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.

• Sarfaraz Qurban Ali vs The Chairman NADRA & others2020 SHC 1218 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Khan and others vs Chief Of Air Staff (Pakistan Air Force), Islamabad and others2020 PLD Islamabad 428 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-05
  Article 199(3) jurisdictionArmed Forces service mattersdue processArticle 10-Aadministrative removaljudicial reviewmala fidePakistan Air Force Act 1953
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns intra-court appeals challenging the dismissal of writ petitions by a Single Judge, who had declined jurisdiction under Article 199(3) of the Constitution regarding the removal of Pakistan Air Force personnel for alleged homosexual activities. The core legal question was whether the constitutional bar on judicial review of Armed Forces service matters precludes intervention when due process and fundamental rights are violated. The Court held that the bar under Article 199(3) is not absolute and does not preclude judicial review where actions are mala fide, coram non judice, or lack jurisdiction. Finding that the removal proceedings relied on evidence obtained through torture, lacked corroboration, and failed to meet the fairness standards mandated by Article 10-A of the Constitution, the Court set aside the impugned judgment. The Court established that administrative removal orders must comply with due process, and the protection of fundamental rights overrides the jurisdictional bar in Article 199(3) when authorities act arbitrarily or without legal basis, necessitating that such removals be reconsidered without stigma.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 prevent judicial review of administrative removal orders from the Armed Forces where fundamental rights are violated?
  • Are proceedings of a Board of Inquiry under the Pakistan Air Force Act 1953 subject to judicial scrutiny regarding compliance with due process?
  • Can an administrative removal from service be sustained if the underlying evidence was obtained through physical torture?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 apply to administrative proceedings within the Armed Forces?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardarzada Mir Saeed Ahmed vs Mir Ziaullah and 22 others2020 MLD 532 · Election Tribunal · 2019-08-02Read full judgment →
• Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind vs Election Tribunal Balochistan, Quetta2020 P SC 150, 2020 PLD Supreme Court 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-12-05
  DisqualificationElection lawArticle 62(1)(f)Honesty and AmeenNomination papersEducational qualificationEvidenceAdmissionPresumptionLifetime bar
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard petitions challenging the disqualification of a returned candidate from provincial and national assembly elections. The petitioner's nomination papers were rejected, and his ineligibility upheld by the Appellate Tribunal and High Court, primarily under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, for allegedly not being 'honest.' This finding stemmed from his failure to disclose a Sanad of Shahad-ul-Aalmia in 2013, after claiming it in 2008, which was construed as concealment and an admission of a false statement. The Supreme Court held that disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) requires a judicial declaration of 'not honest' based on positive evidence, oral or documentary, and a specific finding of deliberate false statement or dishonest conduct. A mere non-denial or omission does not constitute an unambiguous admission with evidentiary value, and dishonesty cannot be presumed. The Court found no evidence or specific finding of dishonest and deceitful action by the petitioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals, allowed them, and set aside the impugned judgments, reiterating that disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) entails a lifetime bar and must be founded on concrete proof of dishonesty.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution without a specific finding of dishonest and deceitful action?
  • Is a mere non-denial or omission of a fact in nomination papers sufficient to constitute an admission with evidentiary value for disqualification purposes?
  • Does disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution entail a lifetime bar on eligibility to contest elections?
  • What kind of evidence is required to establish 'not honest' for disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution?
  • Can dishonesty be presumed for disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, or must it be proven through overt acts reflecting deliberate false statements or cheatful involvement?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Tabarik Ali and another vs Administrator Municipal Corporation, Muzaffarabad and 6 others2020 CLC 1318 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-01-07Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Asif Naqkshbandi vs The State through P.G. Sindh2020 P SC (Crl.) 654, 2020 SCMR 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-08-08
  pre-arrest bailfalse CNICfurther inquiryAfghan nationalbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with Section 30(2)(a), (e), and (f) of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance 2000, for allegedly obtaining a National Identity Card with false particulars while being an Afghan national. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the case warranted further inquiry as the petitioner claimed he obtained the CNIC in accordance with law, had previously served as a General Councillor, and no recovery was to be made from him, rendering his incarceration before trial pointless. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the impugned judgment, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail subject to regular appearance before the Trial Court and participation in the investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the case falls within the scope of further inquiry?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail when no recovery is to be made and incarceration before trial serves no useful purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Mohammad Saleem Khan (Deceased) through L.Rs. vs The Additional District Judge, Multan and 6 others2020 [M] C L R 7 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-23Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs The State and another2020 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-09Read full judgment →
• Sardar Javed Sharif vs Azad Govt. & others2020 SC AJK 88 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-07-17
  judicial appointmentsconstitutional consultationindependence of judiciaryde facto doctrinerule of primacyHigh Court judgesAzad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the appointment of five High Court Judges in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, alleging violations of the constitutional consultative process. The core legal question was whether the appointments, made without a simultaneous, meaningful, and consensus-oriented consultation between the President, the Chief Justice of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and the Chief Justice of the High Court, were constitutionally valid. The Supreme Court held that the appointments were ultra vires and void, as the executive failed to adhere to the mandatory consultative requirements established by precedent. The Court emphasized that "consultation" under Article 43(2-A) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, is not a mere formality but a substantive process requiring effective, purposive, and simultaneous deliberation. The Court clarified that the "Rule of Primacy" does not grant the executive discretion to pick candidates unilaterally but applies only when a genuine difference of opinion persists after exhaustive consultation. While setting aside the appointments, the Court invoked the de facto doctrine to validate the past judicial acts of the removed judges.

  Questions settled

  • Does the constitutional requirement of 'consultation' for the appointment of High Court judges mandate a simultaneous, effective, and consensus-oriented process between the President and the relevant Chief Justices?
  • Can the executive unilaterally select candidates for judicial appointment without a meaningful consultative process involving the Chief Justice of the High Court?
  • Does the 'Rule of Primacy' allow the executive to disregard the consultative process and select judges at its own discretion?
  • Are the acts performed by judges whose appointments are subsequently declared ultra vires protected under the de facto doctrine?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali Jarwar vs The State2020 SHC 818 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-03
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconsistencyabductionrapefacilitation
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving alleged abduction, illegal confinement, and rape. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry and consistency with co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained seven-day delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of a recovery mashirnama, the distinguishable role of the applicant regarding alleged facilitation, and the grant of bail to co-accused with similar roles justified releasing the applicant on bail. The court laid down the principle that an accused attributed a general or facilitative role, where co-accused with similar roles are already enlarged on bail and where foundational circumstances require further inquiry, is entitled to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused with a role of facilitation is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail?
  • Does an unexplained delay of seven days in lodging the FIR warrant further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted on the principle of further inquiry when the main allegation of a heinous offense is directed against a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahmed vs Adil and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 1149, 2022 YLR 138 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-01-31
  disposal of case propertysuperdariacquittalownership disputecriminal procedurerevision petitionrestoration of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Peshawar, which directed the restoration of recovered case property (gold ornaments and other valuables) to the accused, Adil, following his acquittal in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether a criminal court, upon acquitting an accused, is obligated to return seized property to the person from whose possession it was recovered, or whether it should maintain the status quo regarding possession when ownership is disputed. The Federal Shariat Court held that while Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants the court discretion in disposing of property, this discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. The Court emphasized that criminal courts are not the proper forum to adjudicate complex questions of title. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the property should remain with the complainant (who held it on Superdari) pending a final determination of ownership by a competent civil court. The principle established is that acquittal does not automatically entitle an accused to the return of seized property if ownership is contested.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of an accused person automatically entitle them to the return of property seized from their possession?
  • Is a criminal court competent to adjudicate questions of title regarding disputed property during proceedings under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should property seized during a criminal investigation be returned to the accused upon their acquittal if ownership is contested by the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahmad etc vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 870 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-28
  pre-arrest bailforged divorce deedprohibitory clausemala fidecriminal procedurebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 408 dated 13.10.2018, registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Pakpattan, on allegations of preparing and using a forged divorce deed. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including the non-prohibitory nature of the offences and the complainant's failure to produce the star witness. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that none of the alleged offences fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that the petitioners had joined the investigation with no recoveries pending, and that the conduct of the complainant reflected mala fide. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail should ordinarily be confirmed when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and mala fide on the part of the complainant is prima facie established.

  Questions settled

  • Are offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the intentional avoidance of the investigation process by the complainant reflect mala fide for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the accused have joined the investigation and no physical recovery is required?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib and others vs The State and othersPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 121, 2020 P SC (Crl.) 721, 2020 SCMR 677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-06
  post-arrest bailcross versionsuppression of injuriesfurther inquiryaggressor and aggressedcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court refusing them post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 635 registered under sections 324, 337-D, 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in the presence of suppressed injuries on the accused side and a registered cross version. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where injuries sustained by the accused party were not disclosed in the FIR and a cross version was recorded with challans submitted in both cases, the determination of the aggressor was a matter for the trial court after recording evidence. Consequently, the case against the petitioners fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted post-arrest bail to the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when injuries sustained by the accused party are not disclosed in the initial FIR?
  • Does the existence of a cross version and submission of challans in both cases make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the determination of the aggressor a question to be decided by the trial court after recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Ali vs Muhammad Azam Butt2020 LHC 3004 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-10
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencebenefit of doubtcross-examinationenhancement of sentenceabduction and murderinadmissible evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence under Sections 302(b) and 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a criminal revision seeking sentence enhancement from life imprisonment to death. The appellant was convicted for the alleged abduction and murder of a minor child, while being acquitted regarding a second missing child. The primary legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of an uncorroborated ocular account introduced after an unexplained two-month delay, the admissibility of witness testimony not subjected to cross-examination, and whether the prosecution's circumstantial evidence established an unbroken chain of guilt excluding all reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The High Court held that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain from the deceased to the accused, and any missing link destroys the chain. The Court observed that ocular testimony delayed without plausible explanation and contradicted by medical evidence cannot be relied upon, and un-cross-examined statements are legally inadmissible. Consequently, extending the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, the appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the revision dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a prosecution witness's statement admissible in evidence if the witness was not subjected to cross-examination by the accused?
  • What legal standard must circumstantial evidence satisfy to sustain a conviction in a capital offence?
  • Can an eyewitness account be safely relied upon where the witness remained silent for months without a plausible explanation and the testimony directly conflicts with medical evidence?
  • Whether the recovery of un-bloodstained articles on pointation of the accused is sufficient circumstantial corroboration to uphold a murder conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Santosh Kumar & anothers vs P.O Sindh & others2020 SHC 462 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-04Read full judgment →
• Sanjay Kumar vs Siemens Pakistan Engineering Company Ltd., through Director and 4 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 80 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-13
  Master and ServantSpecific performanceContract of personal serviceTermination of employmentInjunctive reliefPrivate employmentDamages
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a former employee of a private engineering company, sought an injunction to suspend his termination letter, secure reinstatement, and recover withheld salary. The core legal question was whether a court could grant injunctive relief to enforce a contract of personal service against a private employer. The court held that the relationship between the parties was governed by the rule of Master and Servant, as the defendant was a private organization not subject to statutory service rules. Relying on Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the court affirmed that contracts for personal service cannot be specifically enforced. The principle laid down is that a court cannot force an unwilling master to accept the services of an employee; consequently, an employee cannot be reinstated through an injunction. Where a breach of a service contract occurs, the only available remedy for the aggrieved employee is a suit for damages or monetary compensation, as money constitutes adequate relief. The court dismissed the plaintiff's applications, finding no prima facie case for injunctive relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant an injunction to reinstate an employee in a private organization governed by the rule of Master and Servant?
  • Is a contract for personal service specifically enforceable under the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for an employee when a private employer breaches a contract of service?
  • Can an injunction be granted to prevent the breach of a contract that cannot be specifically enforced?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanghar Sugar Mills Ltd. through Authorized Officer vs Sindh Labour2020 PLC 1 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-31
  permanent workmanseasonal workerretrenchmenttermination of servicesugar industrylabour disputereinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an industrial sugar mill, challenged an order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal which set aside the Labour Court's decision and held that the termination of the respondent (a centrifugal operator) was improper. The respondent had been employed as a seasonal worker but was retained during the off-season on half salary, a practice spanning several years. The petitioner contended that the respondent was a seasonal worker and was lawfully retrenched due to financial constraints. The High Court examined whether a seasonal worker retained during the off-season qualifies as a 'permanent workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Court held that the practice of off-season retention on partial salary, combined with the essential and continuous nature of a centrifugal operator's duties, satisfies the statutory definition of a permanent workman. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to prove compliance with the 'last in, first out' retrenchment rule or the mandatory notice requirements. The petition was dismissed, and the respondent's reinstatement was ordered.

  Questions settled

  • Does a seasonal worker in a sugar factory who is retained during the off-season on partial salary qualify as a permanent workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to follow the 'last in, first out' procedure prescribed for retrenchment under Order XIII of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Can the services of a permanent workman be terminated on the ground of financial constraints without serving the mandatory statutory notice or paying wages in lieu thereof?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State2020 MLD 659 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-28
  juvenile offenderretracted judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencelast-seen evidencebenefit of the doubtmurder referencedeath sentenceabduction for ransom
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pishin, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for a murder committed during an alleged abduction for ransom. The core legal questions involved the legality of the trial of a juvenile under ordinary law rather than the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018, the evidentiary value and voluntariness of a retracted judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without legal counseling or precautions, and the sufficiency of circumstantial and last-seen evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offense and could not be awarded the death penalty, and that the retracted judicial confession was involuntary, uncorroborated, and obtained after illegal detention and torture. The court laid down the principle that a retracted judicial confession of a juvenile, recorded without mandatory legal precautions and counseling, cannot form the sole basis for a conviction without strong, independent corroboration, and that benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused where prosecution evidence is fraught with fatal discrepancies. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession of a juvenile accused sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Whether a person who was a juvenile at the time of the commission of an offense can be awarded the death penalty under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018?
  • What mandatory precautions and counseling opportunities must a Judicial Magistrate provide before recording a judicial confession of a minor accused?
  • Does last-seen evidence alone constitute sufficient proof to warrant capital punishment in a murder trial?
  • What is the effect of prolonged illegal detention prior to the recording of a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Khan and others vs Iqbal and others2020 MLD 1741 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-03-18Read full judgment →
• Sana Jabeen Khan vs Chairman SPSC2020 SHC 1430 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
• Sana Aizad and others vs Additional District Judge VII/Guardian Appellate2020 PLJ Islamabad 113, 2020 CLC 879 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-24Read full judgment →
• Samreena Qayum and another vs Government Of Gilgit Baltistan through Chief Secretary, Gilgit Baltistan and 26 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1148 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-09-19
  women quotarecruitment policywrit petitionvaccinators appointmentfundamental rightsGilgit Baltistan Chief Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 86(2) of the Gilgit Baltistan Order 2018 seeking the appointment of the petitioners as vaccinators (BPS-9) against the reserved 10% women quota in the Health Department, District Diamer, and challenging the appointments of private respondents. The core legal question was whether the official respondents violated the recruitment policy and advertisement terms by failing to allocate the reserved women quota for the posts of vaccinators. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court allowed the petition, holding that the failure of the authorities to observe the mandatory 10% women quota constituted discrimination and a violation of the recruitment policy. The court directed the official respondents to appoint the petitioners against the posts of vaccinators in District Diamer within two months without disturbing the service of the private respondents, laying down the principle that advertised quotas for women and disadvantaged groups must be strictly and faithfully implemented by government departments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether government departments are bound to observe the reserved women quota when advertising public posts?
  • Can failure to allocate a reserved recruitment quota be challenged as discriminatory under the law?
  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable for the enforcement of a recruitment policy regarding reserved quotas?
  Read full judgment →
• Samran vs The State through Prosecutor General, Sindh and 2 others2020 MLD 1794 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-02
  juvenile justiceage determinationcriminal revisionmedical examinationstatutory interpretationjuvenile status
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal revision petition challenging an order passed by an Additional District and Sessions Judge, which dismissed an application for age determination filed by the accused, Samran, who is charged under section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly declined to determine the accused's age, particularly given the transition from the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 to the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The High Court held that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a proper age determination inquiry, noting that such a determination is vital when the charged offence carries a potential death sentence. The Court clarified that while the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 shifted the primary responsibility for age determination to the police, the trial court retains the duty to record findings on age. The Court reaffirmed that the guidelines established in the Sultan Ahmed case regarding the necessity of thorough inquiries and medical examinations remain applicable and binding, requiring trial courts to avoid perfunctory decisions on juvenile status.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 require the trial court to record findings regarding the age of an accused person?
  • Is the guidance provided by the Supreme Court in the Sultan Ahmed case regarding age determination still applicable under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018?
  • Does a trial court have the discretion to refuse an inquiry into the age of an accused person when the offence charged carries a potential death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiuulah vs The State2020 SHC 546 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10
  protective bailnon-bailable warrantssurrender before courtcriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for protective bail filed by the applicant, Samiullah, who sought relief to surrender before the concerned trial court in connection with Crime No. 20 of 2020, registered at Police Station Railway Police, Hyderabad. The applicant faced allegations under Sections 420 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the applicant, fearing arrest due to the issuance of non-bailable warrants, was entitled to temporary protective bail to facilitate his appearance before the trial court. The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, granted protective bail for a period of ten days. The holding established that protective bail may be granted to enable an accused to surrender before the appropriate forum, provided the applicant furnishes solvent surety. The key principle laid down is that the High Court may exercise its discretion to grant temporary protective bail to prevent immediate arrest, thereby allowing the accused to seek regular bail or face trial before the court of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court grant protective bail to an accused against whom non-bailable warrants have been issued?
  • Does the grant of protective bail require an examination of the merits of the underlying criminal case?
  • What is the effect of protective bail on outstanding non-bailable warrants?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiullah vs The State2020 MLD 1466 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-26
  post-arrest bailunnominated accuseddelay in FIRfurther inquirycriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from an impugned order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi West, which dismissed the post-arrest bail of the applicant in a case registered under Sections 395, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail where he was unnominated in the FIR, the FIR was delayed without explanation, and no recovery was effected from him at the time of arrest. The Sindh High Court held that the unnominated status of the accused, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, absence of direct evidence, and completion of the challan making further incarceration unnecessary brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the key principles that mere registration of other criminal cases without conviction is no ground to withhold bail, that pre-trial incarceration should not be used as a punishment, and that grant of bail is the rule while refusal is the exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused, without conviction, constitutes sufficient ground for withholding the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report provide grounds for making a case one of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an unnominated accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no direct evidence or recovery is established during investigation at the pre-trial stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Samira Mahamadi vs Province of Sindh and Others2020 SHC 290 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-15Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 315, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1739 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-04
  jail appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtchance witnessextra-judicial confessionrecovery of weaponforensic evidencecriminal acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for murder under Section 302(b) and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented, specifically the testimony of a chance witness and the recovery of incriminating items. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt. The court discarded the testimony of the sole witness who claimed to overhear an extra-judicial confession, citing his unnatural conduct and lack of corroboration. Furthermore, the court found the recovery of the weapon and the mobile phone to be fabricated and unreliable, noting discrepancies in the forensic reports and IMEI numbers. Emphasizing that the benefit of any doubt must accrue to the accused, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that corroborative evidence, such as forensic reports, cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable substantive evidence, and that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused when prosecution evidence is riddled with inconsistencies.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a chance witness who claims to have overheard an extra-judicial confession?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon and a positive forensic report suffice for conviction in the absence of reliable substantive evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution withholding a material witness who could have corroborated the testimony of the sole witness?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when there are significant discrepancies between the recovered items and the items alleged to be stolen?
  Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah and another vs Laiq Zada and anotherPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 268, 2020 SCMR 1115, 2020 SCP 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-05-08
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationliberty of personmisuse of bailcriminal procedurebenefit of doubtleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution was filed against a Peshawar High Court order that cancelled the post-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioners by the trial court. The petitioners were accused of offenses under Sections 316, 452, 337-A(ii), and 337 F(iv)/34 PPC involving a dispute over agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly applied the principles for the cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court relied on material not substantiated by the record, specifically regarding the nature of the deceased's injuries. The Court held that the considerations for granting bail and cancelling it are distinct; once bail is granted by a competent court, it requires strong and exceptional grounds, such as misuse of liberty or interference with evidence, to be recalled. Finding no evidence of misuse or patent illegality in the trial court's order, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the petitioners' bail.

  Read full judgment →
• Sami Uliah vs State etc2021 KLR Criminal Cases 218, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 168 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-11
  post-arrest bailmurderabductionfurther inquiryrule of consistencyextra-judicial confessionFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 186/2018 registered under Sections 365, 302, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail after the trial court rejected his application regarding the abduction and murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps, the delay in nominating him, and the principle of consistency. The Court observed that the FIR was registered with a four-day delay without explanation, and the petitioner was only nominated in a supplementary statement over a month after the incident. Furthermore, the Court noted discrepancies regarding the recovery of the deceased's motorcycle and determined that the extra-judicial confession required trial-stage scrutiny. Emphasizing the rule of consistency, as a co-accused had already been granted bail, the Court held that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail, establishing that unexplained delays and evidentiary inconsistencies justify bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused has already been granted bail in the same case?
  • Can a case be considered one of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is a significant delay in nominating the accused?
  • Is the recovery of an item with a mismatched identification number sufficient to deny bail in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sami Pharmaceuticals (Pvt) Ltd vs Province Of Sindh & Ors2021 PTD 731, 2021 SHC 2, 2020 SHC 962 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →
• Samano Kanrani vs The State2020 MLD 486 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-30
  narcotic substancessafe custody of samplesbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmaterial contradictionschemical examiner reportpossession of charas
  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 1200 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the safe custody and transmission of the narcotic samples and the consistency of witness testimony. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court reasoned that the failure to examine the Malkhana in-charge or the official who delivered the samples to the chemical examiner created a fatal gap in the chain of custody. Furthermore, significant material contradictions between the complainant and the mashir regarding patrol routes and the description of the recovered contraband rendered the evidence unreliable. The Court emphasized that Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, does not shift the burden of proof until the prosecution establishes the recovery beyond a shadow of doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presumption contained in Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 shift the burden of proof before the prosecution establishes the recovery beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Is the failure to examine the in-charge of the Malkhana or the official who transmitted the samples to the chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Do material contradictions between the complainant and the mashir regarding the recovery proceedings entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman vs Station House Officer, Police Station Cantonment Hyderabad2020 P Cr. L J 817 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-16
  second FIRregistration of FIREx-Officio Justice of Peacecognizable offenceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking to set aside an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed his application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, for the registration of a second FIR concerning an incident for which an FIR had already been registered and challaned. The core legal question was whether a second FIR can be registered in respect of the same incident when an FIR is already in existence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the registration of a second FIR for the same incident is not permissible. Relying on the precedent Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595), the court established the principle that once a first information report is registered, the matter becomes a case, and subsequent steps in investigation pertain to that case, thereby barring the registration of a second FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second FIR can be registered in respect of the same incident when an FIR has already been registered?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace direct the registration of a second FIR for an occurrence that is already the subject of an existing case?
  • Does the registration of a first information report preclude the registration of subsequent FIRs regarding the same transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Salik Aziz vs Muhammad Emad and others2020 YLR 147 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-20Read full judgment →
• Salih Muhammad alias Ghalib vs The State through A.-G., KhyberPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 208, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 501, 2020 SCMR 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-01
  post-arrest bailrash and negligent drivingtraffic accidentdelay in trialcriminal appealSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a petition converted from a matter where the appellant was implicated in a first information report regarding a fatal traffic accident caused by rash and negligent driving. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was sufficiently connected to the alleged crime to warrant the continuation of his pre-trial incarceration, particularly in the absence of direct eyewitness identification in the FIR and prolonged detention without framing of the charge. The Supreme Court held that since the FIR failed to establish direct sighting of the petitioner as the driver and no material was placed to connect him with the bus, coupled with the delay where the trial court had not yet framed charges despite prolonged custody, the appeal ought to be allowed. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be granted in accident cases involving rash and negligent driving when the initial identification is tentative, direct incriminating material is lacking, and the trial is subjected to undue delay without framing of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the FIR lacks direct eyewitness identification of the accused as the driver?
  • Does an unverified delayed discovery of the accused's identity in the FIR justify continued pre-trial incarceration?
  • Is prolonged detention without the framing of a charge by the trial court a ground for granting bail in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ran and 23 others vs IInd Additional Session Judge, "Malir" Karachi2020 YLR 634 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-08
  Illegal Dispossession Actcorporate bodyencroachmentsimultaneous proceedingscriminal revisionlachesland grabbing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Malir, Karachi, under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which directed the restoration of possession of 25 acres of land to a cooperative housing society. The applicants, claiming to be residents of an established village on the land, contended that the society, being a corporate body, lacked the legal capacity to initiate proceedings under the Act, and that civil and criminal proceedings could not run simultaneously. The Court held that the definition of "person" under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, interpreted in light of Article 260(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 11 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, includes corporate bodies, thereby permitting them to initiate criminal complaints. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that there is no legal bar to the simultaneous pursuit of civil and criminal remedies. Finding the applicants to be encroachers without valid title, the Court dismissed the revision application on grounds of both laches and merits, upholding the trial court's order for the restoration of possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a corporate body initiate criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit bar the initiation of criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Are encroachers entitled to remain in possession of land pending the resolution of title disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Mahmood Akhtar and 2 others vs Assistant District Officer and 52020 CLC 1094 · Lahore High Court · 2020-04-30
  interim injunctionconstitutional petitionbalance of convenienceprima facie casecivil procedureconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' application for an interim injunction in a civil suit challenging the amendment in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of an organization. The core legal question was whether an interim injunction could be granted when the sought relief exceeded the scope of the main plaint and whether the essential ingredients for interim relief were established. The Lahore High Court held that interim relief cannot be granted if it does not flow directly from the pleadings in the main suit, and that where essential ingredients like a prima facie arguable case and balance of inconvenience are lacking, temporary injunctions must be refused. Furthermore, concurrent findings of lower courts cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction absent gross illegality. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can an interim injunction be granted for a relief that does not flow out of the main suit?
  • What are the basic ingredients required for the grant of an interim injunction?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact and law by lower courts can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction without showing gross illegality?
  • Does a prima facie case lie in favor of a party when a previous writ petition challenging the same subject matter has already been dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Khokhar vs Government Of Sindh through Secretary Social Welfare2020 PLD Sindh 221 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-11Read full judgment →
• Saleem Khan vs The State and others2020 P SC (Crl.) 723, 2020 PLD Supreme Court 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-05-20
  juvenile offenderstatutory bailJuvenile Justice System Act, 2018Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000determination of agedelay in trialbail applicationmurderrobbery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a juvenile offender's second bail application, moved on statutory grounds. The petitioner, accused initially under Section 394 PPC and later Section 302 PPC, was declared a juvenile by the trial court after an application and ossification test. The core legal question revolved around the applicability of statutory bail under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, particularly whether the delay in determining juvenility was attributable to the petitioner and if the proviso allowing refusal of bail for juveniles over 15 in heinous crimes under the repealed Ordinance still applied. The Supreme Court held that the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, which repealed the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, was applicable, reducing the statutory delay period for bail to six months and removing the proviso for refusing bail in heinous crimes. The Court ruled that the determination of juvenility by the court, even on the accused's application, is a statutory obligation and does not constitute a delay attributable to the accused to deny statutory bail. Consequently, the petitioner was granted bail on statutory grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Can the time spent by a court in determining an accused's juvenility, even on the accused's application, be considered a delay attributable to the accused to deny statutory bail?
  • Does the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, repeal the proviso under Section 10(7) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, which allowed refusal of bail to juveniles over 15 involved in heinous crimes?
  • What is the statutory period for granting bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, if their trial has not concluded?
  • Who is initially responsible for determining the age or juvenility of an accused under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018?
  • Can a court of general criminal jurisdiction determine the juvenility of an accused and transfer the case to a Juvenile Court if the police fail to do so?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Khan alias Gul vs The State, etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1230, 2020 PHC 172 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-03Read full judgment →
• Saleem Iqbal and another vs Muhammad Ashiq and others2020 MLD 2039 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-18
  appeal against acquittalretracted confessionconfessional statementcircumstantial evidencedouble presumption of innocencebenefit of doubtrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal acquittal appeals filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the legality and voluntariness of retracted judicial confessions recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the credibility of circumstantial evidence including delayed recoveries from public places with running water, and the standard of interference in appeals against acquittal where the accused enjoy a double presumption of innocence. The Balochistan High Court held that the confessional statements were involuntary, suffered from procedural defects such as lack of adequate time for reflection and failure to observe safeguards under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the circumstantial evidence and delayed recoveries failed to form a complete and unerring chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The court laid down that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal order unless the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a complete misreading of evidence, reinforcing that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal without establishing perversity or legal infirmity in the trial court judgment?
  • Can a retracted judicial confession alone form the basis of a criminal conviction without reliable corroborative evidence?
  • Does a failure to provide adequate time for reflection before recording a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the confession involuntary?
  • Whether a delayed recovery of a crime weapon from a public drain with running water can be considered trustworthy and incriminating circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar Qureshi vs Habib-Ur-Rehman2020 CLC 1289, 2020 CLD 404 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-20Read full judgment →
• Salabat, etc. vs Mst. Kaneez Mai, etc.2020 [M] C L R 834 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-20Read full judgment →
• Sakina Bibi and another vs Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif and 15 others2020 CLC 849 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-25Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Jan and others vs Shah Nawaz2020 PLJ SC 416, 2020 P SC 1272, 2020 SCMR 832, 2020 SCP 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-22
  specific performancesuit for declarationagreement to sellmutationfraudrevenue recordsproprietary rightsestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil petitions for leave to appeal arose from a dispute involving a suit for specific performance filed by the respondent and a suit for declaration filed by the petitioners challenging the validity of various land mutations on grounds of fraud. The petitioners primarily contended that the underlying agreement to sell was unenforceable because it lacked the purchaser's signature and allegedly violated the Land Reforms Regulation (Validation of Orders) Ordinance, 1978. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that an agreement to sell is valid and enforceable if its existence is proved through reliable evidence, even in the absence of the purchaser's signature. Regarding the statutory bar on transfer, the Court applied the maxim 'Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria', ruling that vendors cannot benefit from their own wrong by invoking a legal bar against a sale they themselves executed. Furthermore, the Court noted that once proprietary rights are fully vested by the State, subsequent alienation bars have little value. The Court also emphasized that revenue officials are proper parties when the validity of public documents like mutations is challenged.

  Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Hussain vs Mst. Rubina Shaheen and 2 others2020 PLJ Peshawar 85 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →
• Sajjan vs The State2020 SHC 560 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10
  post-arrest bailexpeditious trialbail applicationcriminal proceduretrial court directions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Sajjan, seeking release pending trial. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to bail or if an alternative direction for an expeditious trial would suffice to address the grievance. During the proceedings, the applicant's counsel expressed satisfaction with a directive for the trial court to conclude the proceedings within a specified timeframe, opting not to press the bail application further. The Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh offered no objection, noting that the case was ready for trial following the receipt of the chemical report. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application as not pressed. The Court held that in light of the parties' consensus, the trial court must proceed expeditiously and conclude the trial preferably within two months of receiving the order, with a compliance report to be submitted through the Additional Registrar. The principle established is that where parties agree to an expedited trial timeline, the court may dispose of a bail application as not pressed while issuing mandatory directions for trial completion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bail application be disposed of as not pressed if the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a specific timeframe?
  • Does the receipt of a chemical report justify a direction for the expeditious conclusion of a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjan vs Mehboob Ali and 2 others2020 P Cr. L J 928 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-23
  appeal against acquittalidentification paradebenefit of doubtattempt to commit Qatl-i-amddouble presumption of innocenceunnamed accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jamshoro, acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 324, 504 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in relation to FIR No. 05 of 2018 registered at Police Station Kotri. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of unnamed accused persons, in the absence of an identification parade or description in the FIR, warranted interference by the appellate court. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the trial court's judgment was well-reasoned and free from misreading or non-reading of evidence. The court reaffirmed the principle that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and will not be interfered with unless found to be perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, noting also that identification of unknown accused persons in court without a prior identification parade holds no evidentiary value.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal that is based on valid and cogent reasons?
  • What is the evidentiary value of identifying an unknown accused for the first time in court without a prior identification parade?
  • What is the standard of proof and scope of review in an appeal against an acquittal where a presumption of double innocence is attached?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjadullah and others vs The State and othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 1192, 2020 YLR 1288 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-01-28
  defective chargede novo trialcontents of judgmentpoints for determinationcommon intentionconfessional statementremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition challenge the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder and robbery. During the hearing, counsel for both the appellants and the state conceded that the trial suffered from fatal illegalities, specifically regarding a defective charge sheet that failed to specify individual roles or correctly name the deceased, and a judgment that violated mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure by failing to frame points for determination and omitting reasons for awarding lesser sentences or omitting the death sentence. The core legal question addressed is whether a trial and judgment suffering from fundamental statutory non-compliance and defective charges can be sustained. The Federal Shariat Court held that the omissions and illegalities in framing the charge and writing the judgment were incurable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rendering the trial court judgment a nullity. The court laid down the principle that strict compliance with framing precise charges and incorporating mandatory judgment contents under sections 223 and 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is essential, and failure to do so warrants setting aside the judgment and remanding the case for a de novo trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a trial court to formulate points for determination in a judgment makes the judgment a nullity?
  • Does a defect in framing a charge regarding the specific roles of accused persons cause prejudice that is incurable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a trial court mandated to state reasons in its judgment when passing a sentence other than death for an offence punishable with death?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case for a de novo trial when both parties concede to fundamental illegalities in the trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Khan vs Liaqat Ali2020 PLJ Lahore 319 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain Constable No.1076, Special Force District Swat vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Home Secretary and 2 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 822 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-17
  contractual employmentwrit jurisdictiondoctrine of lachespolice servicetermination of serviceequal treatmentservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the termination of the petitioner, a contract-based police constable, following his involvement in a criminal case. The core legal questions were whether a contract employee could maintain a writ petition for reinstatement, whether the petition was barred by the doctrine of laches, and whether the petitioner was entitled to equal treatment with regular employees previously reinstated by the Service Tribunal. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that a contract employee possesses no inherent right to maintain a writ petition for reinstatement in service. Furthermore, the Court found the petition barred by the doctrine of laches due to the significant delay between the termination in 2012 and the filing of the petition in 2018. The Court established that contract employees are not similarly placed with regular employees, as the latter's rights are governed by specific service rules, whereas contract employees lack such statutory protections. Consequently, the departmental authority was not bound by the inquiry officer's recommendations, particularly regarding a time-barred appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract employee maintain a writ petition for reinstatement in service?
  • Is a writ petition challenging termination of service barred by the doctrine of laches if filed after a significant delay?
  • Is a contract employee entitled to the same procedural protections and inquiry rights as a regular employee?
  • Is a departmental authority bound to accept the recommendations of an inquiry officer regarding a time-barred appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider vs The State2020 MLD 606 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-06
  superdarinarcotics traffickingtemporary custody of vehicleinnocent ownerControl of Narcotic Substances Actbail and custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Taxilla, which declined the appellant's petition for the superdari (temporary custody) of a vehicle seized in connection with a narcotics case. The core legal question was whether the statutory bar under Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, absolutely prohibits the release of a vehicle involved in drug trafficking to its registered owner, even when the owner is not an accused in the case. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the vehicle should be released to the appellant. The Court reasoned that the appellant, who operated a rent-a-car business, had no involvement in the alleged crime and was unaware of the vehicle's illicit use. Relying on the principle established in Allah Ditta v. The State (2010 SCMR 1181), the Court held that Section 74 does not bar the release of a vehicle to an innocent owner who is unconnected with the commission of the offence, provided they furnish appropriate surety bonds to ensure the vehicle's production during trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 create an absolute bar against the release of a vehicle involved in drug trafficking to its owner?
  • Is a vehicle owner who is not an accused in a narcotics case entitled to temporary custody of their seized vehicle?
  • What conditions must be satisfied for an innocent owner to obtain superdari of a vehicle seized under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider vs Lahore Development Authority, through Director General, Lahore and 4 others2020 PLJ Lahore 165 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ghani Syed and another vs Ch. Asghar Ali and others2020 PLJ SC 351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-02-25
  remandconsent orderproperty disputecivil appealjudicial recusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from civil petitions challenging judgments passed by the Islamabad High Court regarding a property dispute. Upon the unanimous request of the parties, who expressed no objection to the setting aside of the impugned judgments and the remand of the case, the Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and allowed them. The Court set aside the impugned judgments dated 26.04.2019 and 17.09.2019 and remanded the case to the Islamabad High Court for a fresh decision. The Supreme Court directed that the matter be heard by a judge other than the one who originally decided the case, to be nominated by the Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court. Furthermore, the Court ordered the District Administration of Islamabad, specifically the Assistant Commissioner, to take possession of the disputed property pending the final outcome of the High Court proceedings. The High Court was directed to decide the matter expeditiously before the commencement of summer vacations, with the parties ordered to appear before the High Court on a fixed date.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court remand a case to the High Court for a fresh decision based on the consent of the parties?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to direct the Chief Justice of a High Court to nominate a different judge for a remanded case?
  • Can the Supreme Court order the District Administration to take possession of disputed property pending the final outcome of High Court proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali vs The State2020 SHC 1274 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-09
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscharas recoveryfurther inquirychemical examination delaycriminal miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant criminal bail application arises from a post-arrest bail plea filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on behalf of Sajjad Ali, who was booked for the alleged recovery of 2400 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant made out a case for post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting the absence of independent witnesses, a five-day delay in sending the narcotic substance for chemical examination, previous filing of a habeas corpus application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 suggesting prior police custody, and the conclusion of investigation with the applicant remaining incarcerated for over four months without effective trial progress. The court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of circumstances—such as unexplained delay in chemical analysis, lack of independent corroboration, and antecedent police custody—brings the case within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in sending a narcotic substance for chemical examination justifies the grant of post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses to the alleged recovery of narcotics make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether previous filing of an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding wrongful custody is a relevant consideration for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmed vs The State2020 SHC 528 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2020 CLC 360 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-28Read full judgment →
• Sajid vs Samin ur Rehman (deceased) through his father Gul Jawab KhanPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 145, 2021 P S c (Crl.) 115, 2021 SCMR 138, 2020 SCP 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-21
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytwo versionsgeneralized FIRcriminal liabilitybail not jail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of the petitioner's post-arrest bail application by the Peshawar High Court in a case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that the FIR contained generalized allegations without specific attribution of injuries, and the case involved two competing versions of the incident. The Supreme Court held that the case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' as contemplated by Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to specify which accused caused which injury, the medical evidence regarding one deceased was inconclusive, and the petitioner's own version of the incident had been recorded. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR is generalized and fails to attribute specific acts to the accused, and where there are two versions of the occurrence, the case warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to the concession of bail under the principle of 'bail, not jail'.

  Questions settled

  • Does a generalized FIR that fails to attribute specific injuries to individual accused persons entitle the accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Can criminal liability be shifted to an accused merely because co-accused are absconding?
  • Does the existence of two versions of an occurrence bring a case within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Plastic Factory vs MSC Bahamas & others2020 PLD Sindh 568, 2021 PLJ Karachi 78, 2020 SHC 226 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
• Sajid Mehmood vs District Judge & others2020 SC AJK 86 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-05-21Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1095 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-14
  narcotic possessionchain of custodyGovernment Analyst reportcriminal appealevidentiary valueacquittalControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, for the possession of 1040 grams of Charas under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concern the integrity of the chain of custody regarding the contraband sample and the evidentiary validity of the Government Analyst's report. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictory testimony from the prosecution witness regarding the transmission of the sample, creating a broken link in the chain of custody. Furthermore, the Court found that the Government Analyst’s report failed to comply with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001, as it lacked the mandatory details of tests, results, and protocols. The Court laid down the principle that any break in the chain of custody renders the sample unreliable, and a Government Analyst's report failing to specify the required test protocols is legally insufficient to support a conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction in prosecution testimony regarding the transmission of a contraband sample create a fatal break in the chain of custody?
  • What are the mandatory elements required in a Government Analyst's report under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rules, 2001?
  • Can a conviction for drug possession be sustained if the Government Analyst's report fails to provide the protocols applied during testing?
  Read full judgment →
• Saira Rubab Nasir, etc vs President of Pakistan, etc2020 IHC 28, 2020 PLJ Islamabad 195, 2020 [M] C L R 1232 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-11Read full judgment →
• Saindad vs The State2021 YLR 1719, 2020 SHC 342 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-06
  kidnapping for ransomidentification paradejoint identification paraderecovery of ransomunlicensed armsCall Detail RecordAnti-Terrorism Act 1997
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Karachi, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 365-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Section 13(e) of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether procedural irregularities in conducting a joint identification parade and delay in recording police statements vitiated the prosecution's case, and whether the testimony of the abductee, combined with recoveries, sufficed for conviction. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the appeals and affirmed the convictions and sentences. The Court held that an identification parade is corroborative in nature and not strictly mandatory when an abductee remains in prolonged captivity with the accused, allowing them ample opportunity for identification. Furthermore, all participants in a kidnapping for ransom enterprise bear equal criminal responsibility, and minor investigative shortfalls or irregularities do not override credible, consistent eyewitness and circumstantial evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a formal test identification parade mandatory where the abductee spent a prolonged duration in the physical custody of the accused?
  • Does a joint identification parade vitiate the conviction if corroborated by other independent evidence?
  • Are all co-accused participating in different roles of a kidnapping for ransom operation held equally liable under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Sain Bux through Legal Heirs and 5 others vs Nadir Ali and 13 others2020 MLD 1607 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-24Read full judgment →
• Sain Bux S/O Jumah Khan vs Nadir Ali S/O Lakhi Muhammad2020 SHC 322 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
• Saima Bibi vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 6 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-16
  extra-judicial confessionchance witnesscriminal appealmurderacquittalreasonable doubtpolice custodypost-mortem delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of an extra-judicial confession, chance witness testimony, and the integrity of the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court found the extra-judicial confession unreliable due to contradictions between witnesses and the fact that the accused was already in police custody at the time of the alleged confession. Furthermore, the court rejected the testimony of chance witnesses due to their unexplained presence and delayed reporting, and noted significant discrepancies in the post-mortem timing and the recovery of evidence. The court reaffirmed the principle that evidence disbelieved against co-accused cannot be used to convict another accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, as the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond any shadow of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence that has been disbelieved regarding co-accused be used to convict another accused?
  • Does the existence of an extra-judicial confession made while the accused is in police custody render the confession unreliable?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a chance witness who fails to provide a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a significant delay in the conduct of a post-mortem examination create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Saima Ashiq Javed vs State through Attorney General of Pakistan2020 SCMR 1160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-02
  pre-arrest bailfinancial scammisappropriation of public fundsabsconsiongender ground for bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought judicial protection through leave to appeal against the refusal of pre-arrest bail by the High Court in a case involving a major financial scam and misappropriation of public funds amounting to Rs.57.6 million through bogus pensionary payments, where her bank account was allegedly used to channel embezzled amounts and she had been declared an absconder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail, particularly on the ground of her gender and disputed transactions. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for judicial protection or establish mala fide on the part of the prosecution, and further ruled that the law does not confer immunity from arrest on account of gender alone in the face of a prima facie nexus to a serious crime and conduct demonstrating absconsion. Leave to appeal was accordingly declined.

  Questions settled

  • Does the law confer immunity from arrest on account of gender in criminal cases?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused has been declared an absconder?
  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail merely on the basis of denials and explanations regarding documented bank transactions?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs State & anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 283 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-10
  post-arrest baildacoityfurther inquirytest identification paradesupplementary statementrecovery memoun-named accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by an accused involved in FIR No. 444/2017 for offences under Sections 397 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an alleged dacoity involving Rs. 1,70,98,877/-. The core legal questions were whether the delayed involvement of an un-named accused via supplementary statements without disclosing the source of identification, the failure to conduct a test identification parade, and the lack of independent witnesses or identification of recovered currency bring the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The Lahore High Court granted bail, holding that mere suspicion cannot substitute proof and the absence of an identification parade or identification of recovered property rendered the petitioner's involvement subject to further probe. The Court further held that involvement in other cases without conviction does not disentitle an accused to bail. Consequently, the petitioner was released on bail subject to furnishing requisite surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the involvement of an un-named accused through a delayed supplementary statement without disclosing the source of identification entitle him to bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to conduct a test identification parade for an un-named accused creates a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.?
  • Does the mere registration of other criminal cases without any conviction bar the grant of post-arrest bail to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Saiful Haq vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary and 4 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 276 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-26
  recruitment policywaiting listnon-joining selecteemerit listpublic appointmentconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the non-appointment to the post of Drawing Master, despite being the next eligible candidate on the merit list following the non-joining of a selectee. The core legal question was whether a candidate on a waiting list is entitled to appointment against a vacancy created by the non-joining of a selectee, in light of established recruitment policies and Supreme Court precedents. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the appointment. Relying on the principle established in Naimatullah v. N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission, the Court clarified that while Musa Wazir v. N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission previously prohibited maintaining long-term waiting lists, the subsequent Naimatullah judgment modified this by allowing the filling of vacancies created by non-joining selectees up to the commencement of training for the same selection batch. Since the petitioner was the next eligible candidate and the appellate committee had already validated his claim, the Court directed the respondents to issue an appointment order, rejecting the argument that the request was made at a belated stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public department fill a vacancy created by the non-joining of a selectee from a waiting list?
  • What is the time limit for filling a vacancy created by a non-joining selectee according to the Naimatullah judgment?
  • Does the judgment in Musa Wazir v. N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission completely prohibit the maintenance of waiting lists for government appointments?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif-Ur-Rehman vs The State2020 MLD 1975 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-09-04
  post-arrest bailjuvenile offenderminorityattempted murderbail applicationprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, a juvenile, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving attempted murder and abetment. The petitioner was charged under sections 324, 337-F, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where he allegedly fired at the victim. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, being a minor, was entitled to the concession of bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite the ground of minority not being explicitly raised in the initial bail petition before the trial court. The Court held that the petitioner, being approximately 13 years and 8 months old based on his school leaving certificate, was entitled to bail. The Court established the principle that a legal ground, such as minority, may be raised and argued during the hearing of a bail application even if not pleaded in the initial petition, provided the opposing party is not taken by surprise and the document supporting the claim is not challenged as forged.

  Questions settled

  • Can a ground for bail, such as minority, be raised during arguments if it was not explicitly mentioned in the initial bail petition?
  • Does the age of a juvenile offender entitle them to the concession of bail under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a school leaving certificate sufficient evidence to establish the age of a petitioner for the purpose of a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah Bajwa vs Mst. Sajida Manzoor and 3 others2020 PLD Lahore 343 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-13Read full judgment →
• Said Bakhshad vs The State & another2020 PLD Peshawar 129, 2020 PHC 252 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-25
  cognizable offenceprivate loansJustice of PeaceFIR registrationstatutory interpretationwrit jurisdictioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the registration of an FIR under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act, 2016, contending that an FIR could only be registered upon the order of a Justice of Peace under Section 6 of the Act. The core legal question was whether Section 6 mandates a prior judicial order for FIR registration or if the police possess independent authority to register cases. The Peshawar High Court held that Section 9 of the Act explicitly declares offences to be cognizable, non-compoundable, and non-bailable, thereby empowering the police to register and investigate offences without prior authorization. The Court clarified that Section 6 provides a supplemental remedy for complainants, similar to Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, rather than a mandatory procedural prerequisite. It further established that statutory headings cannot override clear, unambiguous legislative language, and that a Justice of Peace is not a court of law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the police acted within their statutory authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 6 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act, 2016, require a prior order from a Justice of Peace before the police can register an FIR?
  • Are offences under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act, 2016, cognizable by the police without prior judicial authorization?
  • Can the heading of a statutory section be used to override the clear and unambiguous language of the provision itself?
  • Is a Justice of Peace considered a court of law for the purpose of entertaining a complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahib Zaman & another vs Haji Noor Zada & others2020 PLD Peshawar 121, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1379, 2020 PHC 292 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sahib Singh son of Arjun Singh and six others, Members of Pakistan Sikh2021 PLD Peshawar 93, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 64, 2020 PHC 484 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sahab Khan Junejo vs Abid Hussain Junejo2020 SHC 1236 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  post-arrest bailcounter-FIRmurdertentative assessmentinstigationcriminal liabilitymedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Sahab Khan Junejo, facing charges under Sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 504, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite being specifically nominated in the FIR for instigating violence and actively participating in an attack that resulted in a fatality and multiple injuries, particularly given the existence of a counter-FIR. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant’s specific role in the commission of the heinous offence, supported by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon (lathi), established a prima facie case. The Court affirmed the principle that the existence of a counter-FIR does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, as each case must be evaluated on its own merits. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that at the bail stage, the judiciary must conduct only a tentative assessment of the material rather than a deeper appreciation of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a counter-FIR automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible while deciding a bail application?
  • Can an accused be denied bail if they are specifically nominated in the FIR for instigating a crime resulting in death?
  Read full judgment →
• Sagheer alias Billa and others vs The State and others2020 YLR 916 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-29
  retracted confessionjudicial confessionmurderbenefit of doubtsupplementary statementcriminal appealacquittalmaterial corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, murder reference, and petition for special leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder and related offenses. The core legal questions involved whether a retracted and procedurally flawed judicial confession could form the sole basis for conviction without material corroboration, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt where the appellants were not initially named in the FIR and were only implicated later via a supplementary statement and an alleged confession. The Lahore High Court held that the retracted confession was legally unreliable due to non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure and High Court Rules, and in the absence of corroborative ocular or circumstantial evidence, the convictions could not be sustained. The court established that a retracted judicial confession requires solid material corroboration and must be shown to be true by comparing it with the broader prosecution evidence before it can support a conviction. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the complainant's petition against the acquittal of other respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retracted judicial confession can be made the sole basis for a criminal conviction without material corroboration?
  • Can a confession recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be relied upon when mandatory procedural safeguards and rules regarding handcuffs and custody are violated?
  • Does the recovery of weapons of offense possess evidentiary value against accused persons who were not attributed any direct firing roles by eyewitnesses?
  • Whether an accused person can be convicted on the basis of a supplementary statement naming them long after the lodging of the FIR without supporting eyewitness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Sagheer Ahmed alias Bhaya vs The State2020 MLD 1377 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-27
  circumstantial evidencekidnapping for ransommurderpointationrecovery of dead bodyanti-terrorismcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under sections 365-A and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as well as section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, arising from the kidnapping and murder of the victim for ransom. The core legal question involved whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and unbroken, notably established by the appellant's leading to the recovery of the deceased's dead body, weapon, and other incriminating materials. The key principle laid down is that where an accused in a circumstantial evidence case leads the police to the discovery of a dead body or material facts exclusively within their knowledge, and the evidence is corroborated by medical and forensic reports, it forms an unbreakable chain pointing inexorably to the guilt of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of evidence is complete and unbroken?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a discovery of a dead body resulting from information provided by an accused while in custody under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the failure of an accused to put forward a defense plea during cross-examination weaken the defense evidence produced later?
  • Whether minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to discard an otherwise trustworthy prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Safoora Hussain vs The Secretary, Establishment Division,Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1492 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-15
  up-gradation of postservice lawpromotion avenuescivil servantwrit jurisdictionadministrative policystandardization of pay scales
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition concerns the claim of a Cataloger (BPS-10) in the Ministry of Human Rights for up-gradation to the post of Librarian (BPS-17), citing a lack of promotion avenues and comparing her position to similar roles in other departments. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had a vested right to such up-gradation based on the Establishment Division’s policies and the principle of non-discrimination. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the Ministry to evaluate the petitioner’s case regarding her duties, qualifications, and the absence of promotion avenues, and to transmit the matter to the Establishment Division if necessary. The Court held that up-gradation is a policy-driven administrative act, not a vested right, and is distinct from promotion. It emphasized that up-gradation requires proof of departmental restructuring or public interest exigency. Furthermore, the Court established that discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution cannot be the sole ground for claiming up-gradation, and that high courts should exercise restraint in such matters, as up-gradation falls within the executive domain of the government.

  Questions settled

  • Is up-gradation of a post a vested right of the incumbent?
  • Can discrimination be pleaded as a valid ground for the up-gradation of a post?
  • Is up-gradation of a post distinct from promotion under service law?
  • Under what circumstances can a government post be upgraded?
  Read full judgment →
• Safe Mix Concrete Limited through Company Secretary vs Pakistan2020 CLC 602, PTCL 2020 CL. 298, 2020 YLR 749, 2020 PTD 263 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-12Read full judgment →
• Safdar Hussain Jatt & others vs Zafar Ali & others2021 MLD 624, 2020 SHC 746 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-03Read full judgment →
• Safdar Abbas and others vs The State and othersPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 198, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 513, 2020 SCMR 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-03
  Qatl-i-amdprivate complaintvicarious liabilityindependent corroborationacquittalsafe administration of justicecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a private complaint regarding the murder of Muhammad Bukhsh on April 5, 2008. The petitioners, real brothers, were convicted under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death, which was later commuted to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the evidence, which had been disbelieved regarding the majority of the co-accused who were identically placed, could sustain the conviction of the petitioners without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court observed that the roles assigned to the acquitted co-accused and the petitioners were inextricably linked and could not be bifurcated. Finding the motive non-specific, investigative conclusions inconsistent with the complainant's case, and recoveries inconsequential, the Court held that no objective distinction could be drawn to isolate the petitioners' guilt. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, holding that it is unsafe to maintain a conviction based on substantially flawed evidence that failed to distinguish between the roles of acquitted and convicted parties.

  Read full judgment →
• Saeeduddin Qureshi vs Waqar Saeed and 3 others2020 MLD 1441 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-30Read full judgment →
• Saeeda Fatima vs Chairman, Arbitration Council and others2020 PLJ Lahore 367 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-04Read full judgment →
• Saeed Zaman vs The State and another2020 SCMR 1855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-07
  bailconditional bailcash depositsurety bondfinancial scamCode of Criminal Procedureequality before lawinterlocutory arrangement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged an order of the Islamabad High Court that granted bail to the petitioner in a financial scam case subject to a condition requiring him to deposit Rs.5.16 million (the allegedly siphoned amount) in cash alongside furnishing a surety bond. The legal issue was whether a court can impose a condition of depositing the alleged defrauded amount as a prerequisite for granting bail. The Supreme Court held that bail is an interlocutory arrangement aimed strictly at securing the attendance of the accused at trial. Under Section 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, courts can only demand conscionable bail bonds from the accused or sureties, and the Code does not envisage cash deposits of the disputed amount, which can only be determined upon final adjudication of evidence. The Court ruled that imposing such onerous, unaffordable financial conditions amounts to withholding bail relief and violates equality before the law. Consequently, the High Court's conditional bail order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant bail subject to the condition of depositing the amount allegedly siphoned off or defrauded by the accused?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 permit demanding a cash deposit as a condition for granting bail in a criminal case?
  • What is the statutory scope and purpose of requiring bonds under Section 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can bail relief be conditioned on financial requirements that depend upon the divergent financial capacities of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Mazhar Ali vs Mrs. Aroosa Mubashir through Attorney and another2020 YLR 61 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-22Read full judgment →
• Saeed Habib vs National Bank of Pakistan2020 SHC 1344, 2022 PLJ Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-16Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed Choliani vs Muhammad Ramzan2020 SHC 1296 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-10
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencemedical evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibusappreciation of evidenceminor contradictionscommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the reliability of ocular evidence in the presence of minor contradictions, and whether the acquittal of a co-accused necessitated the appellant's acquittal under the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution’s case was supported by consistent ocular and medical evidence, alongside the recovery of the weapon used. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not render a case doubtful if the evidence is otherwise trustworthy. Furthermore, it held that the principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Pakistani criminal law, as courts are empowered to sift the grain from the chaff. Consequently, the acquittal of a co-accused does not mandate the acquittal of the appellant where strong, independent corroboration exists. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically entitle the remaining accused to acquittal?
  • Are minor contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimony sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case?
  • Is the principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applicable in the Pakistani criminal justice system?
  • Can ocular evidence be relied upon when supported by medical evidence and recovery of the weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad and others vs National Bank Of Pakistan through President2020 PLC (C.S.) 389 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-25
  constitutional petitionpension commutationNational Bank of Pakistanstatutory rulescivil servantspension restoration
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, retired employees of the National Bank of Pakistan, filed constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging orders dismissing their representations for the doubling of the non-commuted portion of their pension and the inclusion of periodical increases upon the expiry of the commuted period. The core legal question was whether judgments rendered in cases concerning civil servants and Government Office Memorandums are applicable to the retired employees of the National Bank of Pakistan, a statutory corporation governed by its own statutory service and pension rules. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners, being ex-employees of a statutory bank governed by specific internal rules and the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, are not civil servants and cannot claim benefits under judgments rendered for civil servants to whom the bank was not a party. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, establishing that the pension rights of National Bank of Pakistan employees are strictly regulated by the bank's own statutory rules and regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the judgments relating to civil servants regarding the restoration and increase of commuted pension are automatically applicable to the retired employees of the National Bank of Pakistan?
  • Are retired employees of the National Bank of Pakistan governed by Civil Servant Rules or by the specific statutory pension rules of the Bank?
  • Does the National Bank of Pakistan's management of its personnel policy and remuneration exempt it from government-wide civil servant notifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq vs The State through Prosecutor General, Quetta2020 KLR Criminal Cases 226, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 650, 2020 MLD 758 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-17
  abscondencefair trialanti-terrorism lawcriminal procedureright to hearingconviction in absentiadue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, where the appellant was sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment by the Anti-Terrorism Court for abscondence. The core legal question was whether a trial court can convict an accused for the offence of abscondence under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, without framing a specific charge, recording evidence, or following the procedural requirements of Section 19 of the Act. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, noting that the trial court failed to frame a charge, record evidence regarding the ingredients of the offence, or provide the accused an opportunity of hearing. The Court emphasized that Section 21-L is not a summary offence and requires adherence to the full trial procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Failure to follow these procedures violates the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Articles 9 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of abscondence under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 require a formal trial procedure under Section 19 of the Act?
  • Can a trial court convict an accused for abscondence without framing a specific charge or recording evidence?
  • Is a conviction in absentia for the offence of abscondence under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 violative of the right to a fair trial under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Ullah and another vs The State and another2020 SCMR 1422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-27
  terrorismspecial jurisdictionAnti-Terrorism Actpersonal vendettacriminal trialjurisdiction of courts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition challenging the trial of the accused for the murder of a medical student before a Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the murder, despite its brutal nature and the public shock it caused, constituted 'terrorism' under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, thereby justifying trial in a special jurisdiction rather than a regular court. The Supreme Court held that while the intensity of brutality and loss of life are tragic, they do not, by themselves, bring a violent act within the purview of 'terrorism.' The Court clarified that terrorism is a distinct phenomenon aimed at achieving ends beyond the settlement of personal scores. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments, holding that the case did not meet the criteria for special jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that personal vendettas or murders, regardless of their brutality or the public fear they generate, do not automatically qualify as terrorism unless they involve the specific elements contemplated by the statute.

  Questions settled

  • Does the brutality of a murder or the resulting public shock automatically bring an act within the definition of 'terrorism' under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can a murder motivated by a personal score be tried in a special court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What is the distinction between a violent crime and an act of terrorism for the purpose of determining trial jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Imran vs The State2020 YLR 289 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-20
  narcotic drugssafe custody of samplessafe transmissionulterior motivesbenefit of doubtcriminal appealCNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and safe transmission of the narcotics samples to the forensic laboratory, and whether the prosecution case was vitiated by mala fides and personal grudge. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples during the interregnum period, and that the evidence established a personal grudge between the complainant and the appellant, who was a former police gunner. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt and acquitting him of the charge. The key principle laid down is that where the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples are not established through independent evidence, and where malafide or personal enmity by the complainant is proven, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples to the laboratory vitiate the conviction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when evidence reveals a personal grudge and ulterior motives on the part of the complainant police officer?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when there is a break in the chain of safe custody of recovered narcotics samples?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Ali vs The StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 170, 2020 P SC (Crl.) 823, 2020 SCMR 679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-04
  homicideocular accountinjured eyewitnessprompt FIRmedical evidencerecovery of weaponsubstitution theoryleave to appeal declined
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction for homicide and assault, but altering his death penalty to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case was that the petitioner attacked his son-in-law (and nephew) and the complainant with a knife following a dispute at a kiosk, resulting in the victim's death and injuries to the complainant. The core legal questions pertained to whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the ocular account, prompt reporting, medical evidence, and recovery of the blood-stained weapon, and whether the petitioner's defense plea of false implication and substitution was plausible. The Supreme Court held that the daylight occurrence was promptly reported, medical examinations fully matched the timeline, and the presence of the injured eyewitness was incontrovertible. Concluding that the defense's substitution theory was preposterous and unsupported, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of guilt and dismissed the petition, declining leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured eyewitness corroborated by an independent witness and medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for homicide?
  • Can a defense plea of false implication and substitution be accepted when unsupported by evidence and contradicted by prompt reporting and medical findings?
  • What evidentiary value is attached to the prompt lodging of an FIR and immediate medical examination in ruling out deliberation and consultation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Ali vs StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-04
  criminal petitionhomicidemurder convictionappreciation of evidenceocular accountmedico-legal evidenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a conviction for homicide and assault. The petitioner was accused of murdering his son-in-law, Kashif Ali, and injuring the complainant, Shoukat Ali, following a dispute over tea and underlying familial animosity. The trial court convicted the petitioner, sentencing him to death for murder and one year of rigorous imprisonment for assault. The High Court maintained the convictions but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The petitioner challenged these findings, arguing that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable, particularly regarding the recovery of the weapon and the motive. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the occurrence was a daylight event reported with promptitude, supported by consistent medico-legal evidence and an independent eyewitness. The Court held that the presence of the injured complainant at the scene and the forensic confirmation of the recovered weapon linked the petitioner to the crime. Consequently, the Court rejected the theory of substitution and the petitioner's plea, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of an injured complainant and an independent witness in a daylight occurrence?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon from an accessible place necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the theory of substitution credible when the complainant himself has sustained injuries during the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Ali Khan vs University of Karachi and another2020 SHC 14 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-10Read full judgment →
• Saddam Hussain vs The State through A.G. Islamabad and others2020 PLD Supreme Court 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-05-12
  police investigationprofessional trainingconstitutional dutyinvestigation handbookpolice negligencecriminal justice reform
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a criminal petition involving concerns regarding police investigation standards and the conduct of an Investigating Officer. The Supreme Court addressed the necessity for professionalizing police investigations, emphasizing that investigation is a specialized field requiring rigorous training. The Court directed the Inspector General of Police, Islamabad, to ensure that Investigating Officers are fully trained and equipped. A key directive issued by the Court mandates the immediate preparation of a comprehensive handbook on crime investigation, incorporating practical applications, case law, and the use of modern investigation kits and computerized data. This handbook must be updated annually. Furthermore, the Court underscored the constitutional duty of the State and its functionaries, particularly the police, to safeguard the life and property of citizens. The Court directed that any police official found negligent or involved in criminal activities must face strict departmental action and criminal prosecution. The petition itself was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioner to pursue a fresh bail application upon the submission of the final challan.

  Questions settled

  • Is the investigation of a crime considered a specialized subject requiring specific training for police officers?
  • Does the State have a constitutional obligation to protect the life and property of its citizens through police functionaries?
  • What are the requirements for police departments regarding the creation and updating of investigation handbooks?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadaqat Ali, Chowkidar Government Girls High School Sathi Bagh, Tehsil &2020 SC AJK 48 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service lawreinstatementministerial authorityvoid ordercivil servantremoval from serviceservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a Service Tribunal judgment concerning the validity of a civil servant's reinstatement. The appellant was appointed as a Chowkidar following the removal of respondent No. 7 under the AJ&K Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001. Subsequently, the Minister of Education ordered the reinstatement of respondent No. 7, leading to the cancellation of the appellant's appointment. The core legal question was whether the Minister of Education possessed the lawful authority to reinstate a civil servant removed under the Act of 2001. The Supreme Court held that the Minister of Education lacks statutory authority to reinstate employees in such matters, rendering the reinstatement order void ab initio. The Court emphasized that actions taken without lawful authority are legally ineffective. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be performed in that manner or not at all. Consequently, the Court set aside the Service Tribunal's judgment and the departmental order reinstating the respondent, thereby restoring the appellant's position.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Minister of Education have the legal authority to reinstate a civil servant removed under the AJ&K Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001?
  • Is an order passed by an authority without legal competence considered void?
  • Can a civil servant removed from service be reinstated without following the due process of law prescribed by the relevant statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadan General Trading LLC vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan & another2021 P C T L R 2, 2021 PLD Sindh 57, 2020 SHC 394 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-25Read full judgment →
• Sada Bux son of Lal Bux Laghari vs Farooq Ali son of Arz Muhammad2020 SHC 1324 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sabzal Khan and 9 others vs Muhammad Akbar and 10 others2020 CLC 142, 2021 PLJ Quetta 62 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-27Read full judgment →
• Sabir Shah vs The IInd Additional District and Session Judge East Karachi2020 YLR 2347 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-31
  surety bond forfeiturebail bondcriminal procedureshow-cause noticedormant fileabsconding accusedjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, which forfeited a surety bond of Rs. 600,000 following the non-appearance of the accused. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction in forfeiting the bond without adhering to the mandatory procedural requirements stipulated by law. The High Court held that the trial court’s order was unsustainable. The record demonstrated that the trial court failed to issue a show-cause notice to the surety during the accused's lifetime, despite the case being placed on a dormant file. The Court emphasized that the forfeiture of a bail bond is a judicial act requiring strict compliance with statutory procedures. The key principle laid down is that a court must first be satisfied through proof that a bond has been forfeited, record the grounds for such satisfaction, and mandatorily issue a show-cause notice to the surety before imposing any penalty. As these procedural safeguards were ignored, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the return of the surety documents.

  Questions settled

  • What is the mandatory procedure for a trial court to follow before forfeiting a surety bond?
  • Can a court forfeit a bail bond without issuing a show-cause notice to the surety?
  • Is an order passed by a court outside the ambit of the law considered a valid judicial order?
  Read full judgment →
• Saad Ansari vs Muhammad Shafique and another2020 P Cr. L J 242 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-13
  revision petitionclosure of evidencesummoning of witnessesstate employeescriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Tehsil Criminal Court closing the evidence of prosecution witnesses Nos. 4 and 5. The core legal question concerns the proper procedure for summoning a witness who is in the active service of the State. The High Court held that P.W. 4 having died, the petition to that extent became infructuous. Regarding P.W. 5, a police official, the Court held that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedure under section 72 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires summoning state employees through the head of their department rather than placing the burden on the prosecution to produce them independently. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to properly summon P.W. 5 through the head of his office. The key principle laid down is that witnesses in the service of the State must be summoned through their respective departmental heads in accordance with statutory procedure before any adverse order closing their evidence can be passed.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct procedure for summoning a witness who is in the active service of the State?
  • Can a trial court compel the prosecution to produce a state-employed witness on its own responsibility without issuing process through the head of the department?
  • What is the effect on a revision petition when a prosecution witness passes away during the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →