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.

• Muhammad Tahir Khan Chandio & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 232 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-17
  police uniformunity of commandcadre creationservice conditionsseniorityadministrative lawpolice establishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the re-designation and adjustment of police personnel into a non-uniformed Information Technology (IT) cadre. The core legal questions were whether police officers are legally required to wear uniforms and whether a new police cadre can be created without formal legislative action or government sanction. The Court held that under the Police Act, 1861 and the Police Rules, 1934, all police officers and men performing official duties must wear uniforms, as this is essential for maintaining the unity of command and public authority. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the purported creation of an IT cadre was illegal and void ab initio because it lacked proper legislative backing, government sanction, and Cabinet approval as required by the principles in Mustafa Impex. The Court affirmed that terms and conditions of service, including cadre creation and seniority, cannot be altered without valid legal instruments. Consequently, the Court set aside the re-designation orders, prohibited the stripping of uniforms from the petitioners, and declared the new IT cadre appointments illegal.

  Questions settled

  • Are police officers legally required to wear uniforms while performing official duties?
  • Can a new police cadre be created without formal legislative action or government sanction?
  • Does the creation of a new cadre or the re-designation of civil servants require Cabinet approval?
  • Can the reallocation of administrative work within a department ipso facto merge existing service cadres?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Jamal, Advocate vs Government Of The Punjab and others2020 PLJ Lahore 492, 2020 PLD Lahore 407 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-12
  public interest litigationfundamental rightsfreedom of movementcontinuing mandamusmotorway service areasright to liferight to dignitypublic amenities
  Summary & questions settled

  This public interest litigation was initiated by an advocate under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the enforcement of fundamental rights regarding the provision of basic amenities at service areas on the Lahore-Abdul Hakeem Motorway (M-3). The petitioner contended that the absence of rest areas, mosques, food facilities, and emergency services violated constitutional guarantees. The Lahore High Court examined the state's obligations under Articles 9, 14, 15, 20, 26, and 38 of the Constitution, alongside Islamic principles regarding the treatment of wayfarers. The Court held that when the state restricts entry and exit on motorways, it assumes a mandatory duty to provide essential services for safe travel. Applying the doctrine of 'continuing mandamus,' the Court issued directions to the National Highway Authority and local administrations to expedite the issuance of NOCs and completion of service areas. The judgment establishes that the right to movement includes the right to necessary facilities like food, water, prayer areas, and medical aid, and that failure to provide these constitutes a breach of constitutional duties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to provide basic amenities like food, water, and prayer areas on a controlled-access motorway violates the fundamental right to movement under Article 15?
  • Does the right to practice religion under Article 20 impose a duty on the State to provide prayer facilities at motorway service areas?
  • Can the High Court use the doctrine of 'continuing mandamus' to monitor the progressive implementation of infrastructure facilities in public interest cases?
  • Is the right to access public entertainment and resorts under Article 26 applicable to motorway rest areas?
  • Does the constitutional right to dignity under Article 14 require the State to provide emergency medical care and sanitation facilities for travelers?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan vs Muhammad Raza & othersPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 25, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 1014, 2020 SCMR 1200, 2020 SCP 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-12
  transfer of trialjurisdiction and venueextra-judicial killingensued consequencescriminal petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, whereby the trial of a private complaint concerning the extra-judicial killing of the petitioner's son was transferred from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Talagang, District Chakwal to the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lahore. The core legal question revolved around the determination of proper jurisdiction and venue for the trial of an offence involving acts committed in different jurisdictions and the interpretation of sections 177 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the actual murder and ensuing consequences occurred within Lahore, and witnesses and post-mortem examinations were also located there, the High Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction to transfer the trial under the exceptions provided in section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court laid down that where an offence involves acts done and consequences ensuing in different local limits, the court within whose jurisdiction the consequence ensues has proper venue and jurisdiction to try the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Which court has the proper jurisdiction and venue to try an offence where acts are committed in one local limit and the consequences ensue in another?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in transferring a criminal trial from one district to another under section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 based on the place of the ensued consequence of the crime?
  • Does section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 extend the limits of venue for a criminal trial where an offence is established by reason of an act done and its resulting consequences?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman, etc vs Abdul Aziz, etc2020 IHC 108 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs SHO etc2020 PLD Lahore 534, 2020 LHC 200 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-31
  public interest litigationbonded labourchild labourbrick kilncontinuing mandamusfundamental rightshabeas corpusforced labour
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the recovery of alleged detainees from a brick kiln. During proceedings, the matter was converted into a public interest litigation and treated as a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to address the wider socio-legal issues of forced labor, bonded labor, and child labor. The core legal questions involved the enforcement of fundamental rights and statutory obligations to eradicate modern slavery and child labor in various sectors, particularly brick kilns. The Lahore High Court held that the state has a binding constitutional and statutory obligation to abolish forced and child labor, and issued extensive structural directions to executive authorities for the strict implementation of labor laws. Furthermore, the Court invoked the doctrine of continuing mandamus, retaining jurisdiction to monitor compliance and ordering respondents to submit periodic progress reports.

  Questions settled

  • Can a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be converted into a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 as public interest litigation?
  • Does the State have a constitutional obligation under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to eradicate forced labor, bonded labor, and child labor?
  • What is the scope and application of the doctrine of continuing mandamus by superior courts in Pakistan to enforce statutory and constitutional duties?
  • Are brick kiln owners legally mandated to maintain registers of advances and execute written employment contracts under the applicable provincial labor laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2020 PHC 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 974 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-11
  writ petitioncivil serviceillegal appointmentRescue 1122selection committeemerit and transparencypublic employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court challenging the appointment of private respondents to the post of District Emergency Officer (DEO, BPS-18) in Rescue 1122, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and seeking direction for the petitioner's own appointment to the post. The core legal question was whether a Departmental Selection Committee can rely on a general advertisement clause to recommend and appoint candidates to a higher post for which they either failed the prescribed screening test or never applied. The High Court held that general clauses empowering selection committees to appoint shortlisted candidates to suitable posts do not authorize authorities to ignore merit, bypass prescribed qualification tests, or transfer candidates shortlisted for a lower post (BPS-17) to a higher post (BPS-18). The court declared the appointments of the private respondents illegal, null, and void due to misuse of authority and lack of transparency. Directing the official respondents to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner, the court affirmed that selection processes must strictly adhere to advertised merit criteria and transparent evaluation without arbitrary discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Can a departmental selection committee appoint a candidate to a post for which the candidate failed the mandatory recruitment test?
  • Does a general advertisement clause authorizing candidate placement permit selection authorities to amalgamate shortlist candidates of a lower post into a higher post shortlist?
  • Whether the non-consideration of a higher-merit candidate based on arbitrary experience criteria constitutes unlawful discrimination in public appointments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman and 8 others vs Abdul Aziz and 4 others2020 YLR 2135 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suhail vs Ali Ahmed & Others2020 SHC 1096 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26
  acquittal appealbenefit of the doubtdelay in FIRQatl-e-Amdpresumption of innocenceappraisal of evidencecriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby private respondents were acquitted of charges relating to Qatl-e-Amd and disappearance of evidence. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the trial court's evaluation of evidence and the justification for interfering with an acquittal judgment in criminal proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court was justified in granting the benefit of the doubt to the respondents due to an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, delayed Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, the unseen nature of the incident, and doubtful identification of the dead body. Reaffirming the principle that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is extremely narrow and subject to a doubled presumption of innocence, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that acquittal judgments should not be interfered with unless found to be perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from grave misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal judgment?
  • Can an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements form the basis for granting the benefit of the doubt to an accused?
  • Under what circumstances should an appellate court interfere with factual conclusions reached by a trial court in an acquittal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suhail and others vs The State2020 PTD 519 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-24
  post-arrest bailsales tax evasionfurther enquiryclearing agentabatementtax fraudcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications filed by a clearing agent and a broker accused of abetting sales tax evasion under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question was whether the applicants possessed conscious knowledge of the main accused's fraudulent scheme—which involved obtaining sales tax registration as a manufacturer using a fake address to evade taxes—thereby justifying their continued detention. The Court held that the case against the applicants falls within the scope of "further enquiry." The ratio of the decision is that clearing agents and brokers are not legally required to verify the physical existence of a manufacturing unit; their duty is limited to verifying the authenticity of the registration certificate, which is verifiable online. Since the prosecution failed to establish active connivance or that the applicants were aware of the main accused's fraudulent registration, and given that the evidence was documentary and beyond the applicants' control, the Court granted bail. The principle laid down is that without evidence of conscious knowledge or active participation in the fraud, mere routine business transactions by agents do not warrant the denial of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Are clearing agents legally obligated to verify the physical existence of a manufacturing unit for their clients?
  • Does the mere processing of import documents for a registered person constitute active connivance in tax evasion?
  • When does a criminal case against an accused fall under the category of 'further enquiry' for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sufyan vs The State2020 SHC 22 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-13
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequecheatingforgeryprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Sufiyan, seeking confirmation of interim bail in Crime No. 214 of 2019 registered under Sections 489-F, 468, 463, 465, 506/2, 504, 420, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Market. The core legal question involves whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail where the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the case has already been challaned, and the matter requires further inquiry into whether cheques were issued in good faith or as part of a business transaction. The Sindh High Court held that since the case has been challaned, the applicant is no longer required for investigation, the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, and grant of bail is the rule while refusal is the exception, the interim pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that where an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause and the accused is no longer needed for investigative purposes, bail should ordinarily be granted unless exceptional circumstances warrant refusal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a rule when the challan has been submitted and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
  • Does the question of whether a cheque was issued in good faith or for a genuine business transaction warrant further inquiry at trial rather than refusal of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Subtain Khan vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman Nab and 3 others2020 PLD Lahore 191 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Soomar vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Irrigation2020 YLR 1044 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail and 2 others vs The State2020 MLD 1629 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31
  gas theftexclusive jurisdictioncoram non judicespecial courtde novo trialanti-corruptionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three criminal appeals challenging a conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, Anti-corruption (Central), Hyderabad, for offences related to natural gas theft and illegal gratification. The core legal question is whether the Special Judge, Anti-corruption, possessed the jurisdiction to try the case following the promulgation of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, which mandates exclusive jurisdiction for Gas Utility Courts. The Court held that the trial conducted by the Special Judge was coram non judice, as the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, explicitly ousted the jurisdiction of all other courts regarding gas theft matters. Consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Gas Utility Court for a de novo trial. The judgment establishes that jurisdiction is a fundamental legislative function that cannot be conferred by consent or waiver. Furthermore, it affirms that where a special statute provides a specific forum for adjudication, that forum holds exclusive jurisdiction, rendering any proceedings in other courts a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Judge, Anti-corruption, retain jurisdiction to try cases of natural gas theft after the enactment of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016?
  • Can an objection regarding the lack of jurisdiction of a trial court be raised for the first time at the appellate stage?
  • Does the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, confer exclusive jurisdiction upon Gas Utility Courts to the exclusion of all other courts?
  • Is a judgment passed by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction considered a nullity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail alias Saila vs The State, etc2020 KLR Criminal Cases 281 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-25
  criminal appealmurder referencetest identification paradebenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidenceacquittalfirearm recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal appeal against conviction and a murder reference for the confirmation of a death sentence awarded by the trial court under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, dacoity, and hurt following an incident where unknown assailants allegedly entered a baithak and opened fire. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony, the legal validity and evidentiary value of an unexhibited and unassigned test identification parade, and the sufficiency of corroborative evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the identification parade was legally flawed as the witnesses failed to ascribe any specific role to the accused, the recovery of the weapon was unassociated with the crime empties, and material discrepancies existed. The court laid down the principle that an identification parade where witnesses do not attribute a specific role to the accused loses its legal value, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal evidentiary value of a test identification parade where the identifying witnesses fail to attribute any specific role to the accused?
  • Does the failure of a recovered weapon to match crime empties weaken the prosecution case?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient for the acquittal of an accused?
  • Whether the unexhibited proceedings of an identification parade can form the basis of a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique, etc vs Asghar Ali Naseem2020 [M] C L R 631 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State2020 SHC 642 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-13
  protective bailpre-arrest apprehensionsurrender before courtcriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for protective bail filed by the applicant, Muhammad Siddique, who is implicated in Crime No. 19 of 2020 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Lakhat. The applicant contends that he has been falsely implicated due to mala fide intentions and ulterior motives, and he expresses a willingness to surrender before the trial court but fears immediate arrest by the police. The core legal question addressed is whether the applicant is entitled to protective bail to facilitate his appearance before the competent court. Without delving into the merits of the case, the Sindh High Court granted the applicant protective bail for a period of ten days, from August 13, 2020, to August 22, 2020. The court established the principle that protective bail may be granted to enable an accused to surrender before the concerned court, provided that the order remains time-bound and subject to the furnishing of solvent surety and a personal recognizance bond.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted protective bail to facilitate their appearance before a trial court?
  • Is protective bail subject to a specific time limitation?
  • What are the requirements for granting protective bail in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique through L.Rs vs Fawad Nawaz and 3 others2020 YLR 1962 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and Others vs Federation Of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 94 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique alias Qurban Ali vs The State through Prosecutor2020 P Cr. L J 923 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-10
  criminal revisionrobberyocular evidenceappreciation of evidenceconvictionwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner for robbery under sections 392 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given the ocular evidence provided by the complainant and an eyewitness, and the subsequent recovery of the stolen motorcycle and an unlicensed pistol. The High Court examined the consistency of the prosecution's witnesses, noting that the FIR was lodged promptly and the accused was apprehended at the scene. The Court held that the ocular account was natural, direct, and confidence-inspiring, and that the defense failed to establish any motive for false implication or malice. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction, affirming that the prosecution evidence was of sufficient quality to sustain the verdict. The key principle laid down is that the credibility of a witness depends on the intrinsic value of their statement rather than their status, and that where ocular evidence is consistent and reliable, it suffices for conviction without requiring further corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of an incriminating weapon prove a prosecution case if the ocular evidence is disbelieved?
  • Is the presence of a witness at the scene of a crime sufficient to establish the truthfulness of their testimony?
  • Should criminal evidence be tested based on the quantity of witnesses or the quality of their statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique (deed) thr. L.Rs. etc. vs Mst. Noor Bibi (decd) through L.Rs. etc2020 P SC 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  revenue hierarchyexhaustion of remediesnecessary partiesproper partiessuit for declarationmutationcivil jurisdictionspecific relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision against a decree in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners had filed a suit challenging various revenue orders regarding mutation of land without first exhausting the appellate remedies available within the revenue hierarchy. The Supreme Court held that where a special remedy is provided under the law, such as the appeal and revision process under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, it cannot be bypassed by filing a direct civil suit. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in suits challenging registered documents or public acts, the Provincial Government and relevant public functionaries are necessary or proper parties under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to ensure effective adjudication and prevent fraud. Finally, the Court reiterated that a suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, is intended to declare pre-existing rights rather than create new ones. The petition was dismissed as the petitioners failed to establish their pre-existing rights or exhaust the statutory revenue remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil suit challenging revenue orders competent without first exhausting the remedies available under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  • Are the Provincial Government and relevant public functionaries necessary or proper parties in a suit challenging a registered document or mutation?
  • Can a party create new rights through a decree in a suit filed under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Does the non-impleadment of proper parties in a civil suit constitute a serious irregularity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique (Deceased) through LRs and others vs Mst. Noor Bibi2020 SCMR 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-16
  suit for declarationexhaustion of remediesrevenue hierarchymutationproper partynecessary partypublic functionariespre-existing rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the petitioners challenging various revenue orders and mutations dating back to 1964. The trial court initially decreed the suit, but the appellate court and the High Court subsequently dismissed it. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in dismissing the petition, laid down several key principles. Firstly, it held that where a special remedy is provided under the law (specifically the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967), it must be exhausted before approaching civil courts; bypassing the revenue hierarchy renders a civil suit incompetent. Secondly, the Court emphasized that under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the CPC, the Provincial Government and relevant public functionaries are proper parties in suits challenging public documents or mutations to ensure effective adjudication and prevent fraud. Finally, the Court reaffirmed that Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, only allows for the declaration of pre-existing rights and cannot be used to create new rights.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique (decd) through L.Rs. etc vs (Mst.) Noor Bibi (decd)2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil suitrevenue hierarchyexhaustion of remediesnecessary partiesnon-impleadmentdeclaratory suitpre-existing rightsmutation challenge
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing the petitioners' civil revision against the concurrent dismissal of their declaratory suit regarding mutations and revenue orders. The core legal questions involved the competency of a civil suit challenging revenue hierarchy orders without exhausting remedies under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, the necessity of impleading the Provincial Government and public functionaries when challenging public documents under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the scope of a declaratory suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a civil suit is incompetent when special statutory remedies within the revenue hierarchy remain unexhausted, that non-impleadment of relevant public functionaries creates a serious defect, and that a suit under Section 42 only declares pre-existing rights rather than creating new ones.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil suit challenging revenue hierarchy orders competent before exhausting available remedies under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  • Does the non-impleadment of the Provincial Government and relevant public functionaries create a serious defect in a suit challenging a registered document or attested mutation?
  • Can a party create fresh rights by filing a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1789 · 0 · 2019-05-21
  murderdeath sentencecompromiseqisas and diyatacquittalminor legal heirscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal appeal and murder reference challenging the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Shoaib, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Bushra Bibi, alongside a connected application under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking acquittal based on a compromise between the parties. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether a genuine compromise reached between the legal heirs of the deceased and the convict warranted the setting aside of the capital sentence and the acquittal of the appellant. Holding that the compromise was genuine, voluntary, and properly verified through a judicial inquiry—with adequate safeguards secured for the minor legal heirs' shares regarding diyat—the court accepted the compromise. The key principle laid down is that where a genuine and voluntary compromise is effected between the parties in a compoundable criminal matter under the relevant statutory provisions, and the financial rights of minor legal heirs are fully protected, the appellate court will give effect to the compromise, set aside the conviction and sentence, and order the immediate release of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a capital sentence for murder be set aside on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
  • What procedure must be followed to safeguard the shares of minor legal heirs during a compromise in a criminal case?
  • Whether an appellate court can accept a compromise under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the pendency of a murder appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib Arshad & another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice, Human Rights and Parliamentary Affairs and 4 others2020 P C T L R 524, 2020 CLD 638, 2020 LHC 456, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 172 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-10
  sale of mortgaged propertynon-judicial salefinancial institutionsconstitutional validityreserve pricepublic auctionmortgagor rightsbanking courts
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the constitutional validity of re-enacted Section 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Rules, 2018. The petitioners contended that re-enacted Section 15 unlawfully circumvented judicial determination, violated fundamental rights under Articles 10-A, 24, and 25 of the Constitution, and improperly nullified prior Supreme Court precedent. The core legal questions pertained to whether non-judicial sales of mortgaged property by financial institutions are constitutionally permissible and whether sufficient post-notice and post-auction remedies exist to protect mortgagors. By a 4-1 majority, the Lahore High Court upheld the constitutional validity of re-enacted Section 15 and the 2018 Rules, with the sole exception of Rule 3(c)(iv). The Court held that the legislature successfully cured earlier constitutional defects by introducing mandatory reserve prices, evaluations, and robust judicial remedies under Banking Courts before and after sales. However, Rule 3(c)(iv)—allowing sales to a single bidder offering merely the reserve price—was declared unconstitutional for violating public auction principles under Article 24.

  Questions settled

  • Is re-enacted Section 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 constitutionally valid?
  • Can financial institutions sell mortgaged property without prior judicial adjudication of default?
  • Is Rule 3(c)(iv) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Rules, 2018 ultra vires and unconstitutional?
  • Does the availability of post-auction remedies before Banking Courts satisfy the requirement of due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib Ahmed vs The Controller General of Accounts, Islamabad2020 PLC (C.S.) 1021, 2020 SCMR 1018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-05-13
  service appealdisciplinary proceedingsregular inquirysuperannuationdismissal from serviceequal treatmentservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a service matter concerning the dismissal of a Senior Auditor for alleged misconduct involving a workplace lockdown. The appellant and four other employees were dismissed or compulsorily retired without a regular inquiry. Upon appeal, the Federal Service Tribunal set aside the penalties for the four co-employees, directing the department to hold regular inquiries. However, the Tribunal treated the appellant differently, converting his dismissal to compulsory retirement solely because he had reached the age of superannuation. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s superannuation justified denying him the same relief of a regular inquiry afforded to his similarly situated colleagues. The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s case was on all fours with his co-employees, and the fact of superannuation did not provide a valid legal basis for disparate treatment. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment regarding the appellant, remanding the matter to the department to conduct a regular inquiry and pass appropriate orders within four months. The decision reinforces the principle that disciplinary proceedings must be applied consistently regardless of an employee's superannuation status.

  Questions settled

  • Does the attainment of the age of superannuation preclude a government employee from being granted a regular departmental inquiry in disciplinary proceedings?
  • Is a service tribunal justified in treating similarly situated employees differently based solely on the superannuation status of one of the employees?
  • Can a penalty of dismissal from service be upheld if imposed without conducting a regular inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shiraz vs The State etc2020 PHC 324 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher Khan vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 1158 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-21
  juvenile offenderdetermination of ageossification testrule of lenitycriminal revisionpost-remand proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge declaring the respondent accused as a juvenile in post-remand proceedings arising from a murder case. The core legal question concerns the determination of the accused's age for juvenile status when documentary records (NADRA and Union Council) were made after the occurrence and medical evidence provided a range (swinging between 20 and 21 years). The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision, holding that when medical evidence offers varying interpretations of age, the rule of lenity requires adopting the interpretation most favorable to the accused. The court established that post-occurrence civil records cannot be solely relied upon without corroboration, and ambiguities in age determination must be resolved in favor of the accused to protect juvenile rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether date of birth entries recorded with NADRA and Union Council after the commission of a crime can be safely relied upon without corroborative evidence?
  • How should a court determine the age of an accused when medical board reports provide a fluctuating age range?
  • Does the rule of lenity apply to the interpretation of evidence regarding the age of an accused claiming juvenile status?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shawal vs Sonia Farooq2020 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 32 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaukat Qadri vs Federation of Pakistan2020 SHC 38 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State2020 MLD 723 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-23
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryjoint mashirnamafurther inquirystatutory delayCNS Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail application filed by the applicant Muhammad Sharif seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No.248/2019 registered under Section 6-9-C of the CNS Act, 1997. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of a joint mashirnama of arrest and recovery in multiple cases, the absence of independent private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the effect of grant of bail in a connected arms case, and whether prolonged incarceration warrants bail. The Sindh High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry since the prosecution relied solely on police officials without associating private witnesses despite availability, a joint mashirnama was used for both the narcotics and arms cases wherein bail was already granted in the latter, and the applicant had been behind bars for a considerable period without trial progress. The court laid down the principle that where a joint mashirnama forms the basis of multiple cases and independent witnesses are not joined, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, and prolonged detention without speedy trial entitles the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the preparation of a joint mashirnama for multiple cases without independent witnesses create grounds for further inquiry for the grant of bail?
  • Whether the grant of bail in a connected case based on the same recovery memo entitles the accused to bail in the narcotics case?
  • Does the pendency of other criminal cases without a conviction disentitle an accused from obtaining bail?
  • Can prolonged incarceration and lack of trial progress serve as grounds for granting bail in offences falling under prohibitory clauses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1494 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-28
  appeal against acquittalappraisement of evidenceforgeryfraudbenefit of doubtmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of Respondents No. 2 to 7 in a case registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for fraud and forgery. The core legal question revolves around whether the trial court's acquittal judgment warranted interference by the appellate court on the grounds of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the trial court's judgment was based on valid reasoning and that no perversity or illegality existed. The Court reaffirmed the key principle that the standard of appraisal of evidence in an appeal against acquittal is different from that in an appeal against conviction, where interference is warranted only in cases of gross misreading of evidence amounting to a miscarriage of justice, and a single circumstance creating doubt is sufficient to uphold an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the standard of appraisal of evidence in an appeal against acquittal different from an appeal against conviction?
  • When does an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment?
  • Does a single circumstance creating doubt suffice to acquit an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Province of Punjab and others2020 YLR 2179 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, etc2020 [M] C L R 1557 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Sajid son of Khushi Muhammad vs Trade Development2020 SHC 1328 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Sadra (deceased) through Legal Heirs, etc. vs Irfan Latif, etc2020 LHC 721 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Sadra (deceased) through Legal Heirs, etc vs Irfan Latif, etc2020 YLR 2180, 2020 PLJ Lahore 259 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 2 others vs The State and others2020 SCMR 1818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-16
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of doubtcontradictionsdelay in FIRacquittalfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a murder trial where the petitioners were convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of Ahmad Ali. The trial court convicted one petitioner to death and another to life imprisonment, which the High Court maintained while altering the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined the record, noting significant discrepancies and improvements in the complainant's statements regarding the number of firearm injuries, an unexplained delay in recording the crime report despite police presence at the medical facility, failure to recover the deceased's weapon, and the unnatural circumstances of multiple assailants targeting a single victim. Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a shadow of doubt, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and acquitted the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions and improvements in the complainant's statement regarding firearm injuries are sufficient to create doubt in a murder case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in recording the crime report when police were already present cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Whether convictions for murder can be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the presence of eyewitnesses beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamshad Sulaiman vs Mst. Almas Begum and 2 others2020 CLC 392 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel vs The State2020 MLD 1255 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-23
  post-arrest bailcontrol of narcotic substancesrecovery of charasprohibitory clauseindependent mashirscrime against society
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Muhammad Shakeel under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, seeking bail in a case involving the alleged recovery of 3.5 kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered, the lack of independent mashirs, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant had failed to make out a case for bail, noting that he was caught red-handed with a huge quantity of charas, the chemical report was positive, the offense fell within the prohibitory clause, and narcotics offenses are crimes against society where bail should be granted sparingly. The court laid down that under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the absence of independent mashirs is not of huge significance at the bail stage as the special law exempts their presence, and noted that police officials made efforts to join independent witnesses who refused.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when caught red-handed with a large quantity of charas falling within the prohibitory clause?
  • Does the absence of independent mashirs at the time of recovery vitiate the case against an accused in narcotics matters under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Whether bail should be granted sparingly in narcotics cases keeping in view Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel and others vs Government Of Punjab through HomePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1075, 2020 PLD Lahore 629 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-11
  Fourth ScheduleAnti-Terrorism Actadministrative orderAdvocate General officeProsecution Departmentpreventive actioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several criminal appeals filed by the appellants impugning the rejection of their representations by the Home Department under Section 11-EE(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, against the insertion of their names in the Fourth Schedule. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the Prosecutor Department or the Advocate General office is responsible for assisting the Court in appeals filed under Section 11-EE(3-A) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court held that although the orders are passed under a criminal statute and subject to a judicial appeal, the nature of the proceedings—stemming from preventive measures rather than post-occurrence criminal trials—is administrative in character. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Advocate General office, rather than the Prosecution Department, is the appropriate authority to represent the State and assist the Court in such appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Prosecutor Department or the Advocate General office is to assist the court in appeals filed under Section 11-EE(3-A) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Are orders passed under Section 11-EE(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 judicial or administrative in nature?
  • Does the filing of an appeal before a judicial forum change the administrative nature of an order passed for the prevention of crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs Aqeel and 5 others2020 LHC 1805 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-13
  re-examinationprivate complaintlocus standipublic prosecutorcross-examinationmedical officercriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application under Article 133(3) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, for the re-examination of a medical officer in a private murder complaint. The core legal questions involved the locus standi of a private complainant to seek re-examination of a witness when public prosecutors are not in-charge of private complaints, and the proper scope and object of re-examination under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to clarify ambiguities arising during cross-examination. The Lahore High Court held that in cases initiated upon private complaints rather than police reports, the public prosecutor is not in-charge of the prosecution, meaning the private complainant or their counsel can conduct the proceedings and maintain such applications. The court further held that re-examination is legally permissible and necessary to explain ambiguities or apparent contradictions introduced during cross-examination, such as discrepancies in the estimated time of injuries. The petition was allowed, setting aside the trial court's order and directing the recall of the medical witness for re-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private complainant has the locus standi to file an application for the re-examination of a witness in a trial initiated upon a private complaint?
  • What is the scope and purpose of re-examination under Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  • Can a witness be re-examined to clarify ambiguities or discrepancies regarding the time of injuries that arose during cross-examination?
  • Does the public prosecutor have charge of trials initiated upon private complaints under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Khan vs Fed of Pakistan & Ors.2020 SHC 504 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid and others vs The Collector of Customs and others2020 PTD (Trib.) 931 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid and another vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 115 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-16
  stolen propertydacoitydishonestly receiving stolen propertyburden of proofbenefit of doubtcriminal appealrecovery of property
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal appeal filed by the applicants against their conviction for receiving robbed property under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the court was whether the mere recovery of articles, without proof that the property was stolen or robbed and that the accused received it with active knowledge of that fact, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 412. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and holding, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational ingredients of the offense—namely, that the property was robbed or stolen and that the accused had knowledge thereof. The court laid down the principle that in offenses relating to receiving stolen property or property obtained through dacoity, the prosecution must positively discharge the initial burden of proving both the stolen nature of the property and the accused's guilty knowledge before any burden shifts to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients that the prosecution must prove to secure a conviction under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the mere recovery of alleged stolen or robbed property suffice to establish an offense under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of the accused's guilty knowledge?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to prove the ownership and stolen character of the case property in a trial for receiving robbed property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz vs Punjab Public Service Commission, etc2020 [M] C L R 382 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz alias Chamma Tinda vs The State2020 YLR 1970 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-03
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailnarcotics recoverysentencing policystatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the suspension of his sentence and release on bail during the pendency of his criminal appeal against his conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six years for the recovery of 1350 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's sentence ought to be suspended and bail granted pending appeal, considering the period already undergone and the quantum of sentence awarded vis-a-vis established sentencing policies. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner had already undergone a substantial portion of his sentence (two years and ten months), that the early hearing of the appeal was unlikely rendering the appeal potentially infructuous, and that the sentence awarded exceeded the settled sentencing policy for the quantity of narcotics recovered. The court laid down the principle that post-conviction bail may be granted where the applicant has served a significant part of the sentence with little prospect of an early disposal of the appeal, and where the quantum of sentence requires serious reconsideration in light of binding judicial precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-conviction bail can be granted when the accused has already undergone a substantial period of imprisonment and the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future?
  • Does the quantum of sentence for the recovery of Charas exceeding one kilogram and up to two kilograms require reconsideration if it deviates from established sentencing policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahab Khan etc vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1699 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-02
  pre-arrest bailmurderous attacklalkaramala fidecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 313 registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar Bhakkar. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was attributed only a lalkara without any physical or firearm injury, is entitled to pre-arrest bail in the circumstances of the case. During the hearing, the petition was withdrawn as regards the second petitioner. Upon perusal of the record, the court held that no firearm injury was attributed to the first petitioner, no recovery was to be made from him, and mala fide in his implication by the complainant could not be ruled out, making his further incarceration purposeless. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail of the first petitioner, affirming that personal liberty is a precious right guaranteed by the Constitution and that mala fide can be evaluated from the facts and circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner attributed only a lalkara without causing physical injury is entitled to pre-arrest bail?
  • Can the court evaluate mala fide from the facts and circumstances of a bail matter?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when no recovery is to be effected from the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs Mst. Tahira and another2020 YLR 937 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah Kakar vs Intellectual Property Tribunal at Sindh Et2021 CLD 48, 2021 P C T L R 402, 2020 SHC 398 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah alias Shah Jee and 9 others vs Gulshan Ellahi and 22020 PLD Sindh 446 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-21
  illegal dispossessionrestoration of possessionacquittalproperty grabbersjurisdictioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an impugned judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Karachi South arising from a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant alleged illegal dispossession from a commercial property by the appellants, who claimed pre-partition possession without producing any supporting evidence. The trial court acquitted the accused of the offense under Section 3 due to a failure to prove forcible dispossession beyond reasonable doubt, but nevertheless ordered the restoration of possession to the complainant. The core legal question is whether a trial court can order the restoration of property possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, after acquitting the accused of the underlying offense. The Sindh High Court held that an order for the restoration of possession under Section 8 of the Act is contingent upon the conviction and sentencing of the accused under Section 3, and cannot be independently granted following an acquittal. The court established the principle that where an accused is acquitted of the offense of illegal dispossession, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to order the delivery or restoration of property to the complainant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court order the restoration of property possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, after acquitting the accused of the offense under Section 3?
  • Whether an order for the delivery of possession under Section 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, can be passed independently of a conviction?
  • Does the failure of a complaint under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, bar an owner from seeking possession through other legal remedies?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah & others vs Govtt: of KPK through & others2021 PLJ Peshawar 16, 2021 YLR 736, 2020 PHC 528 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs Muhammad Yasin2021 [M] C L R 24, 2020 LHC 2222 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Noor Nabi2020 CLC 1480, 2020 LHC 1511 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Throgh His LRS vs Raja Muhammad Bashir Khan &2020 SHC 682 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Khan vs Provincial Government through Chief Secretary2020 CLC 1892 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs The Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabd2020 PTD 1057 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2020-01-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 420 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-06
  suspension of sentenceabscondenceproclaimed offenderpost-conviction bailcriminal appealjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns an application for the suspension of sentence filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Shabbir, who was convicted under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment following his trial for murder and other offences. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who had previously absconded during the trial proceedings, was entitled to the suspension of his sentence pending the final adjudication of his appeal. The Lahore High Court held that the petition for suspension of sentence should be dismissed. The Court reasoned that while bail should not be withheld merely as a punitive measure for previous abscondence, a fugitive from law forfeits certain procedural rights. Consequently, the Court emphasized that in cases where an accused has absconded and hampered the trial process, the discretion to grant suspension of sentence must be exercised with extreme caution and circumspection. Finding that the petitioner's conduct during the trial and the nature of the evidence presented did not warrant relief, the Court denied the application.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused who absconded during trial lose certain procedural rights regarding the suspension of sentence?
  • Should the court grant suspension of sentence liberally to an accused who was previously a proclaimed offender?
  • Are the principles regulating the release of an accused on bail after suspension of conviction and sentence similar to those for bail pending trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir s/o Muhammad Shafi, caste Malik, r/o Goi, Tehsil and2020 SC AJK 24 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir etc vs The State2020 SCMR 1206, 2020 SCP 116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-23
  criminal appealmurderreappraisal of evidenceocular accountmedical evidencemitigating circumstancesentence conversionimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the convictions of the appellants under Section 302(b) and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while converting their sentences from death to imprisonment for life on three counts for the murder of three persons, alongside convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 being set aside. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular evidence, medical corroboration, and alleged discrepancies in witness statements in a case involving multiple murders committed out of previous enmity and revenge. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of the injured eye-witness and other prosecution witnesses was natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, and that the High Court had already rightly exercised leniency by converting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The key legal principles laid down include that minor discrepancies not shattering the core prosecution story do not warrant interference, and that antecedent circumstances and motive, while not amounting to grave and sudden provocation, can serve as a mitigating factor in determining the quantum of sentence in revenge-fuelled murders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case if the core narrative remains intact?
  • Can previous enmity and the background of a revenge-fuelled murder be considered as a mitigating circumstance for converting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the testimony of an injured eyewitness whose presence is natural and unimpeachable is sufficient to sustain a conviction despite the acquittal of a co-accused on grounds of identity?
  • Does the lack of proof regarding a specific motive invalidate an otherwise solid prosecution case established through consistent ocular and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Mumtaz Bibi and others2020 P SC 704, 2020 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-03
  oral giftgift mutationinheritancepardanashinfraudonus of proofMajlis-e-Aamdeclarationcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration and possession filed by two sisters (Respondents) against their brother (Petitioner) regarding their father’s land. The Respondents alleged that the Petitioner fraudulently recorded a gift mutation in his favor while they were kept in the dark as pardanashin ladies. The core legal question concerned the validity of the oral gift and the subsequent mutation, particularly given the disputed date of the father's death. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the Petitioner failed to specify the date, time, and place of the alleged gift or name the witnesses present during its execution. The Court observed that under Section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, mutations must be sanctioned in Majlis-e-Aam to prevent fraud, which was not done. Furthermore, documentary evidence (Death Certificate) proved the father had died months before the mutation was entered. The Court reaffirmed that the onus to prove a gift lies on the beneficiary, who must establish all essential ingredients through cogent evidence and produce material witnesses, failing which an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order may be drawn.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Mst. Usma Bibi, etc.2020 [M] C L R 292 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sana Ullah vs Additional District Judge and others2020 PLD Lahore 675 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salman vs The State2020 SHC 530 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleh vs Manzoor & Others2020 SHC 118 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State2021 MLD 307, 2020 PHC 336 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State etc2020 LHC 3268 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-21
  fixation of appealSingle BenchDivision Benchappeal against acquittalcriminal appealjurisdictionsame judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application seeking a direction for the fixation of a criminal appeal against conviction before a learned Single Bench rather than a Division Bench. The core legal question addressed is whether multiple proceedings arising from the same trial court judgment—specifically a criminal appeal against conviction, an appeal against acquittal, and a revision petition—must be heard together by the same forum prior to the admission of the acquittal appeal. The court held that while it is a settled practice for one forum to adjudicate all matters arising from the same judgment to avoid contradictory opinions, this principle applies only after an appeal against acquittal is admitted for regular hearing and notices are issued. Prior to that stage, respective matters are to proceed before their designated forums. Consequently, the court ruled that the appeal against conviction is proceedable before a Single Bench until the acquittal appeal reaches the stage of admission.

  Questions settled

  • Whether all matters arising out of the same trial court judgment should be fixed before and decided by one forum?
  • At what stage does the principle of hearing multiple proceedings arising from the same judgment together become applicable?
  • Is an appeal against a life imprisonment sentence proceedable before a Single Bench when an appeal against acquittal is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 100 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Haresh Kumar and others2021 PLD Sindh 381, 2020 SHC 778 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem s/o Muhammad Munir, Caste Jatt, r/o Dheri2020 SC AJK 26 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Shaikh vs Messrs Kasb Bank Limited2020 CLD 981 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Shaikh & others vs Province of Sindh & others2021 KLR Labour & Services Cases 56, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 1156, PLJ 2021 Karachi · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-13
  Combined Competitive Examinationfraud in public examinationtampering of resultSindh Public Service Commissionconstitutional petitionright to fair triallocus poenitentiaedoctrine of lachescivil service appointments
  Summary & questions settled

  The subject constitutional petitions challenged the Combined Competitive Examination 2003 conducted by the Sindh Public Service Commission, alleging widespread fraud, tampering with answer sheets, and manipulation of results to favor undeserving candidates at the expense of qualified individuals. The core legal question revolved around whether appointments made through a tainted and fraudulent examination process could be sustained after a lapse of time, and how the court should balance the principles of merit and natural justice. The Sindh High Court held that while the examination process suffered from blatant tampering and illegalities, outright cancellation of the entire process after many years of service by the appointees was not feasible, but such ill-gotten gains could not be protected without scrutiny. The court disposed of the petitions by directing the Chief Secretary of Sindh to constitute a high-powered Inquiry Commission to thoroughly examine the 2003 examination process, fix responsibility, provide a fair opportunity of hearing to all affected parties, and submit a comprehensive report with recommendations for action by the competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional petitions challenging a public competitive examination can be dismissed solely on the ground of laches when official inquiries reveal large-scale fraud and tampering?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae protect public appointments obtained through illegal means, forgery, and violation of merit?
  • Can a court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the manipulation of examination mark sheets within its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether an inquiry report recommending adverse action against selected candidates is legally sustainable if enacted without affording them an opportunity of hearing in violation of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Shahzad S/O Paro vs The State2021 YLR 1769, 2020 SHC 410 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-04
  criminal appealrash and negligent drivingfake driving licenceenhancement of sentenceabetmentmotor vehicle accidentabsconding appellant
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 323 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance for an accidental death while excluding Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite answering the core factual question regarding rash and negligent driving in the affirmative. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court erred in dropping charges under Section 320 Pakistan Penal Code 1860 despite finding the accused guilty of causing death through negligent driving, and addresses the legal consequence of driving with a fake license. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's acquittal under Section 320 Pakistan Penal Code 1860 contradicted its own factual findings, noted that the appellant was driving on a fake driving license, and ordered the SSP Investigation to arrest the absconding appellant while issuing notice for enhancement of sentence under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principles laid down include that an owner allowing an unlicensed driver to operate a vehicle may be treated as an abettor, and contradictory findings within a judgment warrant appellate correction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after recording a positive finding that the accused caused death through rash and negligent driving?
  • What is the liability of a vehicle owner who permits an unlicensed person or a person holding a fake driving licence to drive a motor vehicle involved in a fatal accident?
  • Whether the High Court can issue a notice for enhancement of sentence under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an appellant absconds during the pendency of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Nawaz Malik vs Higher Education Commission and another2020 CLC 1138 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan vs MCB Bank Limited2020 CLD 737, 2020 KLR Supreme Court 312, 2020 P C T L R 1216, 2020 P SC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-03
  banking recovery suitstatement of accountstatutory certificationBankers' Books Evidence ActFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinanceleave to appealdocument verification
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside a Banking Court's dismissal of a recovery suit filed by a bank. The Banking Court had dismissed the suit, alleging non-compliance with Section 9(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, specifically regarding the certification of the statement of account under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. The core legal question was whether the bank's statement of account met the statutory certification requirements. The Supreme Court held that the Banking Court erred in its finding. The Court observed that the statement of account contained a verification note at the end that substantially incorporated the language of Section 2(8) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the law does not require certification on every single page of the account statement, provided the document is verified at the end and initialed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the Banking Court was directed to expedite the proceedings. The Court declined to address the applicability of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, as it was unnecessary for the resolution of the dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 require that every page of a statement of account be individually certified?
  • What constitutes sufficient certification of a statement of account under Section 2(8) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891?
  • Can a Banking Court dismiss a recovery suit based on a finding that the statement of account was not duly verified when the verification note substantially complies with the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Jamali ST Agencies, Karachi vs Commissioner Inland2020 PTD (Trib.) 1045 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-06-24
  amended assessmentshow-cause noticeopportunity of hearingnatural justiceaudi alteram partemfair trialdue processtime-barred assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by a taxpayer against an order passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), which confirmed an amended assessment order made under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue was whether an assessment order can be legally sustained when the show-cause notice was not properly served and no reasonable opportunity of being heard or due process was afforded to the taxpayer, particularly where the order was rushed to meet a limitation deadline. The Tribunal held that the failure to serve a valid mandatory notice and deny a fair opportunity of hearing violates the fundamental principles of natural justice, audi alteram partem, and the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Tribunal vacated the orders of the lower tax authorities, laying down the principle that statutory procedures and mandatory notice requirements must be strictly followed, and public functionaries cannot bypass due process simply to prevent proceedings from becoming time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assessment order amended under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is sustainable if the taxpayer was not provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard?
  • Does the failure to serve a valid mandatory show-cause notice render subsequent tax proceedings and assessment orders void ab initio?
  • Can tax authorities bypass statutory notice and hearing requirements merely because assessment proceedings are about to become time-barred?
  • Does the right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan apply to quasi-judicial taxation proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salam & 04 others vs The State etc2020 KLR Criminal Cases 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad (Shujaat Waseem) and anothers vs State and anothersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 782 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajid vs State2020 MLD 1290, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 764 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-10
  narcoticscharas recoveryGovernment Analyst reportmandatory rulesbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  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 for the alleged recovery of 1325 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the report of the Government Analyst, which failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 by not detailing full protocols and separate results of each test, could form the basis of a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that non-compliance with Rule 6 strips the Government Analyst report of its reliability and evidentiary value, and a conviction cannot be sustained on oral assertions alone when the nature of the recovered substance is not established with certitude. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt, resulting in the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-compliance with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 affects the evidentiary value of a Government Analyst report?
  • Can an accused be convicted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 solely on oral assertions when the chemical examiner's report lacks full protocols?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case sufficient to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajid vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1507 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-23
  attempt to commit rapebenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecriminal appealacquittalocular evidencemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Sajid, who was found guilty by the trial court under Sections 376 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempting to commit rape. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt through the ocular and medical evidence presented. The Lahore High Court found the prosecution's case deficient, noting material contradictions in the testimony of witnesses, specifically regarding the distance of the occurrence and the failure of witnesses to apprehend the accused. Furthermore, the medical evidence failed to corroborate the allegations of physical assault or penetration, as no injuries or signs of struggle were observed on the victim. The Court held that the evidence was intrinsically weak and insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt, reaffirming the principle that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for attempted rape be sustained when the medical evidence shows no signs of physical injury or penetration?
  • Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to apprehend an accused at the scene of an alleged crime create a reasonable doubt regarding their presence?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when prosecution witnesses provide contradictory testimony regarding the distance and circumstances of the alleged occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajid vs Judge Family Court and others2020 CLC 1524, 2022 [M] CLR 1253 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sagheer vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 996 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-11
  post-arrest bailcounter-blast FIRdacoitymala fide registrationcriminal procedurerecovery of stolen property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 concerns a case registered under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of dacoity and possession of stolen property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances surrounding the registration of the FIR and the evidentiary value of the recovery. The Court observed that the petitioner had previously initiated criminal proceedings against a police official, suggesting that the current FIR was registered as a counter-blast. Furthermore, the Court noted discrepancies in the timing of the FIR registration and the fact that no other nominated accused had been arrested. The Court held that the recovery of the alleged stolen cash after six days was tenuous and that continued incarceration without trial progress was unjustified. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where an FIR appears to be a retaliatory measure by police against a complainant, and where evidence of recovery is weak, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an FIR registered as a counter-blast to previous litigation against police officials constitutes valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Does the delayed recovery of alleged stolen property weaken the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
  • Can the lack of progress in trial and the continued incarceration of an accused justify the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1333 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-10
  murder referencebenefit of doubtchance witnessdelayed FIRdelayed post-mortemocular accountcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses and the consistency of the prosecution's narrative. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant. The Court identified multiple fatal flaws: an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR at the crime scene, a significant delay in conducting the post-mortem examination, and contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the distance of the firing. Furthermore, the Court found the eye-witnesses to be "chance witnesses" whose presence was doubtful, and noted that the motive was not put to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case contains significant loopholes or doubts, the benefit must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses are found to be 'chance witnesses' without a cogent explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination create a reasonable doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the motive for the crime is not put to the accused during his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be relied upon if they have been disbelieved regarding the acquittal of co-accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Presiding Officer Accountability Court No.IV, Karachi2020 P Cr. L J 683 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-28
  fair trialexculpatory documentsNational Accountability Bureauinvestigationduty of investigating officerconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an accused facing a reference before an Accountability Court, filed an application seeking certain documents collected by the investigating officer during inquiry that were not provided to him. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that mandatory documents under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had already been provided and the petitioner could produce defense documents later under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court examined whether withholding exculpatory material collected during investigation violates the right to a fair trial. The Court held that investigating officers and the National Accountability Bureau must provide an accused with any material in their possession that tends to exonerate the accused, even to the slightest extent, to ensure a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petition was disposed of with a direction to provide the relevant documents to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to receive exculpatory material collected during an investigation that is not part of the formal section 265-C Cr.P.C. copies?
  • Does withholding material that tends to exonerate an accused violate the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What is the primary duty of an investigating officer under Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Government Of The Punjab through Secretary2020 PLC (C.S.) 925 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-18
  public service commissionno objection certificategovernment serviceappointment challengeconcealment of factsconstitutional petitionrecruitment policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of respondent No.3 as a Lecturer (BS-17) by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.3 had concealed his employment as a Social Case Worker in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights and failed to provide a No Objection Certificate (NOC) as required. The core legal question was whether a candidate is obligated to furnish an NOC from an employer if they were not in government service at the time of submitting their application for a public post. The Lahore High Court held that since the respondent applied for the post on July 9, 2017, and was only appointed to his other government position on August 16, 2017, he was not in government service at the time of application. Consequently, the requirement to furnish an NOC did not apply, and no concealment of facts occurred. The court affirmed the Commission's decision to reject the complaint, establishing that the obligation to provide an NOC is contingent upon the candidate's employment status at the time of application.

  Questions settled

  • Is a candidate required to furnish a No Objection Certificate if they were not in government service at the time of submitting an application for a public post?
  • Does the failure to disclose subsequent employment constitute concealment of facts if the candidate was not employed at the time of the application?
  • Can a candidate be disqualified for failing to provide an NOC from an employer they joined after the application deadline?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Akhtar vs Taha Mobeen Qureshi2020 CLC 1974, 2020 SHC 400 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Akhtar vs Muhammad Ashraf and 3 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 192 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-30
  QazfZinaHudood lawscriminal appealacquittalfalse imputationburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalia, acquitting the respondents of the charge of Qazf under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979. The complainant alleged that the respondents falsely implicated him and his wife in a previous Zina case, constituting the offence of Qazf. The Federal Shariat Court re-appraised the evidence and examined the statutory definitions of Qazf and Zina under the relevant ordinances. The court held that mere consultation, suspicion, or statements regarding persons 'going for the purpose of Zina' do not amount to a direct and specific imputation of Zina as strictly required by law. Emphasizing that deterrent punishments necessitate stricter proof, the court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to substantiate the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld, though the court clarified that previous judgments inter partes remain binding despite being rendered without notice to certain respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allegation of going for the purpose of Zina constitute a direct imputation of Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Is consultation prior to the registration of a criminal case sufficient to establish the offence of Qazf?
  • What is the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction for Qazf in view of the deterrent punishments provided under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadeeq vs The State2020 MLD 448 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-01
  narcotic smugglingrecovery contradictionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealchain of custodyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court for the possession of 150 kilograms of charas, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence presented. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions regarding the recovery process, the presence of an official vehicle, the source of the weighing scale, and the chain of custody of the seized contraband. Furthermore, the court noted the failure to establish the appellant's ownership or control over the vehicle, as no driving license or vehicle documents were seized. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that multiple material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses create significant doubt, and where the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the benefit of such doubt must be extended to the accused, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure by the prosecution to establish the chain of custody for narcotic samples entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when material contradictions exist between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery process?
  • Is the failure to produce ownership documents or a driving license for a vehicle used in a drug smuggling case fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadeeq vs Pervaiz Khan and 2 others2020 CLC 1582 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan vs State2020 MLD 2022, 2020 PHC 256 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State and others2020 MLD 1595, 2020 PHC 320 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State & others2020 SHC 906 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Province of Punjab through Collector & others2021 PLD Lahore 33, 2020 LHC 2509 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Justice Of Peace/Additional Session Judge,2020 PLJ Lahore 317 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and another vs The State2020 PHC 326 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razi alias Muhammad Khalil vs The State2020 YLR 297 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-04-30
  post-arrest bailjuvenile offenderstatutory delaymurderjuvenile justicedelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a juvenile accused, sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, citing prolonged incarceration and statutory entitlement under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The core legal question was whether a juvenile accused detained for a continuous period exceeding one year for an offence punishable with death, whose trial has not concluded, is entitled to release on bail under Section 10(7) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, regardless of the delay. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that since the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the offence and had been detained for over one year and nine months without the trial being concluded, and the delay was not occasioned by the act or omission of the accused, he was entitled to the concession of bail. The court laid down the principle that statutory delay-based bail provisions for juveniles are mandatory unless the delay is directly attributable to the juvenile or persons acting on their behalf.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a juvenile accused charged with an offence punishable with death is entitled to bail after being detained for a continuous period exceeding one year without conclusion of the trial?
  • Does a juvenile's entitlement to bail under Section 10(7) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 apply when the delay in trial is not caused by the accused?
  • How is the age of a juvenile determined for the purposes of seeking bail under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Zia and 04 others vs Government of Sindh & 02 others2020 SHC 978 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs The State and others2020 MLD 1549 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-04
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular testimonymedical evidencemurder convictioncapital punishmentinvestigation flawsreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, for the murder of two individuals under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the ocular testimony and forensic evidence presented. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. The Court identified significant contradictions between the ocular account, the medical evidence regarding the injuries, and the site plan prepared by the investigating officer. Furthermore, the Court noted unexplained delays in medical treatment and deficiencies in the investigation process. Emphasizing that proof beyond reasonable doubt must be based on logic and common sense, the Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt, and answered the reference for confirmation of the death sentence in the negative, while directing an inquiry into the investigation's failures.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to explain material discrepancies in the site plan and witness statements?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal case involving capital punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Inspector General of Police and 5 others2021 PLJ AJ&K 73, 2020 [M] C L R 1420 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Bhatti vs Federation of Pakistan and 02 others2020 SHC 972 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-03
  civil servicepromotion defermentservice tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicede-novo inquiryconstitutional jurisdictionArticle 212
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Inspector in the Federal Investigation Agency, sought promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Investigation-BS-17), which had been deferred by the respondent-department pending a de-novo inquiry as mandated by a previous Federal Service Tribunal judgment upheld by the Supreme Court. The petitioner challenged this deferment, arguing that the departmental action was arbitrary, capricious, and violated Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, as he had been exonerated in previous disciplinary proceedings. The Court observed that the petitioner admitted the de-novo inquiry had not yet been conducted, rendering the deferment consistent with the prior judicial directives. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's challenge to his supersession was already pending before the Supreme Court. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition because the matter concerned the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, which fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 4 of the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters concerning the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Can a civil servant challenge the deferment of promotion in the High Court when the matter relates to disciplinary proceedings and service terms?
  • Does the pendency of a mandated de-novo inquiry justify the deferment of a civil servant's promotion?
  Read full judgment →