Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Rahim Dad vs Hamayoun Shah through L.Rs. and others2020 MLD 103 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-08-26Read full judgment →
- Rahim Buksh vs Jahangeer Baluch2020 SHC 1012 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-16Read full judgment →
- Rahim Ali Palari and 2 others vs Government Of Sindh through Secretary, Ministry of Transport and 2 others2020 MLD 1393 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for damages filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, by the legal heirs of a deceased victim killed in a road accident involving a government-owned bus. The core legal questions addressed were whether the suit was barred by Section 67-G of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, and the extent of the defendants' liability for the driver's negligence. The Court held that the suit was maintainable, ruling that the Motor Vehicles Ordinance does not preclude civil claims for damages. Applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the Court found the defendants vicariously liable for the fatal negligence of their employee. The Court established that compensation should be calculated based on the victim's reasonable life expectancy and prevailing minimum wage standards, rather than strict proof of exact historical income. Furthermore, the judgment affirmed that courts possess the authority to mould relief to ensure adequate compensation and deterrent effects in tortious actions, awarding damages for pecuniary loss and loss of consortium.
Questions settled- Does Section 67-G of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, bar a civil suit for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
- Does the principle of res ipsa loquitur apply to shift the burden of proof in fatal accident cases where the incident is undisputed?
- Can a court award damages based on minimum wage standards when specific proof of the deceased's historical income is contested?
- Are employers vicariously liable for the negligent driving of their employees in fatal accident cases?
- Rahib & another vs The State2020 SHC 1378 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction and sentencing by the trial court for charges involving firearm injuries inflicted upon the complainant with the intent to commit murder. During the appellate proceedings, the appellants and the complainant party reached a compromise, seeking to compound the offence. The complainant and the injured witness appeared before the Court, confirming they had pardoned the appellants in the name of Almighty Allah following the intervention of local mediators (nekmards) and had waived their rights to Qisas and Diyat. The appellants requested acquittal based on this compromise, a position not opposed by the State. The Court, upon reviewing the record and confirming the voluntary nature of the compromise, accepted the settlement. The Court held that since the offence was compoundable and a genuine, voluntary compromise had been reached, the appellants were entitled to acquittal. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and ordered the immediate release of the appellants, provided they were not required in any other custody case.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court accept a compromise between parties in a criminal case involving firearm injuries?
- Does a voluntary pardon and waiver of Qisas and Diyat by the complainant justify the acquittal of the accused in a compoundable offence?
- Raheem Jan alias Kaki vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1664 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9-D of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, following the alleged recovery of 4017 grams of charas from his house. The core legal questions involved whether the search and arrest were conducted by an authorized officer as defined by the statute, and whether the production of the accused before an ordinary Court of Sessions fulfilled the mandatory statutory requirement of production before a Special Court when no such courts had been established. The Peshawar High Court held that the record was silent regarding the proper authorization of the complainant by the Regional Police Officer, and in the absence of notified Special Courts, the mandatory provisions of the statute were not complied with. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principles laid down are that special laws regarding search, seizure, and production must be strictly followed in letter and spirit, and non-compliance with mandatory statutory procedures entitles an accused to the concession of bail on tentative assessment.
Questions settled- Whether a police officer who is not specifically authorized by the Regional Police Officer can legally exercise powers of entry, search, seizure, and arrest under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019?
- Does the production of an accused and seized narcotic substances before an ordinary Court of Sessions fulfill the mandate of section 33 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019 in the absence of notified Special Courts?
- Does non-compliance with mandatory procedural provisions regarding search, arrest, and production under a special statute entitle an accused person to post-arrest bail?
- Raheel Mohy-Ud-Din vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1155 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 233 dated 21.06.2019, registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mograh, Rawalpindi, pertaining to the alleged dishonouring of a cheque issued for the return of a borrowed amount of Rs. 22,00,000/-. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the existence of conflicting agreements and admissions of partial payments in related civil proceedings. The court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting additionally that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and that the petitioner is a first-time offender no longer required for investigation. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the case warrants further inquiry, the grant of bail is the general rule while its refusal is an exception.
Questions settled- Whether the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when civil proceedings and written statements reveal disputed facts and partial payments regarding a dishonoured cheque?
- Is bail to be granted as a general rule when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Raheel Bahadur and four others vs Province of Punjab, through Secretary2021 CLC 462, 2020 LHC 2759 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
- Rahat and Company thr. Syed Naveed Hussain Shah (formerly partner)2020 CLD 872, 2020 PLD Supreme Court 366, 2020 SCP 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerned the competent institution of a suit by a company, specifically whether a board resolution was necessary for authorization. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the suit was competently filed. The Court approved the distinction between two rules: the "general rule" (derived from Australasia Bank) applies when the defendant is a third party, where the rule of indoor management is applicable. In such cases, only an examination of the company's Articles of Association to ascertain the directors' power to delegate is required, and a specific board resolution for filing the suit is not strictly necessary. The "special rule" (from Khan of Mamdot) applies when the defendant is an "insider" (e.g., a director), where due notice of the board meeting and a valid resolution are essential. The Court disapproved of the Sindh High Court's attempt in United Bank to reconcile these distinct principles. For future guidance, courts should generally refrain from framing issues on board resolutions in third-party cases, instead requiring production of Articles of Association. Tentatively, a defect in authorization can be cured by subsequent ratification.
- Raham Din vs State, etc2020 YLR 2609, 2020 PHC 220 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
- Rafiullah vs 11th Additional District And Session Judge (West), Karachi and another2020 MLD 942 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application was filed against the order of the trial court dismissing an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the complainant sought to examine additional witnesses not named in the challan. The High Court observed that the proposed witnesses never approached the investigating officer during the investigation, nor did the complainant challenge the list of witnesses in the challan by filing a direct complaint. The Court held that allowing the complainant to introduce new witnesses after the conclusion of the trial would prejudice the accused's right to know the evidence against him under Section 265-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and would amount to filling the lacunae in the prosecution's case. It was further noted that under Section 493 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the complainant is legally obliged to act through the prosecutor. The Court maintained that while the trial court has unfettered powers to summon court witnesses for the discovery of truth, this cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the parties, especially to prolong the trial. The revision application was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a complainant introduce new witnesses not named in the challan after the conclusion of the trial under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the power of the court to summon witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be claimed as a matter of right by the prosecution or complainant?
- What is the effect of a complainant failing to challenge the list of witnesses in the challan by filing a direct complaint?
- Is a complainant legally permitted to independently file an application for summoning witnesses without acting through the prosecutor under Section 493 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Rafique Shah and others vs The State2020 YLR 2098 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for a premeditated attack resulting in fourteen deaths and multiple injuries following a dispute. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular testimony supported by injured witnesses, the impact of defective police investigation on the prosecution case, the applicability of anti-terrorism laws to private personal vendettas, and the determination of quantum of sentence. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness accounts of injured witnesses reliably established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, but ruled that offences stemming from private personal animosity do not attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The court upheld the conviction for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life on fourteen counts, laying down the principle that where multiple assailants act with a joint role and lingering doubts exist regarding specific fatal shots, preference should be given to the lesser sentence of life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 are attracted to a crime committed on account of private personal vendetta rather than against the State or its organs?
- Does the presence of stamp injuries on injured eyewitnesses sufficiently corroborate their testimony to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
- Can a death sentence be commuted to imprisonment for life when multiple accused share a joint role in indiscriminate firing and uncertainty exists as to whose fire proved fatal?
- What is the legal effect of a defective investigation or site plan preparation in the presence of consistent and confidence-inspiring ocular testimony?
- Rafique Ahmed Shaikh vs National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC)2020 PLC 180 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought a High Court direction to enforce an interim order passed by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) and requested an expedited decision on his pending appeal regarding a disputed resignation. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to enforce an order of the NIRC or compel the NIRC to expedite proceedings, given that the NIRC possesses statutory powers to execute its own orders. The Court held that it is not an executing court for the NIRC and noted that the NIRC is empowered under the National Industrial Relations Act, 2012 to enforce its own decisions. However, acknowledging the delay in the pending appeal and the petitioner's grievance, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the Full Bench of the NIRC to decide the appeal within one month. Additionally, the Court ordered that the operation of the impugned resignation letter remain in abeyance until the NIRC renders its final decision, thereby balancing the need for judicial efficiency with the statutory framework governing industrial relations.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to act as an executing court for orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission?
- Can the High Court issue directions to the National Industrial Relations Commission to expedite the disposal of a pending appeal?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable for the enforcement of an interim order passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission?
- Rafique @ Peeko vs The State2020 SHC 730 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder and assault. The core legal questions involve the credibility of related eye-witnesses, corroboration through medical evidence and recovery, explanation of delay in the FIR, and the propriety of awarding the death sentence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through straightforward ocular testimony of injured and related witnesses, which remained unshaken during cross-examination and was fully corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon of offense. The court affirmed that close relationship alone does not render a witness interested or unreliable, and that delay in lodging the FIR was sufficiently explained due to the priority of treating critically injured victims. The court laid down the principle that the normal penalty of death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code should not be withheld where the manner of the crime displays brutality, heinousness, or callousness without mitigating circumstances, thus dismissing the appeal and confirming the death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an eye-witness can be discarded solely on the ground of their close relationship with the deceased?
- Does mere delay in lodging the First Information Report invariably render the prosecution case doubtful?
- What factors determine whether a lesser penalty of imprisonment for life should be awarded instead of the normal death penalty under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Whether medical evidence sufficiently corroborates ocular testimony in cases of fatal knife attacks?
- Rafaqat Hussain Raja and others vs Mujib-ur-Rehman Kiani2020 CLC 1989, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 51 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-03Read full judgment →
- Rab Nawaz and others vs Rusmat Ali2020 PLD Islamabad 293, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 26 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-04Read full judgment →
- R.V. Rail Products (P) Ltd vs Dcit, Central Circle2020 P C T L R 1442 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, India · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
- R vs Copeland2021 P SC (Crl.) 33, 2020 SCMR 692 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
- Qutab Khan & another vs District Police Officer, D.I Khan2021 P Cr. L J 638, 2020 PHC 444 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed the petitioners' application seeking a direction to the police to include a third party as an accused in a narcotics case. The core legal question concerned the scope and limits of the powers of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, specifically whether such an authority can direct the police to alter the array of accused persons or interfere with the independent functions of the investigating agency. The Peshawar High Court held that the powers of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace are ministerial and administrative, not judicial, and are strictly confined to the matters enumerated in Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. The Court ruled that a Justice of the Peace cannot step into the shoes of the investigating agency, direct who should be declared an accused, or interfere with criminal investigations. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has the jurisdiction under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to direct the police to include a specific person as an accused in a criminal case?
- Are the powers exercised by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace judicial in nature or ministerial and administrative?
- Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace interfere with or direct the independent functioning of the police investigating agency?
- Qurban Ali vs Fed of Pak and others2020 SHC 628 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-12Read full judgment →
- Qurban Ali Shah and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Federal2020 PLD Sindh 242 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
- Qurban Ali and another vs The State2020 MLD 2033 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction and sentence for murder and related offences, where the appellants challenged the trial court's judgment on the grounds of procedural irregularities. The core legal question was whether a trial conducted in the absence of defense counsel, where key prosecution witnesses were examined without cross-examination, and where the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was deficient, constitutes a miscarriage of justice. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's failure to ensure the presence of defense counsel for cross-examination and the omission of critical incriminating evidence during the accused's examination caused serious prejudice to the appellants. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, remanding the case for a fresh trial. The key principle laid down is that cross-examination is a fundamental right and a vital tool for testing witness credibility; recording evidence in a capital case without providing the accused a fair opportunity for cross-examination and failing to properly examine the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders the trial illegal and unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does the examination of prosecution witnesses in the absence of defense counsel in a capital case constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial?
- Can a conviction be sustained if the trial court fails to put all incriminating evidence to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Quratulain Ibrahim Arain vs Government of Sindh2020 SHC 1200 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-02Read full judgment →
- Qurat ul Ain Ibrahim Arain vs Govt. of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 1242 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-02Read full judgment →
- Quinn Insurance Limited vs Price water house coopers2020 P SC 1099 · Supreme Court of Ireland · 2019-03-08Read full judgment →
- Qasim son of Ameer Bakhsh Lund vs The State2020 SHC 1196 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, which convicted the appellant for the offence of Qatl-i-amd under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained when the prosecution's primary witnesses turned hostile and failed to identify the culprits, and when co-accused facing similar allegations had already been acquitted based on the same evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the complainant and eyewitnesses did not implicate the appellant, and the investigating officer’s conduct was questionable. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that when eyewitnesses are disbelieved regarding one accused, they cannot be relied upon for another without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can an accused be convicted when prosecution witnesses turn hostile and fail to identify the culprits?
- Is independent corroboration required to convict an accused when eyewitnesses have been disbelieved regarding other co-accused?
- Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a legal right of the accused?
- Qasim International Container Terminal vs Collector, Model Customs2020 SHC 960 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-16Read full judgment →
- Qasim International Container Terminal Pakistan Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & others2020 SHC 370, 2020 PTD 1952 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-06Read full judgment →
- Qari Muhammad Arshad & two others vs State2021 P Cr. L J 1192, 2021 P Cr. L J 1194, 2020 PHC 332 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns the post-arrest bail of three accused persons charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act for alleged involvement in terrorism financing. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail given the nature of the prosecution's evidence, primarily consisting of confessional statements. The Court held that the accused were entitled to bail, noting that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court expressed significant doubt regarding the reliability of the confessional statements, which were recorded during police custody under questionable circumstances, and observed a lack of other incriminating material connecting the petitioners to the alleged crimes. The key principle laid down is that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. This principle remains applicable even under special laws, and courts must not act mechanically, as the liberty of the citizen is involved.
Questions settled- Does the grant of bail become the rule rather than the exception when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can confessional statements recorded during police custody be the sole basis for denying bail when their reliability is questionable?
- Are the provisions of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable even in cases involving special laws like the Anti-Terrorism Act?
- Qamar Khurshid etc. vs Land Acquisition Collector-I etc.2021 [M] C L R 692, 2020 YLR 1711, 2020 LHC 874 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
- Qadeem Shah vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 612 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his brother, arising from a dispute over joint property. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of ocular testimony, the impact of the prosecution's failure to examine certain witnesses, the necessity of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports for recovered crime empties, and the evidentiary value of the appellant's prolonged abscondance. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through a promptly lodged FIR, consistent ocular testimony, and supportive medical evidence. The Court ruled that the non-examination of family members as witnesses was natural given the familial relationship, and that FSL analysis of crime empties is unnecessary where only a single accused is charged. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that prolonged, unexplained abscondance serves as corroborative evidence of guilt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were maintained, with the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, extended to the appellant.
Questions settled- Is it necessary for the prosecution to send crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory when only a single accused is charged?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to examine all witnesses mentioned in the FIR automatically invalidate the conviction?
- Can prolonged abscondance of an accused be considered as corroborative evidence of guilt?
- Is the testimony of a complainant who is a close relative of the accused and the deceased inherently unreliable?
- Qadeem Shah vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 413 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Takht Bhai, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his brother following a dispute over a joint house. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the eyewitness testimony given by the deceased's son, the impact of non-examination of certain related witnesses, the effect of not sending crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the evidentiary value of prolonged abscondance. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through a promptly lodged First Information Report, confidence-inspiring ocular testimony, a proven motive, supporting medical evidence, and unexplained long-term abscondance by the accused. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence while extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether the non-sending of crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory dents the prosecution case in a trial involving a single accused?
- Does the prolonged abscondance of an accused person, without any plausible explanation, serve as corroborative evidence of guilt?
- Whether the failure to examine certain related eyewitnesses due to natural reluctance affects the credibility of the prosecution's case?
- Is a promptly lodged First Information Report with consistent ocular testimony sufficient to maintain a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Qadar Khan vs Political Agent/District Magistrate Agency and 2 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1086 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition was filed against the judgments of the Political Agent/District Magistrate Kurram and the Commissioner FCR Kohat Division, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 6, 7, 8, and 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act read with Section 11 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, and sentenced to 25 years rigorous imprisonment for the recovery of hashish. The core legal question was whether a conviction for narcotics offences can be sustained without a Forensic Science Laboratory report or chemical examiner's opinion on the recovered contraband, and where conscious knowledge and ownership of the premises are not established. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution must bring on record the FSL report as required by the law, and in the absence of such a report and proof of conscious knowledge, the conviction cannot be sustained. The court laid down the principle that procedural and substantive evidentiary requirements, such as chemical examiner reports under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, remain mandatory even for occurrences in tribal areas, and convictions cannot be based on mere assertions.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act be sustained without a Forensic Science Laboratory report?
- Is the requirement of an FSL report applicable to narcotics cases originating in tribal areas under the Frontier Crimes Regulation?
- Does the mere assertion of an individual suffice to prove that recovered material is contraband without chemical examination?
- Must the prosecution establish conscious knowledge and ownership in narcotics recovery cases from a house?
- Qabil Rind & Other vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 604 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
- Qabil etc vs State through Additional Advocate General etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1359 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife. The Peshawar High Court examined the prosecution's case, which relied on testimony from delayed and chance eye-witnesses and the fact that the deceased suffered an unnatural firearm death within the matrimonial home. The High Court found the eye-witnesses untrustworthy due to unexplained delay in recording their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, unnatural conduct, and contradictions with medical evidence and the FIR. It held that where prosecution fails to discharge its initial burden, the mere fact that a wife died an unnatural death inside the shared matrimonial house—where other family members also resided—does not shift the burden to the husband or justify conviction alone without corroborative evidence. Granting the benefit of doubt, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, dismissing the connected revision petition for sentence enhancement.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to discharge its initial burden shift the onus onto the accused husband to explain his wife's unnatural death in the matrimonial home?
- Can an uncorroborated statement of a chance witness recorded after unexplained delay form the sole basis for a murder conviction?
- Does the mere occurrence of a spouse's unnatural death inside a shared house automatically justify a conviction for murder under Section 302(b) PPC?
- Pure Mineral (Pvt.) Limited through duly Authorized Attorney vs Province2020 CLC 152 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-29Read full judgment →
- Punjab Food Authority vs Amanat Ali etc2020 LHC 1314, 2020 PLD Lahore 599 · Lahore High Court · 2020-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, assails an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, which had accepted a revision petition against a Special Court's refusal to grant superdari of seized articles under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011. The petitioner contended that the Special Court is a special tribunal whose proceedings are not subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court under Section 45A of the Act. The High Court analyzed the concept of judicial inferiority under Section 435 Cr.P.C., noting that a court is inferior to another only if its orders are subject to appeal or supervisory control by that other court. Since Section 45A(1) of the Act provides for an appeal only to the High Court, the Special Court is judicially inferior to the High Court, not the Sessions Court. Consequently, the Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition. The High Court accepted the petition, setting aside the impugned order, and clarified that while the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction, the High Court's revisional powers remain intact except where expressly barred.
Questions settled- Whether a Sessions Judge can exercise revisional jurisdiction over a Special Court established under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011?
- What constitutes an 'inferior criminal court' for the purposes of exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Does the exclusion of revisional jurisdiction under Section 45A(2) of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, completely bar the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
- Punjab College vs Govt. of the Punjab through Chief Secretary & others2020 LHC 1786 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-14Read full judgment →
- Punjab College through Principal vs Government Of Punjab through Chief2020 MLD 1502 · Lahore High Court · 2020-04-29Read full judgment →
- Punjab Board of Technical Education vs Zulfiqar Ahmed Cheema and 22020 [M] C L R 379 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-17Read full judgment →
- Public Interest Law Association Of Pakistan (Pilap) through Authorised2020 CLC 797 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-11Read full judgment →
- PTV and others vs Abdul Sattar2020 MLD 1985, 2020 IHC 110 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-23Read full judgment →
- Provincial Government through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan and 62020 YLR 226 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-03-06Read full judgment →
- Provincial Government through Chief Secretary and 5 others vs Malikan2020 YLR 1275 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-08-06Read full judgment →
- Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Provincial2020 YLR 1563 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
- Provincial Governent through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan and 3 others2020 YLR 887 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-08-27Read full judgment →
- Province of the Punjab through Secretary School Education, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others vs Mst. Nagras Parveen and others2020 SCMR 1519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the claim of respondents, initially appointed as ad hoc Secondary School Teachers in 1995, to have their seniority reckoned from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment rather than the date of their subsequent regularization in 2012. The core legal question was whether service rendered on an ad hoc basis counts towards seniority upon regularization. The Supreme Court held that, pursuant to the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, ad hoc service does not confer any right to seniority. The Court emphasized that ad hoc appointments are temporary and do not count towards seniority in the grade. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court reaffirmed that seniority for regularized ad hoc employees must be reckoned only from the date of their regularization. Consequently, the Court set aside the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which had granted the respondents seniority from their initial date of ad hoc appointment, clarifying that the statutory framework and consistent judicial precedent preclude such claims.
Questions settled- Does service rendered on an ad hoc basis count towards seniority upon regularization?
- From what date is seniority reckoned for an employee whose services were regularized after an initial ad hoc appointment?
- Does an ad hoc appointment confer any right to seniority in the grade under the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
- Province Of Sindh, through Secretary and 4 others vs Hoat Ali2020 CLC 583 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-12Read full judgment →
- Province Of Sindh through Secretary Works and Services Department and 5 others vs Javed Baloch2020 MLD 1965 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
- Province of Sindh and others vs Messrs Parkock Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd.2020 PLD Sindh 136 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-22Read full judgment →
- Province Of Sindh and another vs Messrs Sardar Muhammad Ashraf D.2020 PLD Sindh 467 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
- Province of Sindh and another vs Land Acquisition Officer and others2020 SHC 404 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-18Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab through Secretary, Government of Punjab, Labour &2021 CLC 1082, 2020 LHC 3261 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-23Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab through Secretary, Agriculture Department and another2020 [M] C LR 283 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These intra-court appeals were filed by the Province of Punjab challenging a Single Judge's order that directed the regularization of contract employees within the Agriculture Department. The core legal question was whether employees appointed to development project posts on a contract basis were entitled to regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Services Act, 2018. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Single Judge’s direction was legally sound. It observed that the respondents had served for a significant duration, which created a presumption that their services were of a permanent nature. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellant-department failed to prove the posts were not permanent and had engaged in discriminatory practices by retaining some similarly placed employees while excluding others. The Court affirmed that regularization must be conducted objectively, considering the nature and length of service, in accordance with the Punjab Regularization of Services Act, 2018. The key principle laid down is that similarly placed employees cannot be discriminated against in regularization matters, and long-term contract service creates a presumption of permanent employment status.
Questions settled- Are contract employees appointed to development projects entitled to regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Services Act 2018?
- Does long-term continuation in service create a presumption of permanent employment status?
- Can the state discriminate between similarly placed employees regarding the regularization of their services?
- Province of Punjab through Secretary Population Welfare Department etc vs Farzana Basharat etc2020 PLC 260, 2020 LHC 2117 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition filed by the Province of Punjab impugning orders of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had ordered the regularization of Respondent No. 1, a contingent-paid Female Helper in the Population Welfare Department, as a permanent workman with back benefits. The core legal questions were whether a government department like the Population Welfare Department constitutes a commercial or industrial establishment under labor laws, and whether contingent-paid project employees can invoke the jurisdiction of labor courts for regularization under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 or the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The Lahore High Court held that the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, ruling that government departments and project-based contingent staff do not fall within the ambit of the Standing Orders or the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, and that regularization of government employees is governed by specific statutory frameworks and civil service rules rather than labor legislation.
Questions settled- Does a government department like the Population Welfare Department qualify as a commercial establishment under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Can contingent-paid staff employed on a project basis seek regularization through the labor courts under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
- Do labor courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate service and regularization matters of government employees governed by statutory service rules?
- Does the Punjab Regulations of Service Act, 2018 exclude persons applying under special pay packages from claiming regular status under labor laws?
- Province of Punjab through Secretary Finance, Lahore etc vs Kanwal Rashid2020 PLC (C.S.) 437, 2020 LHC 319 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra-Court Appeal challenged a judgment regarding the entitlement of an unmarried daughter to receive two family pensions simultaneously following the death of her parents, both of whom were government servants. The Appellant, Province of Punjab, relied on a 2015 Finance Department notification interpreting the receipt of one pension as a "regular source of income," thereby disqualifying the recipient from the second pension. The core legal question was whether the government could, via administrative clarification, restrict a statutory pension right by redefining it as a "regular source of income." The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that pension is a vested right earned by a civil servant through service, which cannot be arbitrarily abridged. The Court ruled that the phrase "acquiring regular source of income" in the relevant rules refers to income generated through personal vocation or skill, not the receipt of pension itself. Consequently, the notification was declared flawed, as it sought to deprive the respondent of a statutory benefit without clear legal authority, affirming that pension rules must be construed liberally in favor of beneficiaries.
Questions settled- Can a government department restrict a statutory pension entitlement through an administrative clarification?
- Does the receipt of a family pension constitute a 'regular source of income' for the purpose of disqualifying a dependent from receiving a second pension?
- Is the right to receive a family pension a vested right that cannot be arbitrarily abridged by the government?
- Should pension rules be construed liberally in favor of the beneficiaries?
- Province of Punjab through Secretary Agriculture Department, Lahore, etc vs Muhammad Arif, etc2020 P SC 519 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns Civil Appeals filed by the Province of Punjab against a Lahore High Court judgment that directed the regularization of contract employees hired for the 'Punjab Irrigated Agriculture Productivity Improvement Project' (PIPIP). The core legal question was whether project-based contract employees, whose appointments were time-bound and tied to specific development projects, were entitled to regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting regularization. The Court ruled that the respondents, being project employees, were expressly excluded from the scope of the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, by Section 2(c). The Court emphasized that there is a qualitative and conceptual distinction between general contract employees and project-based employees. It further held that project management retains the prerogative to determine the necessity of retaining staff for project extensions, and no vested right to regularization exists for project-based appointees whose contracts are explicitly time-bound and subject to automatic termination upon project completion. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Are employees appointed to time-bound development projects entitled to regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018?
- Does a contract employee in a government project have a vested right to demand contract extension or regularization?
- Does the definition of 'contract employee' under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, include persons appointed to project-based posts?
- Province Of Punjab through Secretary Agriculture Department, Lahore and others vs Muhammad Arif and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeals were filed by the Province of Punjab against a High Court judgment that upheld the regularization of contractual employees appointed under a World Bank-assisted project (PIPIP). The primary legal issue was whether contractual employees appointed specifically for time-bound development projects are entitled to regularization of service under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act 2018. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's orders. The Court held that there is a conceptual and qualitative distinction between contract employees in regular government departments against sanctioned posts and those appointed for time-bound projects. Under Section 2(c) of the Punjab Regularization of Service Act 2018, project employees are explicitly excluded from the scope and benefit of regularization. Furthermore, contractual terms stipulating automatic termination upon project completion or expiration of tenure are binding, creating no vested right for employees to demand extension or regularization. The Court also held that issued directions to regularize individuals whose contractual employment had already ended was unlawful, as their termination constituted a past and closed transaction.
Questions settled- Are contractual employees appointed under time-bound development projects entitled to regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act 2018?
- Does a contractual project employee have a vested right to seek extension of contract or regularization of service upon the expiry of the project term?
- Can directions for regularization of service be lawfully issued for employees whose contracts have already terminated prior to filing a constitutional petition?
- Province Of Punjab through Executive District Officer (Education)2021 PLJ SC 145, 2020 P SC 526, 2020 SCMR 490, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal by the Province of Punjab against a High Court judgment that directed the appointment of a female candidate as an Educator in a Government Boys High School. The candidate had been denied the position based on a departmental policy prohibiting the appointment of female candidates to Boys High/Higher Secondary Schools. The core legal question was whether a recruitment policy restricting female employment in specific educational institutions based solely on gender, despite the candidate's qualifications, constitutes valid classification or unlawful discrimination. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the policy was discriminatory and lacked a rational basis. The Court emphasized that gender-based restrictions, unsupported by objective criteria, violate constitutional guarantees of equality. The ratio establishes that administrative policies cannot override constitutional commands, particularly those ensuring equal opportunity and the full participation of women in national life. The Court affirmed that policies inherently flawed, retrogressive, and discriminatory are subject to judicial review and cannot be shielded under the guise of administrative discretion or policy-making authority.
Questions settled- Can an administrative recruitment policy restrict the appointment of female candidates to boys' schools solely on the basis of gender?
- Is an administrative policy that is inherently discriminatory and inconsistent with constitutional commands subject to judicial review?
- Does the denial of employment to a qualified female candidate based on gender violate the constitutional right to equality of opportunity?
- Province of Punjab through Executive District Officer (Education)2020 P SC 526 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal by the Province of Punjab against a High Court judgment directing the appointment of a female candidate as an Educator in a Boys High School. The candidate had been denied the position based on a departmental policy prohibiting female appointments in Boys High/Higher Secondary Schools. The core legal question was whether a recruitment policy restricting female employment based solely on gender, while excluding them from specific educational institutions, violates constitutional protections against discrimination. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the policy lacked rational basis and constituted gender-based discrimination. The Court reasoned that the policy was retrogressive and failed to meet the test of intelligible differentia. The key principle laid down is that administrative policies cannot override constitutional commands; specifically, policies that discriminate against women in public service appointments solely on the basis of sex are unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that the State is mandated to ensure full participation of women in national life and that any policy inconsistent with these constitutional guarantees is subject to judicial review.
Questions settled- Can an administrative recruitment policy that discriminates against female candidates solely on the basis of sex be sustained?
- Does the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in public service prohibit policies that restrict female employment in specific educational institutions?
- Is a policy that is inconsistent with constitutional commands regarding gender equality immune from judicial review?
- Province of Punjab through Conservator of Forest, Faisalabad, etc vs Javed2021 KLR Labour & Service Cases 17, 2021 PLJ SC 175, 2021 P SC 178, 2021 SCMR 328, 2020 SCP 254 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns several civil petitions addressing whether the proviso to section 21 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 is directory or mandatory regarding the finalization of departmental proceedings against retired employees within two years of retirement. The core legal question is the interpretation of the statutory timeline prescribed for concluding disciplinary inquiries against retired civil servants. The Supreme Court held that the proviso is mandatory, and failure to finalize departmental proceedings within two years of retirement renders the proceedings and subsequent orders void and abated. The key principle laid down is that statutory timelines protecting retired employees from prolonged inquiries are mandatory limitations on the power of public functionaries, ensuring that retired personnel are spared from long-drawn departmental proceedings beyond the prescribed period.
Questions settled- Whether the proviso to section 21 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 requiring departmental proceedings against a retired employee to be finalized within two years of retirement is directory or mandatory?
- What is the legal effect of failing to conclude disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee within the statutory two-year period under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
- Does the continuation of departmental proceedings beyond the prescribed two-year limitation period render subsequent departmental orders void?
- Province of Kyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and other vs Farasatullah and others2020 SCMR 1629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges the judgments of the Peshawar High Court directing the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to grant an M.Phil allowance to employees holding degrees equivalent to M.Phil, such as LLM and MS in Agriculture, based on equivalence certificates and letters issued by the Higher Education Commission. The core legal question was whether holders of degrees deemed equivalent to M.Phil by the Higher Education Commission are automatically entitled to an allowance specifically restricted by government notification to actual M.Phil degree holders, and whether the Higher Education Commission possesses the mandate to dictate financial benefits based on academic equivalence. The Supreme Court held that the plain language of the notification unambiguously limited the allowance to holders of M.Phil degrees and that the Higher Education Commission's mandate is strictly limited to determining academic equivalence without any authority to recommend or direct financial allowances. The Court further held that differentiating between actual M.Phil degree holders and holders of equivalent degrees does not constitute unconstitutional discrimination. The appeals were consequently allowed and the High Court judgments were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether holders of degrees declared equivalent to M.Phil by the Higher Education Commission are automatically entitled to an M.Phil allowance granted specifically by notification to M.Phil degree holders?
- Does the Higher Education Commission have the legal mandate to direct or advise the government on the payment of allowances based on academic equivalence?
- Whether the refusal of a provincial government to grant financial allowances given by other provinces constitutes actionable discrimination under the law?
- Can a High Court read additional words into an unambiguous administrative notification while exercising writ jurisdiction?
- Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others vs Farasatullah and others2021 PLJ SC 92, 2021 P SC 141, 2020 SCMR 1629, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 1423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil appeals challenging a Peshawar High Court judgment that directed the provincial government to extend an M.Phil allowance to employees holding degrees deemed equivalent to M.Phil, such as LLM. The core questions were whether the government notification granting the allowance to M.Phil holders could be expanded to include equivalent degrees, and whether the Higher Education Commission possesses the authority to mandate such financial benefits or interpret government notifications. The Supreme Court held that the notification was clear, unambiguous, and restricted to M.Phil degree holders. The Court ruled that the Higher Education Commission lacks the statutory mandate to dictate financial policy or interpret government notifications, as its authority is limited to academic equivalence. The Court established that courts cannot read additional words into clear government notifications, and that administrative decisions regarding financial incentives for specific qualifications are matters of policy that do not constitute discrimination, provided there is an intelligible differentia between the classes of employees. Furthermore, one province's policy decisions cannot be cited as grounds for discrimination against another province.
Questions settled- Does the Higher Education Commission have the authority to mandate the payment of financial allowances to government employees?
- Can a court read additional categories into a government notification that is clear and unambiguous on its face?
- Does the grant of a specific allowance to M.Phil degree holders, while excluding holders of equivalent degrees, constitute discrimination?
- Is a decision by one province regarding service terms and conditions binding on another province under the principle of non-discrimination?
- Project Implement Managers (Private) Limited vs Governor of Sindh &2020 SHC 1290 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
- Project Director NHA and 2 others vs Nayyar Zaman and another2020 CLC 442 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-06-13Read full judgment →
- Professor Syed Farhat Ali Jaffery vs Province of Sindh & 04 others2020 SHC 202 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
- Professor Akhtar Khan vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 506, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1247, 2020 PHC 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, a lecturer, charged under Sections 10 and 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly disseminating hate speech and fake information against State institutions via social media. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offences and the evidentiary status of the case. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the offences were punishable by imprisonment or fine, and denying bail could result in 'double jeopardy' if the ultimate sentence was only a fine. Furthermore, the Court determined that the actual usage of the social media accounts by the petitioner remained a question of evidence, rendering the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court emphasized that bail is a change of custody, not an acquittal, and granted the petition subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail if the offence charged is punishable by either imprisonment or a fine?
- Does the uncertainty regarding the actual usage of social media accounts by an accused constitute a case of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the grant of bail constitute an acquittal of the accused?
- Private School Association Islamabad vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 CLC 1658, 2020 IHC 40 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-28Read full judgment →
- Presson-Descon International (Private) Limited etc vs Joint Registrar of Companies2020 CLD 1128, 2020 PLD Lahore 869, 2020 LHC 1645 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerned a petition filed under Sections 279 to 282 of the Companies Act, 2017, seeking the Court's sanction for a Scheme of Arrangement for reconstruction and de-merger among three private limited companies: Presson-Descon International (Private) Limited, DEL Engineering Domestic (Private) Limited, and Descon (Private) Limited. The core legal questions involved ensuring compliance with statutory requirements, addressing objections from the Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) regarding no-objection certificates from banks and the valuation of Intellectual Property (IP), and determining the Court's supervisory role. The Court held that all statutory benchmarks and formalities were met, including unanimous shareholder approval and the filing of NOCs. It was decided that IP valuation was not required or material to the scheme since the companies were 100% beneficially owned by the same family. The Court sanctioned the Scheme of Arrangement, affirming its supervisory role to ensure legal compliance and fairness, rather than questioning the commercial wisdom of the majority shareholders.
Questions settled- What is the scope of the Court's jurisdiction when sanctioning a scheme of arrangement for corporate de-merger?
- Is the valuation of intellectual property required for a scheme of arrangement for de-merger when the beneficial ownership of all involved companies is 100% within the same family?
- What are the essential stipulations a Court must satisfy itself of before sanctioning a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act?
- Can a Court question the commercial wisdom behind a scheme of arrangement if all requisite legal formalities and shareholder approvals have been met?
- Does the expression 'arrangement' under Section 279(6) of the Companies Act, 2017, include a de-merger?
- President, All Pakistan Women Association, Peshawar Cantt vs Muhammad Akbar Awan and others2020 PLJ SC 209, 2020 P SC 975, 2020 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court considered petitions for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment, which had dismissed constitutional petitions challenging an interlocutory order of the Additional Rent Controller. The Additional Rent Controller's order allowed the impleadment of a party in ejectment proceedings. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition could be invoked to challenge an interlocutory order when a specific statutory bar against appeal existed, particularly under Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, refusing leave to appeal. It held that an interlocutory order, which does not finally decide the lis, cannot be challenged by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when the statute expressly bars an appeal against such orders. The Court emphasized that allowing such challenges would negate the legislative intent of curtailing delays and piecemeal litigation, rendering the statutory bar redundant. Constitutional jurisdiction, being equitable and discretionary, should not be exercised to defeat or bypass valid statutory provisions.
- Povince Of Punjab through Executive District Officer (Education)2020 SCMR 490 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from the denial of an appointment to a qualified female candidate as an Educator in a Government Boys High/Higher Secondary School based on a recruitment policy that barred female candidates from holding such posts in boys' high schools. The respondent successfully challenged the departmental decision before the High Court, which directed her appointment, and an Intra Court Appeal by the Province was subsequently dismissed. The core legal question was whether a recruitment policy restricting female educators from serving in boys' high/higher secondary schools is constitutionally valid and immune from judicial review. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that gender-based restrictions in public employment unsupported by objective, rational foundations violate constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The Court laid down the principle that administrative policies manifestly inconsistent with constitutional commands, particularly those discriminating against women in public employment, are subject to judicial review and cannot override fundamental constitutional rights.
Questions settled- Whether a recruitment policy restricting female candidates from appointment in boys' high and higher secondary schools is discriminatory?
- Can an administrative policy that violates constitutional commands regarding gender equality be subjected to judicial review?
- Does a restriction based solely on gender in public employment qualify as a reasonable classification?
- Porsche Middle East And Africa Fze and another vs Akbar Adamjee and others2020 PLD Sindh 415 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
- Pir Muhammad Hassan Qadir vs Muhammad s/o Amoon & another2020 SHC 774 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
- Pir Bux vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Education Government of Sindh and 10 others2020 CLC 956 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-16Read full judgment →
- Pir Ashfaq Ahmed Sarhandi & Ors vs P.O Sindh & Ors2020 SHC 496 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
- Phoenix Security (Pvt.) Limited vs Pir Muhammad and others2020 PLJ SC 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal challenging a High Court order regarding the payment of wages for weekly holidays and overtime to security guards. The core legal questions were whether security guards fall under the exclusion of 'watchmen' in the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969, and whether employees governed by the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, are entitled to double wages for overtime and weekly holidays in the absence of specific contractual or statutory provisions. The Supreme Court held that the term 'watchman' is synonymous with 'security guard,' thereby excluding the respondents from the application of the 1969 Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court ruled that in the absence of evidence establishing a contract, custom, or usage for double wages, and given that the 1968 Ordinance does not mandate such rates, the respondents' claims were unsustainable. The key principle laid down is that definitions in one labour statute cannot be imported into another unless expressly provided, and claims for specific wage rates must be substantiated by contract, custom, or statutory entitlement.
Questions settled- Are security guards considered 'watchmen' for the purpose of exclusion under the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969?
- Can the definition of 'wages' from the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 be imported to interpret provisions of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Is an employer required to pay double the rate of wages for overtime and weekly holidays in the absence of a specific contract, custom, or statutory provision?
- PGP Consortium Ltd. through Director vs Securities and Exchange2020 P Cr. L J 980 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 by PGP Consortium Limited against the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The Petitioner sought the registration of a charge on its assets and electronic filing of Form-10 under the Companies Act, 2017, which had been placed on hold by the SECP due to a caution marked by NAB on the shareholdings of an individual shareholder, Hussain Lawai, under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question revolved around whether an inquiry or caution against a shareholder could impede the company from creating a charge on its assets for financing. During the proceedings, the Petitioner submitted an unconditional undertaking and a board resolution ensuring that the shares of the accused shareholder would not be alienated, alongside depositing a security amount equivalent to the value of those shares with the Court. NAB expressed no objection thereto. Consequently, the Lahore High Court disposed of the petition, issuing a writ of mandamus directing the SECP to register the charge and security documents in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether criminal proceedings or inquiry against the shareholders of a company can put an embargo upon the rights of the company?
- Whether after issuance of caution by NAB authorities under section 23 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, availing financing facility for working capital by way of charge upon the properties of a company amounts to transfer of shareholdings of the company?
- Whether the provisions of section 41-b of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 have overriding effect over all other laws including the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999?
- PGP Consortium Ltd vs Securities And Exchange Commission Of Pakistan2020 CLD 541 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-04Read full judgment →
- Petroleum Exploration (Private) Ltd vs Federal Government Of Pakistan2020 PLD Islamabad 214 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-30Read full judgment →
- PESCO through Chief Executive Officer vs The State and 43 others2020 P Cr. L J 249 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal miscellaneous quashment petitions were filed by PESCO against a consolidated judgment of the Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan, which had dismissed police challans regarding electricity theft and left the complainant at liberty to file individual complaints. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the provisions of section 462-O of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or the Schedule appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, govern the cognizance of offences relating to electricity theft covered under Chapter XVII-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that section 462-O contains an overriding non-obstante clause which expressly excludes the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and any other law, meaning a court can only take cognizance of offences under Chapter XVII-B upon a complaint by a duly authorized officer, not upon police reports or challans. The Court further laid down the principle that the main provisions of an Act prevail over its Schedule in case of conflict, and affirmed that when the law prescribes a particular manner for doing an act, it must be performed in that exact manner or be treated as a nullity.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 462-O of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 override the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding cognizance of electricity theft offences?
- Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Chapter XVII-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon a police challan or report?
- Does the enabling provision of a parent statute prevail over its Schedule in the event of an irreconcilable conflict?
- What is the effect under the law if a mandatory statutory procedure for taking cognizance of an offence is not followed?
- Pervez alias Laddu vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1672 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 336-B and Section 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 7(1)(c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for throwing acid on the complainant. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's identity and the nature of the injuries as caused by a corrosive substance beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the victim's testimony was trustworthy, consistent with medical evidence, and corroborated by other witnesses, establishing that the substance used was indeed a corrosive substance constituting acid throwing under Section 336-B, P.P.C. and falling within the ambit of anti-terrorism laws. The court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence, laying down that acid attacks on women cause severe physical and mental trauma amounting to heinous crimes deserving no leniency, and that sole victim testimony when reliable and corroborated is sufficient to maintain a conviction.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a sole victim and eye-witness, when found trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for acid throwing?
- Does an acid attack causing burn injuries fall within the definition of a terrorist act under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Whether acid constitutes a corrosive substance under Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Perveen Bibi vs Asj, etc2020 PLD Lahore 848, 2020 LHC 1238 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by the trial court turning down the petitioner's request to transpose the earlier recorded evidence of the complainant under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the current trial. The core legal question concerned whether a previously recorded statement of an absent complainant under Section 512 can be transposed as substantive evidence in a subsequent trial of arrested accused persons without recording evidence in their presence, keeping in view the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Lahore High Court held that the mandatory general rule under Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requires evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused to ensure a fair trial, and the exceptional use of Section 512 depositions is discretionary and subject to strict judicial scrutiny. The court dismissed the petition, noting that the accused must be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and alternative methods such as video-links or protective measures for the witness's return can be utilized.
Questions settled- Whether a statement recorded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of an absconding accused can automatically be transposed as substantive evidence in a subsequent trial upon the accused's arrest?
- Does recording evidence in the absence of the accused violate the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- What are the circumstances under which previous depositions of a witness can be used in subsequent proceedings under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Can the trial court utilize modern devices like video-link for recording the evidence of a witness residing abroad?
- Pervaiz Iqbal vs WAPDA through Chairman WAPDA, Lahore and 3 others2019 KLR Revenue Cases 38, 2020 YLR 538, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 951 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-15Read full judgment →
- Peoples University of Medical & Health Sciences for Women & others vs Pakistan & others2021 PLD Sindh 256, 2020 SHC 1312 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves several constitutional petitions challenging the vires of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, and the regulations framed thereunder, particularly concerning the centralized Medical and Dental College Admission Test (MDCAT) and the composition of the Medical and Dental Council. The core legal questions involved the legislative competence of Parliament regarding medical education post-the Eighteenth Amendment, the validity of discretionary appointment powers under Section 4, and the legality of conducting the MDCAT without fully constituting the National Medical and Dental Academic Board and the National Medical Authority. The court held that the PMC Act, 2020 and Section 18 thereof are intra vires the Constitution of Pakistan, falling within the legislative competence of Parliament under the Federal Legislative List. However, the court read down Section 4 to require a transparent appointment process and directed rules to be framed, while restraining the PMC from holding the MDCAT until the statutory Academic Board and National Medical Authority were duly constituted and a definitive common syllabus was announced without ambiguous objection forms.
Questions settled- Whether Sections 4 and 18 of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 are ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does Parliament possess the legislative competence to enact laws regarding medical education and centralized admission tests under the Federal Legislative List after the Eighteenth Amendment?
- Can the National Medical Authority and Academic Board conduct the MDCAT without being fully constituted and without a proper, definitive common syllabus?
- How should the discretionary powers for appointing members to the Medical and Dental Council under Section 4 of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 be construed by applying the doctrine of reading down?
- Pehlwan Shah & others vs Liaqat Shah & Anwar Shah2020 MLD 2071, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 104, 2020 PHC 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-18Read full judgment →
- Peeral vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1147 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal jail appeal assails the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution established its case beyond a reasonable doubt given an unexplained three-month delay in lodging the FIR, unrecovered torchlight as the sole source of identification, suspicious recoveries, and the failure to put incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case due to numerous glaring doubts, including delayed FIR, missing torchlight identification, flawed recoveries, and the impermissibility of using unnotified evidence under Section 342. The ratio decidendi is that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution story entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, and evidence not put to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against them.
Questions settled- Whether an unexplained delayed FIR creates serious doubt in the prosecution case?
- Is identification based solely on torch light reliable when the torch is neither recovered nor produced during trial?
- Can a piece of evidence not put to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used against him?
- Whether the acquittal of a co-accused on the same set of evidence requires independent corroboration to maintain the conviction of another co-accused?
- PCBL vs Zeenat Bibi and others2020 YLR 2421 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-12Read full judgment →
- Pasban Workers Union, Philip Morris Pakistan Ltd., Saddar, Rawalpindi vs Philips Morris Pakistan Limited through its Zonal Sales Manager (North) and another2020 PLJ Tr.C. (NIRC) 37 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under the Industrial Relations Act 2012 by an unregistered trade union seeking to restrain the respondent employer from committing alleged unfair labour practices, including threats of discharge, dismissal, and transfer during the pendency of its registration application. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that an unregistered trade union lacks the legal status of a body corporate to sue or be sued in its own name. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 2012, a trade union only acquires the status of a body corporate with the capacity to sue or be sued upon formal registration. Consequently, an unregistered union is merely a combination of workmen and cannot maintain a petition in its own name. Furthermore, the Commission ruled that a Collective Bargaining Agent can only enforce its own guaranteed rights and not individual grievances. The petition and the associated contempt application were dismissed as incompetent.
Questions settled- Can an unregistered trade union file a petition or initiate legal proceedings in its own name under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
- At what stage does a trade union acquire the status of a body corporate with the capacity to sue or be sued?
- Can a Collective Bargaining Agent espouse and enforce the individual rights of workers under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
- Parveen Akhtar and others vs MCB Bank Limited2020 SHC 1354 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-08Read full judgment →
- Parvaiz S/o Muhammad Uris Solangi vs The State2020 SHC 490 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-05Read full judgment →
- Parvaiz Akhter Bhatti vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 IHC 146, 2022 CLD 731 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
- Parks and Horticulture Authority and others vs Ejaz Ahmad Sial2020 PLC (C.S.) 214 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra Court Appeal challenged the judgments of a learned Single Judge who had directed the regularization of the Respondents as permanent employees. The Respondents, initially engaged on daily wages, sought regularization as Court Clerks, yet the lower court declared the post of Mali as permanent and ordered their regularization against it. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, could declare a post as permanent and order regularization where no sanctioned post existed and no due recruitment process was followed. The Lahore High Court held that the creation of permanent posts and the regularization of employees are administrative functions involving financial considerations and budgetary sanction, which fall outside the court's purview. The Court held that while it may direct a department to consider a candidate for regularization, it cannot order the regularization of individuals against non-existent or non-sanctioned posts. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments, establishing that judicial intervention cannot bypass the administrative and financial requirements necessary for the creation of permanent posts and the regular appointment of personnel.
Questions settled- Can a High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, declare a post to be permanent?
- Is it permissible for a court to order the regularization of daily wage employees against posts that have not been sanctioned?
- Does the power to create permanent posts and regularize employees lie within the administrative domain of the department or the judiciary?
- Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd., Islamabad through Authorized Officer and another vs Ch. Basharat Ali2020 PLC (C.S.) 1506 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses multiple intra-court appeals and a review application arising from disputes over the dismissal and termination of service of various employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL). The core legal question concerns the nature of employment and whether the service rules applicable to the employees possess statutory protection, particularly in light of previous pronouncements by the Supreme Court. Relying on the binding precedents in Masood Ahmad Bhatti's case, the Court held that employees recruited before 1st January 1996 enjoy statutory protection of their terms and conditions of service by virtue of the transitional provisions under the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, whereas those recruited after that date are governed by non-statutory, contractual rules. Consequently, the appeals and review applications were disposed of accordingly, holding that actions against protected employees must adhere to the applicable statutory frameworks.
Questions settled- Whether the employment rules governing PTCL employees recruited before 1st January 1996 possess statutory status?
- Are the terms and conditions of service of former Telephone and Telegraph Department employees protected under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996?
- Whether employees recruited by PTCL after 1st January 1996 are governed by statutory or contractual rules?
- Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited vs Assistant Director2020 CLD 1223 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-12-26Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through Duly Authorized2020 PLD Sindh 733 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Telcom vs Sh. Mushtaq Ali2020 CLD 1022, 2020 LHC 1445 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-08Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Sugar Mills Association and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 IHC 132 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Sugar Mills Association & 17 others vs Federation of Pakistan2020 IHC 102 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan State Oil vs Province of Sindh & another2020 SHC 190 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-28Read full judgment →
- Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd vs Pakistan National Shipping Corporation2021 CLC 761, 2020 SHC 1394 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
- Pakistan State Oil Company Limited vs M/s. Jawed Pervaiz Enterprises2020 SHC 756 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-09Read full judgment →