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.

• Pakistan Railways through Chairman, Islamabad and another vs Sajid2020 SCMR 1664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-07
  regularization of servicetemporary labour appointmentproject postsservice lawcontractual employeesdaily wage workersPakistan Railways
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns service appeals filed by Pakistan Railways challenging a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that directed the regularization of Temporary Labour Appointment (TLA) workers. The core legal question was whether these TLA workers, employed as gatekeepers at level crossings, were 'project employees' excluded from regularization policies, or permanent employees entitled to the benefits of the Regularization Policy, 2012. The Supreme Court held that the nature of the work—maintaining level crossings—is permanent, as these crossings exist as long as trains operate. The Court rejected the Railways' contention that the funding arrangement with other government departments constituted a 'project' of limited duration, noting that the employment was continuous, spanning over a decade, and that the workers were trained and uniformed by the Appellants. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the workers were entitled to regularization under the 2012 policy, as their roles were not temporary project-based positions, and the exclusion criteria for project employees did not apply to their permanent, ongoing functions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees hired for level crossing maintenance under funding agreements with other departments qualify as 'project employees' excluded from regularization?
  • Does the lack of formal appointment letters preclude TLA workers from claiming regularization when their continuous employment is admitted by the employer?
  • Are TLA workers who have served for over a decade in permanent roles entitled to the benefits of the Regularization Policy, 2012?
  • What constitutes a 'project' for the purpose of excluding employees from regularization policies in the context of government service?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways through Chairman Islamabad and another vs Sajid2021 PLJ SC 117, 2021 P SC 1028, 2020 SCMR 1664, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 1370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-07
  regularization of servicetemporary labour appointmentproject postsservice lawPakistan Railwayscontractual employeesdaily wage workers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal by Pakistan Railways against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment directing the regularization of Temporary Labour Appointment (TLA) workers, specifically gatekeepers employed at level crossings. The core legal question was whether these employees, whose salaries were funded by other government departments under specific agreements, were employed against 'project posts' and thus excluded from the benefits of the Regularization Policy, 2012. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the nature of the work—operating level crossings—is permanent, not project-based, as the necessity for such services persists as long as trains operate. The Court rejected the argument that the funding arrangement constituted a temporary project, noting the continuous, long-term employment of the respondents. The key principle laid down is that the classification of a post as a 'project post' requires the undertaking to be for a limited duration with a defined objective; where the function is inherently permanent and continuous, such as the maintenance of level crossings, employees cannot be denied regularization on the pretext of being temporary project staff.

  Questions settled

  • Does the funding of employee salaries by third-party government departments for level crossing maintenance classify the posts as 'project posts'?
  • What constitutes a 'project' in the context of determining eligibility for regularization of service?
  • Are Temporary Labour Appointment (TLA) workers who have served continuously for over a decade entitled to regularization under the Regularization Policy, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways through CEO vs Member, NIRC, etc2020 IHC 52 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railway through CEO/Sr. General Manager Pakistan Railways2020 PLC 184 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-13
  interlocutory ordersNIRC appealFull Bench quorumconstitutional jurisdictionmaintainabilityworkman statustransfer and posting
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition assails interim orders passed by a learned Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) suspending transfer and posting orders of private respondents, summoning officers, and initiating contempt proceedings. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of the writ petition and whether interlocutory orders passed by the NIRC are appealable to its Full Bench under Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, given the temporary non-availability of the Full Bench due to a lack of quorum. The court held that Section 58(2)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, does not exclude interlocutory orders from the appellate jurisdiction of the Full Bench, unlike other specific statutes containing express bars. The court further held that where the statutory appellate forum is non-functional for want of quorum, the High Court may exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to prevent a party from being left remediless during the interim period. Consequently, the impugned orders were suspended pending the availability of the Full Bench of the NIRC, establishing the principle that interlocutory orders of the NIRC are appealable to its Full Bench and that constitutional jurisdiction may be invoked when the statutory appellate forum lacks a quorum.

  Questions settled

  • Are interlocutory orders passed by a bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission appealable to the Full Bench under Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does Section 58 of the IndustrialRelations Act, 2012 expressly exclude interlocutory orders from the appellate jurisdiction of the Full Bench?
  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction against NIRC orders when the Full Bench is non-functional for want of quorum?
  • Do executive position holders challenging their transfer orders prima facie fall within the definition of a workman before the NIRC?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mobile Communications Limited vs The Province of Sindh &2020 SHC 1386 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Mobile Communications Limited and another vs Mubasher2020 CLD 86 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-08-30Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Pvt Ltd vs Fed. of Pakistan and Other2020 SHC 1016 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-20Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Employees Coo. Housing Society vs Kbca & Ors2020 SHC 1102 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-27Read full judgment →
• Pak Sarzameen Party vs E.C.P. & Others2020 SHC 754 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-21Read full judgment →
• Pak Qatar Family Takaful Limited vs Government Of Gilgit-Baltistan2020 CLD 1394 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-08-26Read full judgment →
• Pak Muhammad vs Mst. Rozeena Waseem and another2020 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
• P.T.C.L vs Pakistan & another2020 SHC 220 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
• P.C. Nasir Hussain vs The State2020 SHC 418 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-16
  anti-terrorism jurisdictionpersonal enmityprivate vendettaterrorism definitiontransfer of casecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, which transferred a case involving an attack on police personnel to a regular Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether the alleged act of firing upon police officers during a matrimonial dispute automatically constitutes terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, thereby necessitating trial in an Anti-Terrorism Court. The Court held that the impugned order was correct and dismissed the application. Relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Ghulam Hussain v. The State, the Court affirmed that an act, even if grave or involving violence against law enforcement, does not qualify as terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, unless it is designed to coerce, intimidate, or overawe the government or public, or to advance specific sectarian, ethnic, or religious causes. The key principle laid down is that actions taken in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta do not satisfy the statutory definition of terrorism, regardless of the severity of the violence involved.

  Questions settled

  • Does an act of violence against police personnel automatically constitute terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can an action committed in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta be classified as terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is an order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, challengeable under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Owais Shams Durrani and others vs Vice Chancellor, Bacha Khan2020 PLC (C.S.) 1002, 2020 PLJ SC 367, 2020 P SC 1345, 2020 SCMR 1041, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-04-29
  contract employmentregularization of servicetermination of servicevested rightconstitutional jurisdictiontemporary postsuniversity employeesdiscrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Peshawar High Court regarding the termination of contract employees at Bacha Khan University. The petitioners, appointed as Upper Division Clerks on a contract basis, sought regularization of their services and challenged their termination after several extensions. The core legal question was whether contract employees appointed under the Vice Chancellor's emergency powers have a vested right to regularization. The Supreme Court held that the initial appointments were made under Section 11(5)d of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012, which restricts the power to create temporary posts and make appointments to a maximum of three years without further extension. The Court observed that the petitioners were appointed without a transparent competitive process or advertisement. It was further held that contract employment does not confer a vested right to regularization, especially when the statutory power authorizing the appointment has exhausted itself by operation of law. The Court also rejected the plea of discrimination based on other universities' practices, noting each university is governed by its own statutes.

  Read full judgment →
• Ovex Technologies (Private) Limited vs PCM PK (Private) Limited and others2021 KLR Civil Cases 20, 2020 PLD Islamabad 52, 2020 CLD 15 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Overseas Pakistan Foundation vs N.I.R.C (Full Bench) and 02 others2020 SHC 1432 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-24
  constitutional petitionjurisdiction of NIRCconcurrent findingsreinstatementworker and workmanindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation challenging the concurrent orders of the National Industrial Relation Commission (NIRC) Full Bench and Single Member Bench, which had set aside the discharge of respondent No.3 from service and reinstated him with back benefits. The core legal question centered on whether the NIRC had jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition and whether concurrent findings of fact by the labor forums could be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that the employee fell within the definition of a 'worker' or 'workman' under the relevant labor laws, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the NIRC, and that concurrent factual findings free from illegality or material irregularity cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that High Courts will not disturb concurrent findings of lower judicial forums unless a patent error of law or perverse appreciation of evidence is demonstrated, while employers retain the right to take lawful disciplinary measures following due process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Industrial Relation Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition filed by an employee whose duties fall within the ambit of a worker or workman?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by labor forums under its constitutional jurisdiction without establishing an illegality, infirmity, or material irregularity?
  • Does an employer retain the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against an employee in accordance with service regulations after following due legal formalities?
  Read full judgment →
• Otsuka Pakistan Limited vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Health2020 MLD 185 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31
  tender awardbidding documentspublic procurementjudicial reviewconstitutional jurisdictionpublic interestfinancial soundnessmandatory specifications
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging the award of a government tender for the supply of Large Volume Parenterals (LVPs) equipped with an injection port and eurocap. The core legal question is whether a tender could be awarded in derogation of the mandatory terms and conditions prescribed in the bidding documents and to a bidder who failed financial soundness criteria. The Sindh High Court held that the decision to award the contract to a non-compliant bidder, whose products lacked the mandatory eurocap and who failed financial soundness thresholds, was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of public interest and procurement laws. The court established that terms of a tender cannot be varied post-opening of bids to favor a single party, and that judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction is maintainable in matters affecting public health and procurement transparency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tender can be awarded in derogation of the mandatory terms and conditions prescribed in the bidding documents?
  • Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction to entertain a petition regarding procurement processes that impact public health and public interest?
  • Can the terms and conditions of a tender be altered or reinterpreted after the opening of bids?
  • Is the acceptance of a bid from a participant who fails the mandatory financial soundness criteria sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Oshaque Ahmed @ Oshaque Ali s/o Shahmir Khan Lashari vs Rajindar2020 SHC 1228 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequeout-of-court settlementcomplainant consentcriminal procedurebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Oshaque Ahmed @ Oshaque Ali Lashari, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dismissal of his initial bail plea by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the complainant's stance. The High Court, upon reviewing the record and noting that the complainant appeared in person and expressed no objection to the confirmation of bail, allowed the application. The court held that since the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement and the complainant consented to the relief, the interim pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that where a complainant voluntarily settles the dispute with the accused and raises no objection to the grant of bail, such consent constitutes a significant factor for the court to consider in confirming pre-arrest bail, provided the overall circumstances of the case warrant such relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the complainant has reached an out-of-court settlement with the accused?
  • Does the lack of objection from a complainant regarding the confirmation of bail influence the court's decision in a non-compoundable offence?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR a relevant factor for the court to consider when confirming pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Oocl Pakistan Pvt Ltd vs Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1098 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-27Read full judgment →
• Omer Sharif vs Government of Punjab through its Secretary Colonies2021 CLC 360, 2020 LHC 2081 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-06Read full judgment →
• Olympia Trading Co. vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2020 SHC 1004 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
• Okash Khalid Memon & 04 others vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2021 PLC (C.S. ) 463, 2020 SHC 160 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-18
  recruitment rulescivil serviceappointment by transfercadre scheduleprovincial administrative serviceservice lawdepartmental promotion committee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the appointment of officers from other cadres to the post of Secretary (BPS-17), District Regional Transport Authorities (DRTA), contending that the 2011 Recruitment Rules restricted such appointments to specific methods, excluding transfers from other departments. The core legal question was whether the government possessed the authority to fill these posts via transfer from other cadres, thereby bypassing the prescribed recruitment methods. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the post of Secretary, DRTA, falls within the cadre schedule, which permits the appointment of officers from the Provincial Administrative Service (PAS), Ex-PCS, and Provincial Secretariat Service (PSS). The Court established that while Rule 9(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, allows for appointment by transfer, this power is not absolute. Such transfers must strictly adhere to eligibility, qualifications, and procedural requirements, including review by the Departmental Promotion Committee or Provincial Selection Board. Furthermore, Rule 9(1) cannot be utilized as a mechanism for horizontal movement or permanent absorption into a different cadre against the established scheme of the Act and Rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government fill a post by transfer from other cadres if the specific Recruitment Rules prescribe only initial appointment and promotion?
  • Does Rule 9(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, allow for the permanent absorption of a civil servant into a different cadre?
  • Is the power to appoint a civil servant by transfer under Rule 9(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, subject to the eligibility and qualification conditions of the transferee department?
  Read full judgment →
• Obidullah and another vs The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another2020 SCMR 1970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-29
  bail cancellationfurther inquirycriminal petitiontentative assessmentsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the trial court and upheld by the High Court in a criminal case involving allegations of abetment and conspiracy, specifically carrying the main accused to the crime scene and having alleged relationships or contact with the accused. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in granting and maintaining bail to the accused respondents pending trial based on tentative assessments of the record and statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that no case for interference with the concession of bail was made out, as the tentative conclusions regarding the evidence and statements called for further inquiry under the law. The key principle laid down is that where the involvement of an accused requires further inquiry based on tentative assessment at the bail stage, appellate interference with the grant of bail is unwarranted, leaving the prosecution to establish guilt during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail granted by the High Court warrants interference by the Supreme Court when the case falls within the scope of further inquiry?
  • Can mere contact or alleged relationships with accused persons serve as sufficient grounds for the cancellation of bail?
  • Is a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient to deny bail when it does not implicate the accused directly in the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Obaidullah etc vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 532 · Balochistan High Court
  retracted confessioncircumstantial evidencejudicial confessiondeath sentence commutationballistic expert reportcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals and a murder reference arising from the conviction of appellants for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question addressed is whether a conviction can be sustained based on retracted judicial confessions and circumstantial evidence, specifically the recovery of a crime weapon. The Court held that while retracted confessions require careful scrutiny, they are legally admissible and can form the sole basis for conviction if the court is satisfied they are voluntary and truthful. In this case, the chain of circumstantial evidence, including the judicial confessions and ballistic reports, was sufficient to establish guilt. However, regarding sentencing, the Court exercised discretion to commute the death sentence of one appellant to life imprisonment, noting the influence of an absconding co-accused and the delay in recording the confessions. The key principle laid down is that while the rule of corroboration for retracted confessions is one of abundant caution, it is not an inflexible requirement if the confession is otherwise reliable and voluntary.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on a retracted judicial confession without independent corroboration?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession made while in police custody admissible as evidence?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the confession?
  • Under what circumstances can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Obaidullah and others vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 637 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-21
  retracted confessionjudicial confessioncircumstantial evidencemurderdeath sentence commutationballistic expert reportrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals, revisions, an acquittal appeal, and a murder reference arising from a trial court judgment convicting appellants Zubair Ahmed and Obaidullah for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the admissibility and evidentiary value of retracted judicial confessions, the requirement of independent corroboration, and the evaluation of circumstantial evidence including weapon recovery and ballistic reports. The Balochistan High Court held that a retracted judicial confession, if found truthful, voluntary, and confidence-inspiring, can be legally relied upon and even form the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration, though corroboration as a rule of caution is desirable. The court upheld the convictions based on voluntary judicial confessions, pointing recoveries, and positive forensic reports, but commuted the death sentence of Zubair Ahmed to imprisonment for life due to mitigating circumstances including a delay in recording the confession and influence by an absconding co-accused. The acquittal of a co-accused based on an inadmissible extra-judicial confession was also maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession be used as the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Whether a delay of six or seven days in recording a judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the confession.
  • What is the evidentiary value of information received from an accused in police custody leading to a discovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to imprisonment for life on the ground of mitigating circumstances such as influence by a co-accused and delay in recording a confession?
  Read full judgment →
• Obaid Jamshed vs The StatePTCL 2021 CL. 516, 2020 YLR 929, 2020 PTD 493 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-03
  post-arrest bailsales tax evasionfurther inquiryextra-judicial confessionrule of consistencytax fraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from FIR No. 01 of 2018 under sections 2(37) and 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, involving allegations of sales tax evasion, fake registration, and fraudulent import of fabrics by the main accused, Saif-ul-Mulk. The applicant, Obaid Jamshed, was implicated in the interim challan as a broker and tax consultant who allegedly facilitated the offense and claimed monetary benefits. The core legal question is whether the applicant has made out a case for post-arrest bail considering the tentative nature of the evidence, his role as a secondary accused, and the rule of consistency with co-accused who were already granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that the case against the applicant falls within the scope of further inquiry under the statutory provisions, as the allegations primarily rested on an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession and he was not the principal offender. The court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, laying down the principle that tentative assessment of evidence, lack of active connivance with the main accused, and parity with co-accused form valid grounds for granting bail in tax fraud cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the allegations against an accused are based on an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession?
  • Does a secondary accused acting as a broker in a tax evasion scheme make out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of parity when co-accused with similar allegations have already been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Oasis Travels (Pvt.) Limited vs Donvand Limited and others2020 CLC 1128 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-17Read full judgment →
• N/A vs The Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad : In the matter of2020 PTD 293 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2019-12-19Read full judgment →
• Numberdar Rahim Khan and others vs Sherbaz Block Makers through Sherbaz and others2020 MLD 1713 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-11-27Read full judgment →
• NRSP Microfinance Bank Limited vs The Additional Sessions Judge/Justice2021 PLJ Lahore 43, 2020 LHC 764 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-06Read full judgment →
• Noyeser Khan Jadoon vs Khan Afsar Jadoon2020 CLC 1648, 2020 PHC 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
• Noureen Naz & others vs Province of Sindh and others2020 SHC 172 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-20Read full judgment →
• Nouman Khan alias Roman vs The State and others2020 SCMR 666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-06
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysection 164 statementmurdercriminal petitionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition, converted into an appeal, challenges the order of the Peshawar High Court whereby post-arrest bail was refused to the petitioner in a case arising from FIR No. 524 registered under sections 302, 200, 201, 202, and 203 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was connected to the alleged offence through sufficient legally admissible evidence to warrant the denial of bail, particularly given that he was not named in the initial FIR and was subsequently implicated through a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without details of the source. The Supreme Court held that the statement lacked specific details of the source of information and, in the absence of any other legally admissible piece of evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime, the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant subject to furnishing surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lacking details of the source of information constitute sufficient legally admissible evidence to deny post-arrest bail?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Can a petitioner not named in the initial FIR be refused bail solely on the basis of a subsequent general implication without corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nouman Ali vs Mst. Firdous & Others2020 SHC 716 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-24Read full judgment →
• Nouman @ Foji vs The State2020 SHC 1134 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
• Notan Lal vs The State2020 SHC 414 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-13
  post-arrest bailanti-terrorism jurisdictionderogatory remarksstatutory interpretationsessions court jurisdictioninherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging the order of the Sessions Judge, Ghotki, who had dismissed the applicant's post-arrest bail application on the ground of lacking jurisdiction, holding that the offense under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constituted terrorism under Section 6(2)(f) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether an offense under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically qualifies as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 merely due to its gravity or the setting in which it was allegedly committed. The Sindh High Court held that an action, however grave, does not constitute terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 unless it fulfills the specific design or purpose criteria outlined in sub-section (1) thereof, alongside falling within sub-section (2). The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Sessions Judge to decide the bail application afresh, laying down the principle that the subjective gravity of an offense without the statutory intent specified in Section 6(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 does not attract anti-terrorism jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offense under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically fall within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Can an action, howsoever grave or shocking, be categorized as terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 without meeting the specific design or purpose requirements of sub-section (1)?
  • Must sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 be read in conjunction with sub-section (1) to determine if an act constitutes terrorism?
  Read full judgment →
• Noorzali vs The State etc2020 PHC 372 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-22Read full judgment →
• Noor-un-Nisa etc vs United Bank Limited etc2021 PLD Lahore 90, 2020 LHC 2254 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-15Read full judgment →
• Noor-Ud-Din Bugti through Secretary General and others vs Sultan2021 PLJ Quetta 39, 2020 PLC 135 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-24
  trade union registrationgovernment servantscivil servantsindustrial relationscollective bargaining agentwelfare associationlabour lawsjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged a Labour Appellate Tribunal order concerning the disqualification of office bearers of two trade unions formed by employees of the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Balochistan. The core legal question was whether government employees qualify as "workers" or "workmen" entitled to form trade unions under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The Court held that government employees are civil servants and do not fall within the definition of "worker" or "workman" under the Act. Consequently, they lack the legal standing to form trade unions under that legislation. The Court set aside the judgments of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal for lack of jurisdiction and declared the registration of such unions illegal. The key principle laid down is that government employees are governed by the Balochistan Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, and may only form welfare associations under specific conditions, not trade unions under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The Registrar of Trade Unions was directed to cancel such illegal registrations immediately.

  Questions settled

  • Do government employees fall within the definition of 'worker' or 'workman' under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Can government employees form trade unions under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Are government departments considered 'establishments' for the purpose of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • What is the legal scope for government servants to form associations under the Balochistan Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor-ud-Din Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan etc2020 LHC 1778 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-07Read full judgment →
• Noor Zaman vs The State etc2021 YLR 1711, 2020 PHC 458 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-13Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State2020 MLD 1071 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-16
  criminal transfer applicationtransfer of criminal casefair trialapprehension of dangerburden of proofmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Transfer Application was filed by the applicant, a sitting minister of the Balochistan Provincial Assembly, seeking the transfer of a murder case (FIR No. 27/2011) from the court of the Sessions Judge, Loralai, to a court of competent jurisdiction in Quetta. The applicant contended that he faced serious threats of dire consequences from the complainant, thereby necessitating a transfer to ensure his safety and a fair trial. The core legal question was whether the applicant established sufficient grounds to justify the transfer of the criminal trial based on mere apprehensions of danger. The Court held that the application was devoid of merit, noting that the applicant failed to produce any cogent evidence, such as copies of threatening messages or reports to authorities, to substantiate his claims of danger. The Court emphasized that the transfer of a case cannot be claimed as a matter of routine or at the mere wish of a party. The key principle laid down is that a criminal case should not be transferred from a court of competent jurisdiction unless the grounds seeking such transfer are supported by strong, cogent reasons or convincing evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case be transferred from a court of competent jurisdiction based solely on the applicant's apprehension of danger?
  • Is a sitting minister entitled to the transfer of a criminal case as a matter of right?
  • What is the evidentiary standard required to justify the transfer of a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State and another2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 60, 2020 SCMR 1049, PLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 69, · Supreme Court of Ireland · 2020-05-07
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryspecial oathdelayed recording of statementscriminal investigationconstitutional right to liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of murder under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the inconsistent investigation reports, the reliance on a 'special oath' in a criminal matter, and the significant delay in recording witness statements. The Supreme Court held that the reliance on a special oath was contrary to Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, which excludes criminal cases. Furthermore, the Court observed that the delayed recording of witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rendered their evidentiary value negligible. Finding that the case warranted further inquiry, the Court granted the petition, converted it into an appeal, and allowed bail, emphasizing that the liberty of a citizen is a precious constitutional right.

  Questions settled

  • Is the concept of a special oath applicable to criminal cases under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the delayed recording of a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 reduce its evidentiary value to nil?
  • Can an accused be granted bail under the principle of 'further inquiry' if investigation reports are contradictory?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Ex Officio Justice of Peace A.D.J.I Tando Allahyar2020 SHC 508 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Customs Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar Bench2020 P SC 729, PTCL 2020 CL. 176, 2020 PTD 523, 2020 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-29
  customs referencelimitationcondonation of delayconfiscation of vehicletampered chassisleave to appealsufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's Customs Reference as time-barred. The underlying dispute arose from the confiscation of a vehicle and contraband medicines by Customs authorities, which were found to be non-duty paid with a tampered chassis. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the confiscation before the Deputy Collector, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), and the Customs Appellate Tribunal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that conflicting forensic reports existed regarding the vehicle's chassis and sought condonation of an eleven-month delay in filing the Customs Reference, citing the illness of his Special Attorney. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to rebut the forensic findings before the lower fora and that the argument regarding contradictory reports was an afterthought. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the explanation for the eleven-month delay was neither convincing nor plausible, failing to constitute sufficient grounds for condonation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that unexplained, significant delays in legal proceedings cannot be condoned without valid justification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an eleven-month delay in filing a Customs Reference can be condoned based solely on the illness of a Special Attorney?
  • Can a party raise a new factual argument regarding contradictory forensic reports for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not raised before lower fora?
  • Does the failure to rebut forensic evidence regarding a tampered chassis before lower adjudicatory bodies preclude a party from challenging such findings in a Customs Reference?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and others vs Province of Sindh and others2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 204 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-17Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad alias Manoor and Wazir Rehman vs Mst. Dil Shad Bibi2020 PHC 328 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Noor Jan and others vs Mst. Buzarga & others2020 CLC 1482, 2020 [M] C L R 664 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-27Read full judgment →
• Noor Islam vs Ghani Ur Rehman and another2020 SCMR 310, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-04-05
  identification paradecriminal appealrobberyimpersonationbenefit of doubtacquittalre-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentences under sections 392, 419, 420, and 170 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which had been upheld by the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question revolved around the reliability and sufficiency of an identification parade and circumstantial evidence to sustain a criminal conviction for robbery and impersonation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the identification parade suffered from severe legal infirmities, delayed execution, and lack of foundational safeguards, rendering it a weak piece of evidence. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to recover any stolen currency or incriminating items, failed to trace vehicles or co-accused, and left crucial gaps in the investigative chain unexplained. The key principle laid down is that an identification parade conducted with substantial procedural flaws and unsupported by corroborative evidence is insufficient to safely base a criminal conviction, and doing so constitutes a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an identification parade conducted long after the incident without proper procedural safeguards can form the sole basis for a criminal conviction?
  • Does the absence of recovery of stolen property and incriminating evidence weaken the prosecution's case significantly?
  • Is a conviction sustainable under the law when the foundational evidence suffers from multiple unexplained infirmities and creates a miscarriage of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Hassan vs The State2020 YLR 2643 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-07
  criminal appealnarcoticssafe custody of samplechemical examiner reportbenefit of the doubtCNS Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for four years and six months along with a fine. The core legal question involves whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and transmission of the recovered narcotics and proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody and transmission of the charas due to the non-examination of key officials, delayed chemical examination, and discrepancies in the weight of the recovered substance. The court laid down the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-examination of the Malkhana in-charge and the official who transported the sample to the chemical examiner creates a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case regarding safe custody?
  • Does a delay in submitting the recovered narcotics for chemical examination entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient to warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Bakhsh vs The State2020 SCMR 1205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-01
  post-arrest bailfugitive from lawreasonable groundsmurderdiscretionary reliefcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Noor Bukhsh, sought post-arrest bail in a case arising from an incident on 29.9.2013 where he allegedly shot Abdul Qayyum, resulting in spinal injuries and subsequent death nearly six years later, leading to the substitution of Section 324 with Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail despite being a fugitive from law for over five years and in the presence of reasonable grounds connecting him to the offense under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having stayed away from law as a fugitive for a prolonged period, disentitled himself to discretionary bail concessions, and reasonable grounds existed connecting him to the crime. The court laid down the principle that a fugitive from law for a long period disentitles themselves from the discretionary concession of bail, and that a crime report supported by witness statements and medical evidence constitutes reasonable grounds under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 precluding further probe for bail purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petitioner who remains a fugitive from law for a prolonged period disentitle himself to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the substitution of Section 324 with Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon the injured person's death warrants the grant of bail in the presence of reasonable grounds?
  • Does a crime report supported by witness statements and medical evidence constitute reasonable grounds under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ali vs The Province Of Sindh through Secretary to Government of Sindh, Home Department, Karachi and 3 others2020 PLD Sindh 700 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05
  malicious prosecutiondamageslimitationacquittalbenefit of doubttortmaster and servantcivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff instituted a civil suit against the defendants seeking reinstatement in service with back benefits and damages for malicious prosecution, unlawful arrest, and mental torture following his arrest in a criminal case and subsequent acquittal. The core legal questions addressed whether the suit for damages for malicious prosecution was maintainable and within the period of limitation, and whether the essential ingredients of malicious prosecution were established. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove malice, want of reasonable and probable cause, or that the prosecution terminated in his favour on the ground of innocence rather than the benefit of doubt. The court further held that the suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act 1908. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The key legal principle laid down is that to sustain an action for malicious prosecution, all essential elements—including malice and the absence of reasonable and probable cause—must cumulatively coexist, and an acquittal by extending the benefit of doubt alone does not establish malicious prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients that must coexist to sustain an action for malicious prosecution?
  • Does an acquittal of an accused person by extending the benefit of doubt automatically establish a case for malicious prosecution against the arresting officer or complainant?
  • What is the prescribed period of limitation for filing a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment?
  • Does the issuance of a legal notice extend the period of limitation for instituting a civil suit when the original cause of action has already expired?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad and 6 others vs Anwaar Mohyuddin and others2021 CLC 1639, 2020 PLJ Lahore 573 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-26Read full judgment →
• Noman Khan vs The State2020 MLD 1113 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24
  anti-terrorismillegal arms and explosivesbenefit of doubtexclusive possessionnon-production of case propertycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves special criminal appeals directed against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and section 23(i)A of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 following the alleged recovery of a large cache of arms, explosives, and ammunition from a park store where the appellant worked as manager. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved exclusive possession and guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when the premises had been taken over by the municipal corporation months prior to the incident, and whether the non-production of case property and lack of forensic continuity vitiated the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish exclusive possession or connect the appellant to the recovered items, noting significant gaps in the investigation, failure to produce the case property, and unresolved access to the locked premises. The court laid down the principle that a single reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal as of right, and where the premises were not in the exclusive control of the accused, conviction cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the recovered case property during trial render the conviction unsustainable?
  • Whether an accused can be held in exclusive possession of premises when the municipal corporation had taken over possession months prior to the alleged raid?
  • Is a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution case sufficient to warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Does the absence of evidence regarding the safe custody and delayed transmission of items to the forensic laboratory weaken the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nizar Noor Ali and others vs Ameer Ali and others2020 [M] C L R 1279 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-06Read full judgment →
• Nizam Ud Din vs Senior Vice-President And Regional Manager Operation2020 CLC 1934 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-27Read full judgment →
• Nizabat Mehmood vs State2021 YLR 27, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 1755 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-30
  narcotic substanceschain of custodyreasonable doubtcriminal appealrecovery proceedingschemical examinersafe transmission
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of recovery proceedings and the integrity of the chain of custody for the contraband. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court identified glaring contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses concerning the timing of the arrest and the recovery process. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples to the chemical examiner, as the official responsible for the transit was not produced as a witness. Additionally, the Court noted that when multiple pieces of narcotics are recovered, representative samples must be taken from each piece for valid chemical analysis. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing that material contradictions and a broken chain of custody are fatal to the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to produce the official responsible for transmitting contraband samples to the chemical examiner break the chain of custody?
  • Are material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the time and circumstances of an arrest sufficient to create reasonable doubt?
  • Is it necessary to take representative samples from each separate piece of recovered narcotic substance for a valid chemical analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Nitesh Kumar vs Muhammad Hassan and others2020 SHC 177 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
• Nishat Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan etcPTCL 2021 CL. 364, 2020 PTD 1641, 2020 LHC 432 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-29Read full judgment →
• Nishat Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 PCTLR 7, 2020 PTD 101 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-24Read full judgment →
• Nisar Mustafa Shaikh (Since dead) vs Sajid Ahmed Kalhoro2020 SHC 1400 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
• Nisar Hussain vs The State through Advocate-General of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and an other2020 MLD 432 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-28
  benefit of doubtacquittal of co-accusedidentical rolesodomyHudood lawscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 377, A.P.C. and section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985. The core legal question was whether a convict whose co-accused with identical allegations and evidence has been acquitted by this Court is entitled to the benefit of that acquittal, despite not having previously pursued an appeal due to circumstances beyond his control. The Supreme Court held that where the prosecution evidence has already been disbelieved and a co-accused with the same role has been acquitted on the same set of evidence, the benefit of such acquittal must be extended to the co-convict. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of an acquittal secured by a co-accused can be extended to a non-appealing or previously dismissed co-convict whose role and evidence are identical.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of an acquittal granted to a co-accused be extended to a co-convict who did not file an appeal?
  • Whether a convict is entitled to acquittal on the same set of evidence when the prosecution case has already been disbelieved regarding a co-accused?
  • Does a co-convict share the benefit of doubt when his role and allegations are identical to those of an acquitted co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Hussain vs The State through Advocate-General of Azad Jammu &2020 P SC (Crl.) 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtacquittal of co-accusedsodomyOffence of Zinaidentical evidencenon-appealing co-convict
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the maintenance of the appellant's conviction for offences under the Azad Penal Code and the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985. The core legal question was whether a non-appealing co-convict is entitled to the benefit of an acquittal granted to a co-accused by the Supreme Court when the prosecution evidence against both is identical and the case against the co-accused was found to be unproven. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to the same relief as the co-convict, noting that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the co-accused, and the appellant's circumstances—including his inability to pursue the appeal earlier due to military service—did not preclude him from seeking justice. The key principle laid down is that where the role of co-accused is identical and the evidence is the same, the benefit of an acquittal granted to one convict on the basis of insufficient evidence must be extended to the other, even if the latter did not initially appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a non-appealing co-convict be granted the benefit of an acquittal awarded to a co-accused on the same set of evidence?
  • Does the failure to file an appeal due to circumstances beyond one's control preclude a convict from seeking the benefit of a co-accused's acquittal?
  • Is a convict entitled to acquittal when the prosecution evidence against him is identical to that of a co-accused who has already been acquitted by the appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed, Primary Teacher Boys Middle School New City, Mirpur vs Divisional Director Elementary and Secondary Education, Mirpur Division, Mirpur and others2020 SC AJK 122 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed and two others vs Qari Ahmed Khan2020 LHC 3162 · Lahore High Court
  suicide blastcriminal conspiracyextra-judicial confessionjudicial confessiontest identification paradebenefit of the doubtabscondenceanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against convictions and death sentences handed down by the trial court arising from a high-profile suicide blast incident resulting in multiple fatalities and injuries. The core legal questions relate to the reliability of extra-judicial and judicial confessions, the legality of test identification parades, the presence of eyewitnesses, the validity of recoveries under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove criminal conspiracy. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence suffered from major improvements, contradictions, procedural violations during test identification parades and recoveries, and inadmissible extra-judicial and judicial confessions. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and that retracted or flawed confessions and tainted evidence cannot form the basis of a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession made to a person of no authority or close confidence without corroboration is sufficient to sustain a conviction?
  • Does a joint test identification parade of multiple accused persons render the identification proceedings unsafe and devoid of evidentiary value?
  • Whether the violation of mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding association of independent witnesses of the locality vitiates the recovery of incriminating articles?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of the abscondence of an accused when the substantive pieces of evidence have been disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed alias Chaloo vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 810 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-09
  unnatural offencesodomychild witnessmedical evidencerelated witnessSection 377 PPCcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Jail Appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasirabad at Dera Murad Jamali, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine, along with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed an unnatural offence against an eight-year-old child. The core legal questions pertained to whether the conviction could stand on the testimony of a child victim and related witness, and whether such evidence was properly corroborated by medical evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence, holding that the victim's testimony was direct, natural, and unshaken, fully corroborated by prompt medical examination and the potency certificate of the appellant. The Court established that the solitary, confidence-inspiring testimony of a minor victim of sodomy is sufficient for conviction when corroborated by cogent circumstantial and medical evidence, and that related witnesses are competent absent any proof of enmity or motive to falsely implicate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the solitary and confidence-inspiring testimony of a minor victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction for sodomy under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can the testimony of a related witness be relied upon to support a conviction in a criminal trial?
  • Can the evidence of a child witness be acted upon if the trial court has satisfied itself regarding the child's competence and rational capacity to answer questions?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs The Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2020 PTD 602 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2019-12-30Read full judgment →
• Nihal Khan vs P.O Sindh & others2020 SHC 92 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-29Read full judgment →
• Nihad Ali vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1368, 2019 PHC 150 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-06-10Read full judgment →
• Nib Bank Limited through Authorized Officer and Special Attorney vs Messrs2020 CLD 1227 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-01Read full judgment →
• Niaz Bat Khan vs The State2020 MLD 1258 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-02-13
  superdariinterim custodyvehicle impoundmentcriminal revisionbona fide ownercase property
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the interim custody (superdari) of a vehicle impounded in connection with an FIR registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as the registered owner, was entitled to the custody of the vehicle pending trial, particularly when the vehicle was not listed as case property in the submitted challan. The Court held that the petitioner, being the bona fide owner with no rival claimants, was entitled to custody. It reasoned that since the vehicle was not required for evidence in the challan, detaining it at the police station would lead to unnecessary decay and deterioration. The Court allowed the petition, directing the prosecution to release the vehicle on superdari, subject to the condition that the petitioner produces the vehicle before the trial court whenever required.

  Questions settled

  • Is the registered owner of a vehicle entitled to its interim custody (superdari) if the vehicle is not listed as case property in the challan?
  • Can a vehicle impounded in a narcotics case be released to its owner if it is not required for production in court?
  • Does the indefinite detention of a vehicle at a police station justify its release to the owner pending trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ali Rajper vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 96 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-01
  kidnapping for ransompolice encounteranti-terrorismocular testimonyabductee testimonycriminal appealconviction upheld
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Niaz Ali Rajper, who was tried and convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur, for offenses including kidnapping for ransom and anti-terrorism activities. The prosecution's case was that the appellant, along with an accomplice, abducted a 10-year-old schoolboy from a government primary school for ransom and was subsequently apprehended by the police during an encounter following a search. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges of kidnapping for ransom without a completed payment, whether the defense plea of enmity was sustainable, and whether the testimony of related witnesses and the abductee was reliable. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through natural, confidence-inspiring ocular testimony from the abductee and eyewitnesses, corroborated by police recovery and medical/forensic reports. The court laid down the principle that under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 2(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, the actual payment or formal demand of ransom is not a sine qua non to constitute the offense of kidnapping for ransom, provided the abduction was executed for that purpose. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Is the actual payment or demand of ransom a mandatory requirement to constitute an offense under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the testimony of related prosecution witnesses and the victim can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a kidnapping case?
  • Does a mere allegation of false implication due to enmity suffice to absolve an accused without bringing supportive evidence on record?
  • Whether the offense of kidnapping for ransom is established when the victim is rescued by police during an encounter immediately following the abduction?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ali and another vs Mst. Aisha and another2020 CLC 669 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed and 3 others vs Mst. Musharaf Shaheen2020 CLC 952 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-01-29Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed Abro and others vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2020 SHC 1434 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad vs Incharge NADRA2020 LHC 743 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-13
  res judicatacorrection of date of birthNADRA recordcivil servantjurisdiction of civil courtservice tribunalterms and conditions of servicerevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenged the concurrent dismissal of the petitioner's second civil suit seeking the correction of his date of birth in the record of NADRA. The core legal questions were whether a subsequent suit for the same cause of action is barred by the principle of res judicata when an earlier suit has attained finality, and whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a civil servant's suit concerning the alteration of a recorded date of birth touching terms and conditions of service. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the second suit was barred under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as it sought to re-agitate a settled controversy, and that the jurisdiction of civil courts is ousted in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, which fall exclusively within the domain of service tribunals under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principles laid down are that finality must attach to judicial decisions to prevent vexatious litigation under the doctrine of res judicata, and that civil courts cannot entertain service-related disputes of civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Is a subsequent civil suit barred by res judicata when an earlier suit regarding the correction of a date of birth has been heard and finally decided?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a civil servant's suit relating to the alteration of a date of birth concerning terms and conditions of service?
  • Can a civil servant seek an alteration in their date of birth after the expiration of the prescribed limitation period from the date of joining government service?
  • Should civil courts reject plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 at the inception when suits regarding the correction of a civil servant's date of birth are filed?
  Read full judgment →
• Niamatullah Khan Advocate and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-09
  Article 184(3) jurisdictionencroachment removalamenity landurban planninglocal government autonomypublic interest litigationKarachi civic infrastructure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the systemic collapse of civic infrastructure and widespread illegal encroachment on public and amenity lands in Karachi. The core questions involve the authority of the Supreme Court to intervene in urban planning and encroachment issues under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, the legality of administrative actions by provincial authorities, and the validity of stay orders granted by the High Court regarding public land. The Court ordered the immediate removal of encroachments from railway lands, parks, playgrounds, and footpaths, mandating the restoration of these areas for public use. It stayed construction on disputed commercial projects and directed the Sindh Government to restore the functional autonomy of local government bodies as per the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013. The Court held that it is not bound by High Court stay orders when addressing illegalities on public land under its Article 184(3) jurisdiction, emphasizing that amenity lands cannot be commercially exploited and that public rights to civic infrastructure supersede private interests.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have the power under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to override High Court stay orders concerning illegal encroachments on public land?
  • Can private individual disputes be entertained by the Supreme Court under its Article 184(3) jurisdiction?
  • Are provincial governments permitted to usurp the statutory powers and functions of local government bodies established under the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013?
  Read full judgment →
• Niagara Mills (Pvt.) Ltd vs Wisal-Ahmed Monoo and another2020 CLC 1074 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-02Read full judgment →
• Next Capital Limited through Chief Financial Officer vs The Assistant2020 PTD 808 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-01
  sales taxstatutory remedyalternative remedyconstitutional petitionconsultancy servicestax liabilityjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a brokerage house, filed a constitutional petition challenging the imposition of sales tax on consultancy services under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011, for the tax years ending June 2014. The petitioner sought to bypass the statutory appellate forum, arguing that the legal issue was already pending before the High Court in a separate reference and that departmental authorities had consistently ruled against them. The Court held that the mere pendency of a similar legal question before the High Court or adverse departmental rulings does not constitute a valid ground to abandon or bypass the statutory appellate forum provided under Section 57 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011. The Court emphasized that constitutional petitions under Article 199 are reserved for cases involving fundamental rights violations or challenges to legislative competence. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy against the Order-in-Original while issuing pre-admission notices to examine the specific legal question regarding the taxability of consultancy services in the absence of a specific entry in the Second Schedule.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a similar legal question before the High Court justify bypassing the statutory appellate forum?
  • Can a taxpayer bypass the statutory appeal process simply because departmental authorities have previously decided similar issues against them?
  • Under what circumstances can a party approach the High Court under Article 199 instead of exhausting statutory remedies?
  Read full judgment →
• New Zealand Law Society vs John Llewellyn Stanley2020 SCMR 1972 · Supreme Court of New Zealand · 2020-08-17Read full judgment →
• Nestle Pakistan Ltd. & another vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 PTD 521, 2020 LHC 3369 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-29Read full judgment →
• Nek Nawaz alias Shikar vs The State and Habibullah2021 YLR 872, 2020 PHC 462 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-28Read full judgment →
• Neie-Smadb-Lilley-RMS (JV) through authorized representative and 22020 YLR 519 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-01Read full judgment →
• Nehal vs The State and another2020 SCMR 2053, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 1032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-02
  post-arrest bailrapefalsely implicatedmedical certificateleave declinedcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a bail matter where the petitioner sought pre-trial or post-arrest relief after being accused of violating the prosecutrix at gunpoint inside her home and threatening to upload her pictures on the internet. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given the incriminating medical evidence, prompt reporting, and corroborative circumstances connecting him to the crime. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner's injuries corresponded with the time of the occurrence, and the investigative conclusions coupled with the prosecutrix's statement constituted reasonable grounds under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, precluding his release on bail as no further probe was required. The Court laid down the principle that consistent medical evidence, prompt reporting, and lack of mala fide on the part of the complainant outweigh assertions for bail in heinous offenses like rape.

  Questions settled

  • Whether reasonable grounds exist under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to refuse bail to an accused charged with rape?
  • Does a medical certificate indicating injuries sustained at the time of the occurrence constitute corroborative evidence against an accused seeking bail?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion by lower courts in refusing post-arrest bail when no further probe is required?
  Read full judgment →
• Neelum Steel Industries, Hattar vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Abbottabad2020 PTD (Trib.) 2065 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
• Neelum Jhelum Hydro Electric Project through General Manager vs Sardar Nasrullah Khan and 14 others2020 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 6 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• NBP Saving Fund vs Fed. of Pakistan & Ors2020 SHC 1210 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1025 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-10
  narcotics controlchain of custodychemical examiner reportsecondary evidencebenefit of the doubtcriminal appealidentification evidence
  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 imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involve the reliability of identification evidence for an absconding accused, the legal requirement of establishing safe custody and an unbroken chain of custody for the case property and samples, and the admissibility of a photocopy of the Chemical Examiner's report without producing the original or the author. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, failed to prove safe custody of the narcotics in the Malkhana, and improperly relied on secondary evidence of the Chemical Examiner's report without legal justification. The court laid down the principles that a break in the chain of custody vitiates the reliability of the chemical report, that a photocopy of a report cannot be used without satisfying the legal requirements for secondary evidence or producing the author, and that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe custody and unbroken chain of custody of narcotics samples vitiate a conviction?
  • Can a photocopy of a Chemical Examiner's report be admitted in evidence without satisfying the requirements for secondary evidence or producing the author?
  • Is identification of an absconding accused based on hearsay and uncorroborated police testimony sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • What is the effect of failing to produce the original report of the Government Analyst under Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed Shaikh and others vs National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad and others2020 SCMR 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-17
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailNational Accountability Bureau referencemunicipal land leasecorruption allegations
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from criminal petitions seeking pre-arrest and post-arrest bails by accused individuals, including a former municipal official, an accounts officer, and a private beneficiary, who were arrayed in a National Accountability Bureau reference. The core accusation involved attempts to allegedly dole out in perpetuity a valuable piece of municipal land at a ridiculously low rate through a municipal resolution, following a previous remand by the High Court for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the transaction was not a one-man show, the land continued to vest in the local council, and the remainder signatories of the resolution had not been proceeded against, detaining the petitioners or keeping them behind bars would be harsh and inexpedient while trial was ongoing. Consequently, the Court converted the petitions into appeals and granted pre-arrest and post-arrest bails to the petitioners, while directing the relevant provincial secretary to vigilantly secure the proprietary rights and interests of the local council regarding the land in question.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted to accused public functionaries and private beneficiaries allegedly involved in attempting to lease municipal property at low rates?
  • Does the fact that municipal land continues to vest in the local council influence the grant of bail in accountability cases?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail once granted should be confirmed when the prosecution has the opportunity to prove allegations during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs S.H.O. Qadirabad, etc2020 [M] C L R 1380 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-03Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs A.S.J., etc2020 [M] C L R 1533 · Lahore High Court · 2010-01-29Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad alias Guggi vs The State2020 MLD 1525 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-18
  narcotics recoverychain of custodysafe custodycriminal appealacquittalforensic analysisreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, regarding the alleged recovery of 1250 grams of charas. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery and maintained the integrity of the chain of custody for the contraband. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of the case property from the crime scene to the forensic laboratory. Furthermore, material contradictions regarding the number of parcels and the physical state of the recovered contraband, coupled with the failure to examine the constable who transported the complaint, created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the positive chemical analysis report could not be relied upon, as the primary evidence was compromised. The court emphasized that criminal cases cannot be decided on assumptions and the prosecution must prove each relevant fact through legal evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the police official who transported the complaint to the police station constitute a ground for acquittal?
  • Is the positive chemical analysis report sufficient to sustain a conviction if the safe custody and transmission of the case property are not proved?
  • Does a discrepancy in the physical description of the recovered contraband between the recovery memo and the evidence produced in court vitiate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir A.M. Joint Venture through Chief Executive vs The National Highway2020 PLD Lahore 801 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-19
  Public Accounts CommitteeAudit objectionDue processContractual recoveryWrit jurisdictionParliamentary privilegeNational Highway Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner challenged two letters issued by the National Highway Authority (NHA) seeking recovery of alleged excess payments made under a construction contract, purportedly based on directives from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The core legal questions were whether the PAC has the authority to issue direct recovery orders, whether the NHA can initiate recovery based solely on an audit objection without due process, and whether the dispute was arbitrable. The Court held that the impugned recovery letters were unlawful and set them aside. It established that the PAC is a recommendatory body whose findings are internal parliamentary proceedings immune from judicial review under Article 69 of the Constitution; it lacks the power to issue direct recovery orders. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an audit objection is merely an observation requiring inquiry, not a final determination of liability. Consequently, the NHA cannot act mechanically on audit objections but must follow due process, including notice and adjudication, before attempting to recover funds from a contractor.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Public Accounts Committee have the legal authority to issue direct recovery orders against a contractor?
  • Can a public authority initiate recovery of funds based solely on an audit objection without following due process?
  • Are the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee immune from judicial review under Article 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is an audit objection a final determination of liability that justifies immediate recovery of funds?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazim Inayat vs National Command and Authority and 07 others2020 SHC 938 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-10Read full judgment →
• Nazia Khan vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Education and 32020 PLC (C.S.) 101 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-16
  gender discriminationpublic service appointmentTeachers Recruitment Policyconstitutional protectionneed-based vacancyright to employment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a female candidate, challenged the Education Department's refusal to appoint her as a Junior School Teacher (JST) despite her securing 82 marks in the NTS examination and being eligible under the Teachers Recruitment Policy, 2012. The respondents contended that appointments were made based on need-based vacancy positions within specific Union Councils and that no vacancies existed for female candidates in the petitioner's Union Council, leading to the appointment of male candidates instead. The core legal question was whether the department's policy of excluding female candidates from specific vacancies based on gender-specific need assessments violated constitutional safeguards. The Court held that the department's action was discriminatory and lacked evidentiary support, as no proof was provided that vacancy positions were clearly advertised as male-only. The Court emphasized that Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, prohibits discrimination in public service appointments based on sex. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the authorities to issue an appointment order for the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of female candidates from public service vacancies based on gender-specific need assessments violate Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a government department deny appointment to a qualified candidate based on a need-based vacancy policy if the gender-specific nature of the vacancy was not clearly advertised?
  • Is it discriminatory to prioritize male candidates over a higher-scoring female candidate for a teaching position under the guise of need-based Union Council vacancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad vs The State etc2020 YLR 2064, 2020 LHC 370 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-21
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequestale chequeSection 489-F PPCcriminal liabilitybanking practicevalid presentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This application concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving an allegedly dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings under Section 489-F can be maintained when the cheque was presented to the bank long after its issuance, rendering it "stale" according to standard banking practice. The Court held that the petition for pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. It reasoned that a foundational element of the offence under Section 489-F is the valid presentation of a cheque. A cheque presented beyond the six-month period, recognized by banking usage as "stale," cannot be considered validly presented. Consequently, the Court determined that initiating criminal proceedings based on a stale cheque is malicious and lacks a legal cause of action. The principle laid down is that "dishonour on presentation" requires a valid presentation, and the use of a stale cheque for the purpose of triggering criminal liability fails to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence, thereby justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained if the cheque was presented after the six-month validity period?
  • Does the presentation of a 'stale' cheque constitute a valid presentation for the purposes of establishing an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the presentation of a cheque within a reasonable time a prerequisite for criminal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazia Bibi w/o Mohammad Azam, caste Jatt, r/o Pithorani, Tehsil and2020 SC AJK 34 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Nazer Ahmed vs The State2020 SHC 492 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-05Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed and 3 others vs The State and another2020 YLR 1509 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-14
  criminal appealocular evidenceinjured witnessacquittal of co-accusedindependent corroborationmaterial contradictionsbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, which convicted the appellants for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given that the complainant's ocular account was riddled with material contradictions, improvements, and inconsistencies when compared to earlier police reports. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge, noting that the testimony of the injured witnesses was unreliable and that the medical evidence could not substitute for a credible ocular account. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial court erred in convicting the appellants while acquitting co-accused on the same evidence without independent corroboration. The key principle laid down is that when eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused to whom similar roles were attributed, their testimony cannot be relied upon to convict remaining accused unless supported by strong, independent corroboratory evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of eye-witnesses who have been disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does the presence of injuries on a prosecution witness automatically render their testimony as gospel truth?
  • Can medical evidence serve as a substitute for a credible ocular account in identifying the culprit?
  • Does a delay in recording a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impact the credibility of a witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeem Ullah and others vs The StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 202, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 498, 2020 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-04
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlprohibitory clauseconscious possessioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition, converted into an appeal, challenges the order of the Peshawar High Court whereby the petitioners were refused post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail when the recovered narcotic substance was found in a common area and the issue of conscious possession required determination at trial. The Supreme Court held that since the alleged offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the question of conscious knowledge and possession of the narcotics is to be settled during trial, the petitioners have made out a case for bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and admitted the appellants to post-arrest bail, laying down that offences outside the prohibitory clause where conscious possession is debatable warrant the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a case involving the recovery of narcotics from a common area where conscious possession is questionable be considered for post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →