State2020 YLR 1877 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b), 504, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence for the primary appellant and life imprisonment for the others. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence, the imputation of common intention, and whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the asserted motive constitutes a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the active role and guilt of the primary appellant through consistent eyewitness and medical evidence, while failing to establish active participation or common intention for the co-appellants, who were consequently acquitted. The Court further held that an unproved motive serves as a mitigating circumstance sufficient to commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The key principles laid down include the rule that the failure of the prosecution to substantiate a set-up motive acts as a mitigating factor against the imposition of the death penalty, and that mere presence without overt acts or proven common intention does not sustain a conviction for murder.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
- Can co-accused be convicted of murder solely on the basis of presence at the crime scene without proof of active participation or shared common intention?
- Whether consistent eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient to uphold a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Sikandar Ali & others vs The State2020 SHC 134 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-07Read full judgment →
- Siemens Pak Engineering vs Japan Power Generation Limited2020 CLD 619, 2020 LHC 332 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-25Read full judgment →
- Sidra Abbas vs The State and another2021 P S c (Crl.) 147, 2020 SCMR 2089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition challenged the High Court's order granting post-arrest bail to an accused charged with murder under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court's order was perverse for ignoring material evidence of the accused's active involvement and relying on a misinterpretation of the record. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was indeed perverse because it disregarded incriminating material—specifically, witness statements alleging the accused facilitated the principal offender and the fact that the crime weapon was the accused's licensed pistol—while incorrectly characterizing the case as one of mere presence. The Court reaffirmed the principle that while bail should not be cancelled lightly, an appellate court must not ignore the reasoning of the trial court or relevant material on record when reversing a bail-refusal order. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and cancelled the bail, distinguishing between the cancellation of bail due to misuse of concession and the setting aside of a perverse bail-granting order.
Questions settled- Can a bail-granting order be cancelled if it is found to be perverse?
- Does an appellate court have the authority to set aside a bail order that ignores material evidence on record?
- Is the presence of an accused at two consecutive crime scenes with the principal offender sufficient to establish a prima facie case for common intention?
- Must an appellate court consider the reasoning of the trial court when reversing an order that refused bail?
- Sicpa Sa vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 MLD 2049, 2020 SHC 222 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
- Sibghatullah vs The State2020 MLD 776 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference originated from a trial court judgment wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for qatl-i-amd. The core legal questions pertained to the validity of a defective charge framed under Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the non-compliance with statutory rules requiring legal representation for the accused in capital cases under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the failure of the trial court to comply with Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by failing to specify whether the conviction pertained to single or double murder. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that conducting trial proceedings in a capital offence without legal counsel prejudiced the defense, and that an ambiguous judgment violating Section 367 rendered the verdict illegal. The case was remanded to the trial court for a de novo trial.
Questions settled- Does recording the examination of prosecution witnesses in a capital case in the absence of defense counsel invalidate the trial?
- What is the effect of framing a defective charge under Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 that misstates the place of incident and name of the deceased?
- Does a judgment convicting an accused under Section 302(b) PPC violate Section 367 CrPC if it fails to specify whether the conviction applies to single or multiple murders?
- Shumaila Mehmood vs Additional District Judge and 4 others2020 CLC 10 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-11Read full judgment →
- Shumaila Amjad vs Addl. Sessions Judge and others2020 YLR 1884, 2020 LHC 151 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-23Read full judgment →
- Shumail Waheed vs Rabia Khan2021 [M] C L R 337, 2021 MLD 252, 2020 LHC 2425 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-24Read full judgment →
- Sht. Marvi vs The Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 584 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
- Shri Rathi Steel Ltd vs Acit Central Circle-16, New Delhi2020 PCTLR 1220 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, India · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
- Shoukat Islam vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 415 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Skardu, which convicted the appellant under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for embezzlement of utility store items and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the entrustment of property and subsequent misappropriation through cogent documentary evidence, and whether the trial proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities regarding witness statements. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of entrustment, as no supply indents or documentary evidence were produced to substantiate the alleged shortage. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution witnesses contradicted the Investigating Officer regarding the recording of their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby depriving the accused of his fundamental right to cross-examination and confrontation. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The principle laid down is that in cases of criminal breach of trust, entrustment must be strictly proved through documentary evidence, and witness testimony becomes unreliable when the recording of statements under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is disputed or concealed.
Questions settled- Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to acknowledge their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render their testimony unreliable?
- Is a conviction for criminal breach of trust sustainable solely on verbal assertions without documentary evidence of entrustment?
- Does the denial of the right to confront prosecution witnesses regarding their police statements violate the fundamental rights of the accused?
- Shoukat Hussain Jokhio vs The Stae through Chairman NAB & others2021 PCr.LJ 24, 2020 SHC 434 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-24Read full judgment →
- Sholo @ Rasool Bux vs State2021 MLD 1577, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 580 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court committed incurable irregularities by failing to put material evidence, including medical evidence, motive, and absconsion, to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the trial court properly recorded reasons for awarding a lesser punishment instead of the normal penalty of death. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court committed material and incurable irregularities by omitting to put vital incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and by failing to provide adequate reasons for opting for a lesser sentence as mandated by Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and remanded the case back to the trial court for re-examination of the accused in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a trial court to put material evidence emerging from cross-examination or medical reports to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
- Is a trial court mandated to state reasons under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when imposing a lesser sentence instead of the normal penalty of death?
- Must incriminating circumstances regarding the absconsion of an accused be specifically put to him during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the appropriate legal recourse when a trial court commits material irregularities in examining the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shoe Planet (Pvt.) Ltd vs Collector of Customs & Others2021 PTD 875, 2020 SHC 834 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-16Read full judgment →
- Shoaibullah Baig vs The State2020 YLR 2607 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged commission of sodomy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the allegations, the presence of an eye-witness, and the medico-legal report. The Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the accused was directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR and implicated by the victim in a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court further observed that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. While noting that the medico-legal report regarding the absence of physical violence required deeper scrutiny—which is impermissible at the bail stage—the Court emphasized that only a tentative assessment is appropriate during bail proceedings. Consequently, the Court determined that the accused did not deserve the concession of bail, affirming that heinous offences against society warrant strict judicial scrutiny.
Questions settled- Does an offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a detailed examination of medico-legal reports regarding the absence of physical violence permissible at the bail stage?
- Can an accused be granted bail when directly nominated in a promptly lodged FIR for a heinous offence?
- Shoaib Ahmed Qazi & others vs Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 1100 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-27Read full judgment →
- Sher Zaman vs Province Of Punjab and others2020 YLR 2660 · Lahore High Court · 2020-08-24Read full judgment →
- Sher Zaman Ex-Assistant Excise And Taxation Officer (B-16) vs Board Of Revenue Balochistan (Excise And Taxation Branch) through Member Board of Revenue-II_Secretary Excise and another2020 PLC (C.S.) 969 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a retired Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer seeking the release of pensionary benefits withheld by the respondents due to the petitioner's involvement in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference. The core legal question was whether a civil servant can be deprived of pensionary benefits solely on the basis of the pendency of criminal proceedings or inquiries. The Court held that pension and gratuity are not bounties but are earned rights acquired through long, faithful service, and cannot be withheld during the pendency of criminal proceedings absent specific legal authority. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court emphasized that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that withholding such benefits violates the right to property guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court allowed the petition, directing the immediate payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner, noting that he had already been acquitted by a competent court, and ordered the Chief Secretary of Balochistan to circulate the judgment to all administrative departments for future compliance.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant be deprived of pensionary benefits solely due to the pendency of criminal proceedings or inquiries?
- Are pension and gratuity considered bounties or earned rights of a civil servant?
- Does the withholding of pensionary benefits without lawful authority violate the constitutional right to property?
- Sher Wali vs The State another2020 PHC 534 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
- Sher Shah Malik vs The Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and another2020 PLC (C.S.) 1267, 2020 IHC 76, 2020 PLJ Islamabad 171 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns the entitlement of former Radio Pakistan employees, transferred to the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (P.B.C.) under the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1973, to receive medical allowance benefits equivalent to those granted to civil servants. The core legal question was whether these employees, despite ceasing to be civil servants upon transfer, retained their right to service benefits, including medical allowances, as protected by the statutory guarantee in Section 12 of the 1973 Act. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the medical allowance. The ratio is that Section 12 of the 1973 Act provided a statutory assurance that transferred employees would retain the same terms and conditions of service they enjoyed prior to the transfer. Consequently, the P.B.C. could not unilaterally deny benefits that were otherwise applicable to civil servants. The key principle laid down is that where a statute mandates the transfer of employees on the 'same terms and conditions' as their previous employment, the employer is legally bound to extend subsequent government-announced benefits, such as medical allowances, to those transferred employees.
Questions settled- Are employees transferred from Radio Pakistan to the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation under the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1973, entitled to the same medical allowance benefits as civil servants?
- Does the statutory protection of 'same terms and conditions' in Section 12 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1973, require the Corporation to extend government-announced benefits to transferred employees?
- Can the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation deny service benefits to transferred employees on the grounds that they ceased to be civil servants upon transfer?
- Sher Muhammad vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2020 SHC 840 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
- Sher Asfandyar Khan and others vs Neelofar Shah and others2020 CLD 1260 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These three High Court Appeals arose from an order of a learned Single Judge in J.M. No. 31 of 2007, filed under Sections 290 and 291 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The dispute concerned alleged oppression and mismanagement in Ofspace (Pvt.) Ltd., where shares kept in safe custody were unlawfully transferred, converting the majority group into a minority. Appellants contended that the petition was time-barred, agreements were unproved photocopies, issues were not framed or evidence recorded, and the Judge erred in personally comparing signatures under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Single Judge's directions to hold an Extraordinary General Meeting (EOGM) under the Official Assignee’s supervision on undisputed shareholdings. The Court held that company petitions under Section 290 do not mandatorily require framing issues or recording evidence, secondary evidence is admissible where appropriate, the Court is competent to compare signatures itself under Article 84, and continuous correspondence prevents the bar of limitation or laches.
Questions settled- Is a Company Judge mandatorily required to frame issues and record oral evidence before deciding a petition under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
- Can a Court compare disputed signatures with undisputed signatures on official record itself under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 without referring the matter to a handwriting expert?
- Does an unlawful transfer of shares that alters the majority shareholding of a company constitute 'oppression' within the meaning of Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
- Can a company petition under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 be dismissed on the ground of limitation or laches when there has been continuous correspondence and pursuit regarding company mismanagement?
- Sher Ali Kakar vs Station Head Quarters, through Umair Hameed2021 PLJ Quetta 50, 2020 CLC 125 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-22Read full judgment →
- Sher Alam and others vs Muhammad Haroon Khan and others2020 MLD 514 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-11Read full judgment →
- Sher Afzal vs The State and another2021 P Cr.LJ 47, 2020 LHC 1641 · Lahore High Court · 2020-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 whereby the petitioner, Sher Afzal, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kahuta, District Rawalpindi. The core legal question was whether an accused person assigned the role of shouting a lalkara (incitement) is invariably entitled to post-arrest bail, or whether such a role can constitute a sufficient overt act precluding bail when the co-accused are related and acting under the petitioner's influence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition and held that while a lalkara is often treated as proverbial, it cannot be considered an inflexible rule; where the accused is in a commanding position over the co-assailants who commit fatal acts, the lalkara amounts to active instigation and abetment. The key principle laid down is that the impact of a lalkara must be evaluated in the background of the case, taking into account the accused's relationship, dominance, and influence over the co-accused.
Questions settled- Is an accused person assigned the role of shouting a lalkara always entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a lalkara lose its proverbial nature when the accused is in a dominant or commanding relationship over the principal assailants?
- What factors must a court consider when deciding a bail petition involving an accused attributed with shouting a lalkara?
- Sher Afzal vs Provincial Government through Chief Secretary/Land2020 MLD 328 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-04-29Read full judgment →
- Sher Afzal vs Jangi Bahadur2020 MLD 1546 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-03-13Read full judgment →
- Sheqab Muhammad vs The State and another2020 SCMR 1486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of a murderous assault involving firearm injuries during a dispute over immovable property. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given the arguments regarding contradictions between ocular and medical accounts, the absence of independent public witnesses, and the injury being on a non-vital part of the body. The Supreme Court held that in a daylight incident supported by injured witnesses and timely medical examinations, a prima facie case under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, was established, attracting the statutory prohibition against bail. The Court laid down the principle that a murderous assault draws no anatomical distinction between vital and non-vital parts of the body once the trigger is pressed, and an assailant cannot claim a concession or premium for poor marksmanship. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when charged with a murderous assault supported by injured eyewitnesses and medical evidence?
- Does a murderous assault under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, draw any anatomical distinction between vital and non-vital parts of the human body?
- Can an assailant claim the benefit of bail on the ground of poor marksmanship when a firearm is discharged at a victim?
- At what stage is an in-depth analysis of the prosecution case forbidden by law in bail matters?
- Shell Pakistan Limited vs Registrar Trade Unions and others2020 PLC 57 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the order of the Registrar Trade Unions registering a trade union within the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner, a public limited company, contended that the union members were employees of third-party service providers, not the company, and thus lacked the legal status to form a union within the petitioner's establishment. The core legal question was whether workers engaged through contractors at an establishment qualify as "workers" entitled to form a trade union under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and whether such registration is permissible while the employment status is contested before the National Industrial Relations Commission. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the definition of "worker" under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 encompasses those employed through contractors. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that workers performing permanent functions at an establishment are deemed employees of the principal company, rendering outsourcing arrangements often a mere pretence. The key principle laid down is that the right to form a trade union extends to workers employed through contractors within an establishment, provided they perform functions integral to the company's operations.
Questions settled- Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 grant an employer the right to appeal against an order of the Registrar Trade Unions registering a trade union?
- Are workers employed through a contractor or service provider entitled to form a trade union within the principal establishment?
- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have the jurisdiction to order the regularization of employees?
- Can a trade union be registered in an establishment while a grievance petition regarding the employment status of its members is pending before the National Industrial Relations Commission?
- Shell Pakistan Limited vs Punjab through the Secretary Ministry of Finance2020 PLJ Peshawar 124, 2020 PLJ Lahore 526, 2020 LHC 1776, 2020 PTD 1607 · Lahore High Court · 2020-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a recovery notice issued by the Additional Commissioner (Respondent No. 5) while the petitioner's appeal was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 63 of the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012. The core legal question concerned whether tax authorities could initiate coercive recovery measures while a statutory appeal remained undecided and whether the court should grant interim relief as a stop-gap arrangement. The Court observed that the right to fair trial (Article 10-A) and the right to be treated in accordance with law (Article 4) necessitate that a taxpayer's grievance be adjudicated by an independent tribunal before final recovery. Applying the 'doctrine of ripeness' and the 'doctrine of stop-gap arrangement,' the Court held that recovery should not be finalized until the matter is adjudicated by at least one independent forum. Consequently, the Court directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal within two months and restrained coercive recovery measures until the decision on the stay application.
- Sheikh Muhammad Tufail Proprietor Data Cloth House Shaheed Chowk, Kotli Azad Kashmir vs The Commissioner of Income Tax Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, Muzaffarabad (Azad Kashmir) and anotherPTCL 2021 CL. 347, 2020 PTD 1217 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Asghar vs NAB & others2021 YLR 188, 2020 SHC 378 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-29Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Kashif Imtiaz vs Faysal Bank Limited and another2020 CLD 904 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-21Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Junaid Iqbal vs The State2020 MLD 1407 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a conviction and sentence imposed by the Consumer Protection Court for non-compliance with a prior order under the Sindh Consumer Protection Act, 2014. The complainant alleged that the appellant sold substandard bread lacking manufacturing and expiry dates, causing physical illness. The core legal question was whether the conviction was sustainable given the lack of evidence regarding the alleged illness and the procedural fairness of the trial court's proceedings. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the absence of medical evidence to substantiate the complainant's claims of illness. Furthermore, the court found that the trial court violated the principles of natural justice and Article 10A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by denying the appellant a fair opportunity to respond to a show-cause notice. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reinforces the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does the failure to provide a medical report to substantiate claims of illness resulting from consumption of a product create a reasonable doubt in a consumer protection case?
- Is a trial court's order requiring a response to a show-cause notice within one hour a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
- Sheikh Iqbal Azam Farooqui through Legal Heirs vs The State through Chairman NABPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 203, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 482, 2020 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased convict, Sheikh Iqbal Azam Farooqui, challenging the order of the High Court of Sindh which disposed of his pending criminal appeal as abated upon his death while keeping the sentence of fine intact to be realized from his estate. The core legal question concerns whether a criminal appeal against conviction abates entirely upon the death of the appellant notwithstanding the persistence of financial liabilities such as fines affecting his estate. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while corporal consequences of a conviction wither away with the death of the convict, financial liability shifted upon the estate requires the appellate court to decide the appeal on its merits. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and directed that the appeal, sustained by the legal heirs, shall be deemed pending for adjudication on merits. The key principle laid down is that Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not warrant the abatement of an appeal regarding financial liabilities impinging upon the estate of a deceased convict without a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Does a criminal appeal abate entirely upon the death of the convict when a sentence of fine remains attached to his estate?
- Whether an appellate court is required to decide an appeal on its merits when financial consequences of a conviction continue to impinge upon the estate of a deceased appellant?
- How does the death of a convict affect the corporal versus financial consequences of a conviction under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Sheikh Imran Haque vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2020 PLD Islamabad 177 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-26Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Anser Aziz Mayor Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior Islamabad and 2 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1132 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a constitutional petition challenging the suspension of the Mayor of the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad, who was suspended for ninety days by the Ministry of Interior based on recommendations from the Local Government Commission. The core legal question was whether the suspension was lawful given the petitioner's claim that he was denied a fair hearing and that the proceedings were conducted in violation of due process. The Court held that the suspension notification was prima facie illegal because the petitioner was not confronted with the specific allegations, nor was he afforded an opportunity to defend himself regarding the additional agenda item that led to the recommendation. Emphasizing the principle of Audi Alteram Partem and the constitutional right to due process under Article 10-A, the Court suspended the operation of the notification pending final adjudication. The judgment establishes that a Local Government Commission is legally bound to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to a public office holder before recommending their suspension, and that proceedings conducted in a concealed or deceptive manner without proper confrontation of allegations are unsustainable.
Questions settled- Is a Local Government Commission required to provide an opportunity of hearing to a Mayor before recommending their suspension?
- Can a suspension order based on an agenda item added in the absence of the affected party be sustained?
- Does the failure to confront a public official with allegations before recommending their suspension violate Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Shehzadi Fatima Ali vs Nadia Asghar and 2 others2020 CLC 1181 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
- Shehzad Khan alias Nomi and another vs The State2020 MLD 1187 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 226 of 2019 arising out of FIR No. 65 of 2019 registered under sections 324, 285, 290, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Airport Gilgit, after their bail plea was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge Gilgit. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of consistency with a co-accused released under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether their case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that since a co-accused attributed a similar role was released under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and given the absence of a medical certificate on the file to substantiate the FIR allegations, the determination of intention to kill warranted further inquiry at trial. The court laid down the principle that where material aspects such as medical substantiation are lacking and co-accused with identical roles are granted relief, the case qualifies for further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, making the accused eligible for post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Does the release of a co-accused by the police attract the law of consistency for granting post-arrest bail to remaining accused?
- Whether absence of a medical certificate on record brings a case under the scope of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Does an offence carrying ten years rigorous imprisonment necessarily bar the grant of bail when intention to kill requires trial determination?
- Shehzad Ali Shah vs Special Judge Rent, Lahore etc2020 PLD Lahore 354, 2020 PLJ Lahore 225, 2020 LHC 174 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged an order by the Special Judge (Rent), Lahore, which had accepted an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside an ex-parte ejectment order. The core legal question was whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically Section 12(2), are applicable to proceedings under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, and whether a Rent Tribunal has the jurisdiction to condone delays in such applications. The Court held that Section 34 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 expressly bars the application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to rent proceedings, except for limited powers under Section 26. Consequently, an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not maintainable in rent proceedings. Furthermore, the Court ruled that since the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 provides its own limitation period under Section 21(8), and the Limitation Act, 1908 is not applicable, the Rent Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the statutory period.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to proceedings under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009?
- Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 maintainable against an ex-parte order passed by a Rent Tribunal?
- Does a Rent Tribunal have the power to condone a delay in filing an application where the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 prescribes a specific limitation period?
- Can the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 be invoked in proceedings under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009?
- Shehzad Akhtar vs District Judge, Muzaffargarh and others2020 YLR 2691 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-11Read full judgment →
- Shehzad Ahmed vs Zafar alias Zafri and 4 others2019 PCr. L J 1497, 2020 KLR Criminal Cases 101 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses multiple criminal appeals and a capital sentence reference arising from the abduction of a victim for ransom. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular evidence, victim testimony, ransom recovery, and identification parades, and whether the offence attracted the provisions of anti-terrorism laws. The court held that the testimony of the abducted victim, corroborated by other reliable evidence, conclusively proved the guilt of three appellants for abduction and ransom, warranting the confirmation of their convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code. However, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish all necessary ingredients to attract anti-terrorism charges, thus setting aside the convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The key principles laid down include that an abductee's testimony carries substantial evidentiary value unless strongly discredited, and that anti-terrorism provisions require specific statutory ingredients distinct from ordinary heinous crimes.
Questions settled- What is the evidentiary value of an abductee's testimony in cases of kidnapping and abduction?
- Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of the deposition of a solitary witness?
- Whether the offence of abduction for ransom automatically attracts section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 without proof of specific statutory ingredients?
- Shehzad Ahmad vs Asad Niaz & 2 others2020 PLJ Lahore 557 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-22Read full judgment →
- Shehryar Khan vs The State and another2020 SCMR 1436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the petitioner's request for post-arrest bail in a murder case. The petitioner was charged with firing a fatal shot at the deceased during a dispute over immovable property. The core legal question was whether the existence of a 'cross version' of the incident, based on an injury sustained by a co-accused (the petitioner's brother), entitled the petitioner to bail, particularly when the petitioner had absconded following the incident and was only apprehended months later. The Supreme Court held that the merits of the cross-version and the claim of self-defense were matters to be determined by the trial court, not at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court observed that the suppression of injuries in both versions did not elevate the petitioner's case for bail. Crucially, the Court ruled that the specific role attributed to the petitioner, combined with his post-incident abscondence, precluded his release on bail. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that a cross-version does not automatically necessitate further probe or bail when the accused is charged with a fatal act.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a cross-version in a murder case automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Can an accused's abscondence after the commission of an offense act as an impediment to the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the veracity of a cross-version regarding self-defense a matter to be decided at the bail stage or by the trial court?
- Shehbaz alias Kodu vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1632 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three post-arrest bail petitions filed by Shehbaz alias Kodu, Mohsin Ayyaz alias Faisal, and Shumaila Bibi, who are accused in a case involving dacoity and dishonestly receiving stolen property under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of their trial. Upon reviewing the trial court's report and record, the High Court observed that the delay was primarily attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses, rather than any fault of the accused. The court held that the petitioners had satisfied the statutory requirements for bail, as they had been incarcerated for over one year without the trial reaching a conclusion due to no fault of their own. The court reaffirmed the principle that a statutory right to bail cannot be denied through discretionary power when the accused is not responsible for the delay in the trial proceedings.
Questions settled- Can bail be granted on statutory grounds when the delay in trial is caused by the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses?
- Is a statutory right to bail subject to the court's discretionary power when the accused is not responsible for the trial delay?
- Does the COVID-19 pandemic constitute a valid reason to deny bail when the statutory period of incarceration has been exceeded?
- Shehbaz Alam and 2 others vs The State2020 YLR 269 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application seeks post-arrest bail for three petitioners facing charges under sections 364, 324, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in FIR No. 37/2019. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to bail given their identification in an identification parade, the nature of the allegations, and the absence of weapon recovery. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that bail for two of the petitioners, who were identified during an identification parade and prima facie connected to the crime, should be declined. However, the court granted bail to the third petitioner on the ground that his case fell within the scope of further inquiry as he was not present at the scene and was charged with abetment. The key principle laid down is that non-recovery of a weapon does not automatically entitle an accused to bail when there is prima facie evidence of identification and involvement, whereas an accused charged with abetment and not present at the occurrence may warrant further inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether non-recovery of a weapon alone is sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in heinous offences?
- Does identification of an accused during an identification parade establish a prima facie case disentitling them to bail?
- Whether an accused charged with abetment who was not present at the scene of the crime makes out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Sheharyar Ahmed vs The State2020 PTD 645 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This post-arrest bail application arose from an FIR lodged against a clearing agent for allegedly submitting a forged Proceeds Realisation Certificate (PRC) to clear an imported vehicle under the personal baggage transfer of residence scheme. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicant possessed the requisite mens rea to justify his continued detention, and whether a case for post-arrest bail under further inquiry was made out. The High Court granted bail to the applicant subject to furnishing a solvent surety. The court observed that the applicant was merely a clearing agent and not the primary importer, and that prior to the registration of the FIR, a letter had been sent on behalf of his firm requesting Customs authorities to verify the authenticity of the PRC. This conduct raised a presumption negating mens rea at the tentative stage. Furthermore, as the imported vehicle remained in Customs custody, no financial loss was caused to the public exchequer.
Questions settled- Whether a clearing agent who submits a forged document to Customs can be granted post-arrest bail if mens rea is prima facie absent?
- Does a clearing agent's prior request to Customs authorities to verify the authenticity of a document negate mens rea at the bail stage?
- Whether a charge of causing loss to the public exchequer holds when the imported goods remain seized in Customs custody?
- Sheeraz s/o Imam Buksh vs The State2021 MLD 292, 2020 SHC 336 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application concerns the applicant, Sheeraz, seeking post-arrest bail for offenses under sections 353, 324, 302, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his alleged involvement in a firing incident resulting in the death of a police constable. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite being named in the FIR, given the general nature of the allegations and the grant of bail to co-accused. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, determining that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the mere naming of an accused in an FIR without disclosing the source of identity is insufficient to deny bail, especially when the role assigned is general and indistinguishable from co-accused who have already been granted bail. Furthermore, the Court established that the rule of consistency applies based on the role played rather than mere nomination, and that prior criminal involvement does not automatically preclude bail.
Questions settled- Does the mere naming of an accused in an FIR without disclosing the source of identity constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Does the rule of consistency in bail matters depend on the role played by the accused or merely on whether they were nominated in the FIR?
- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of involvement in other criminal cases without prior conviction?
- Is the recovery of a crime weapon from a co-accused sufficient to deny bail to an accused from whom no weapon was recovered?
- Sheeraz Jamali vs Province of Sindh, through Secretary Department, Local2020 CLC 1532 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
- Sheer Muhammad vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 864 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentencing him to death, alongside compensation and default terms. The appellant did not contest the conviction on merits but sought reduction of the sentence from death to life imprisonment based on mitigating circumstances, including unproven motive and the welfare of his children. The Sindh High Court evaluated the evidence, affirming the conviction beyond reasonable doubt based on eyewitness, medical, and corroborative evidence. On the question of sentencing, the court held that Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applies to Qisas rather than Tazir cases, rendering it inapplicable here. However, the court found that the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive, coupled with the absence of extreme brutality and the appellant's willingness to support his children, constituted sufficient mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the death reference, maintained the conviction, but converted the death sentence to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Whether Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is applicable to cases of Tazir?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive justify the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Whether mitigating circumstances such as the welfare of children and unproven motive warrant the conversion of a death penalty to life imprisonment?
- Shazia Parveen Saleem vs The State etc2021 P Cr. L J 403, 2020 LHC 1635 · Lahore High Court · 2020-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition seeks post-arrest bail for a female petitioner accused under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly using a forged guardianship certificate to enter into an agreement to sell a house belonging to the legal heirs of her deceased husband. The core legal question involves the determination of whether bail should be granted in offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether the statutory leniency towards female accused applies. The Lahore High Court held that offences not falling within the prohibitory clause warrant the grant of bail as a rule and refusal as an exception, and noted that the investigator failed to properly probe the source of the forged document while the lower courts ignored the beneficial first proviso of Section 497. The court laid down the principle that bail in non-prohibitory offences is a rule and refusal requires extraordinary circumstances, and emphasized the mandatory consideration of the statutory proviso favoring female accused.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be granted as a rule in offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provide a beneficial consideration for the grant of bail to a female accused?
- What are the exceptional circumstances required to refuse bail in offences punishable with imprisonment of less than ten years?
- Shazia Bibi vs The State2020 SCMR 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal filed by Shazia Bibi against her conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing 4 kilograms of cannabis. She was sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine, a judgment upheld in appeal. The petitioner argued she was falsely implicated as a scapegoat due to police animosity towards her husband and that the prosecution failed to provide complete details/protocol of forensic tests. The Supreme Court declined leave to appeal, finding that the substantial quantity of contraband made the scapegoat defense incredible, especially given her silence when produced before a Magistrate. The Court also held that the forensic report, which explicitly detailed the tests performed (weighing, chemical spot tests, Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry), sufficiently met statutory requirements, rendering the argument about missing protocol beside the mark. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld.
Questions settled- Can a substantial quantity of recovered contraband negate a defense of false implication?
- Does a failure to protest false implication before a Magistrate weaken a later defense?
- Is a forensic report detailing specific tests performed (weighing, chemical spot tests, Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry) sufficient to meet statutory requirements without a full 'protocol'?
- Can a conviction based on concurrent findings of lower courts be interfered with without strong grounds?
- Shaukat Saleem Akhund vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation limited and 022020 SHC 760 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged his removal from service by Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, which was initially struck down by the High Court on December 16, 2015, due to procedural defects in the second show-cause notice. The Court had permitted the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings and pass a speaking order within 20 days, failing which back benefits were to be paid. The respondents subsequently maintained the removal penalty via an Office Memorandum dated January 8, 2016. The petitioner, who had reached superannuation on April 30, 2011, challenged this action. The High Court held that under Fundamental Rule 54-A, disciplinary proceedings against an employee abate upon reaching superannuation. Since the petitioner was no longer in service, no fresh inquiry could be conducted or continued against him. Consequently, the Court declared the departmental proceedings abated, set aside the impugned memorandum, and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner all admissible service and retirement benefits.
Questions settled- Whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated or continued against an employee after they have reached the age of superannuation?
- What is the legal effect on pending disciplinary inquiries under Fundamental Rule 54-A when a government servant retires?
- Is pension considered a bounty from the employer, or is it an earned right for services rendered?
- Shaukat Hussain vs State etcPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 202, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 202 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the identification of the accused during nighttime, the credibility of chance witnesses, and the validity of the weapon recovery. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting the absence of a light source at the crime scene, the failure of witnesses to establish their presence, and the lack of independent witnesses during the recovery of the weapon. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitting the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right, not as a concession.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a light source at the scene of a nighttime occurrence create reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the accused?
- Is a recovery witness valid if they are not a resident of the locality where the recovery occurred?
- Is it necessary for there to be multiple circumstances creating doubt to entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Shaukat Hussain Bhatti & another vs Khalid Latif & others2021 MLD 497, 2020 IHC 84 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary & others2020 SHC 696 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-19Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali and another vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 974 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony from related witnesses and whether the failure to prove motive and the lack of forensic corroboration for weapon recoveries warranted a reduction in sentence. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular account consistent with medical evidence and rejecting arguments that the witnesses were interested solely due to their relationship with the deceased. However, the Court held that because the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive and the weapon recoveries were rendered inconsequential due to procedural lapses, the death sentence was disproportionate. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The judgment affirms the principle that while relationship does not disqualify a witness, the failure to prove motive and the absence of forensic evidence regarding weapon recoveries are valid grounds for mitigating the quantum of sentence in capital cases.
Questions settled- Does the mere relationship of a witness to the deceased render their testimony unreliable?
- Can the failure to prove the alleged motive and the inconsequential nature of weapon recoveries serve as grounds for mitigating a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Is ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence sufficient to maintain a conviction for murder?
- Sharjeel Inam Memon vs National Accountability Bureau through Director2020 MLD 614 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-25Read full judgment →
- Sharif Khan vs The State and anotherPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 155, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 18, 2021 SCMR 87, 2020 SCP 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Peshawar High Court's order cancelling the petitioner's post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in cancelling the bail previously granted by the trial court, given that the police investigation had placed the petitioner in column No. 02 of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, declaring him innocent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to apply the established principles governing bail cancellation, which require strong and exceptional grounds to deprive an accused of liberty once granted. The Court emphasized that the considerations for granting bail and cancelling it are distinct. Finding that the case against the petitioner was one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the bail, reaffirming that liberty should not be curtailed without compelling reasons.
Questions settled- What are the distinct legal considerations for granting bail versus cancelling bail?
- Does the inclusion of an accused's name in column No. 02 of a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle them to bail?
- What are the exceptional grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Is a case considered one of 'further inquiry' when the investigating officer declares the accused innocent despite their nomination in the crime report?
- Shareef son of Muhammad Younas Lakho vs The State2020 SHC 1268 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant preferred a criminal appeal against the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing him under Section 302(h), Section 506(ii), and Section 337-H(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a reference for confirmation of his death sentence. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness accounts, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the evidentiary value of a delayed weapon recovery. The Sindh High Court held that material contradictions among eyewitnesses, an unexplained five-day delay in lodging the FIR, a subsequent delay in recording police statements, and a delayed, unverified weapon recovery created serious doubts in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, and acquitted the appellant on the principle of benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR create a presumption of consultation and deliberation?
- What is the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with an unexplained delay?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when material contradictions exist regarding the time and manner of the deceased's death?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Sharaf Shipping Agency (Pvt) Ltd vs Sindh and Others2020 SHC 800 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-22Read full judgment →
- Shanaf Ahmad etc vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1666 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal appeals and a murder reference following a trial court judgment convicting the appellant Shanaf Ahmad under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death, alongside the acquittal of several co-accused. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular account, the effect of unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem, the corroborative value of recoveries and absconsion, and whether a conviction can be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove its case independently despite an inculpatory defense plea. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to untrustworthy eyewitness testimony, suspicious delays, and weak corroborative evidence. The court established that a defense plea under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or rejected as a whole, and a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution story entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the connected appeals and revision were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination casts serious doubt on the trustworthiness of prosecution eye-witnesses?
- Can a conviction be maintained solely on the basis of an inculpatory part of a defense statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution fails to establish its case independently?
- Whether the absconsion of an accused can independently cure the inherent defects and gaps in the prosecution's evidence?
- Can a defense plea involving self-defense be accepted in part while rejecting the exculpatory assertions when the prosecution evidence is completely discarded?
- Shan khalid and Ors vs Chairman HEC and Ors2020 SHC 1038 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-20Read full judgment →
- Shan Foods (Pvt.) Ltd vs Pakistan and 2 others2020 PTD 1865 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
- Shan Ali vs The State2020 YLR 1545 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of two individuals. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner, claiming to be a juvenile, was entitled to bail based on his age, and whether the existence of a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased provided sufficient grounds for the grant of bail, notwithstanding allegations of honour killing. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The court found that the petitioner was approximately sixteen years old at the time of the incident, as evidenced by his matriculation certificate and Form B, qualifying him as a juvenile. Furthermore, the court observed that the legal heirs had voluntarily entered into a compromise and forgiven the accused in the name of God, expressing no objection to his release. The court affirmed that such a compromise, coupled with the petitioner's juvenile status, constitutes valid grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail in the interest of justice.
Questions settled- Does a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is a juvenile accused entitled to the concession of bail in a murder case?
- Can a matriculation certificate and Form B be relied upon to establish the juvenile status of an accused for bail purposes?