Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Muhammad Akhtar and 3 others vs Board Of Intermediate And Secondary2020 PLC (C.S.) 352 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an audit objection and notice issued by the respondent-Board directing petitioners to refund amounts received on account of personal scales granted years earlier. The core legal question concerns the extent of the Government's authority as a controlling body over the autonomous financial affairs of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, and whether benefits received by employees without fault can be subsequently withdrawn. The Lahore High Court held that the respondent-Board is an autonomous corporate body generating its own funds, and the Government as the controlling authority possesses only limited inspection powers under the relevant statute without direct control over fund expenditure or the power to issue mandatory financial directives. Furthermore, under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, vested rights created without any default on the part of the employees cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn. The petition was allowed, declaring the impugned order illegal and remanding the matter for a fresh decision after affording a hearing to the petitioners.
Questions settled- Does the Government as the controlling authority under the BISE Act, 1976 have the power to control the manner in which an autonomous Board manages its finances?
- Can financial benefits and personal scales granted to employees without any default on their part be withdrawn after being enjoyed for a long period under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae?
- Are audit objections raised by the Finance Department sufficient to invalidate vested financial rights lawfully granted by an independent statutory board?
- Muhammad Akbar vs Masood Tariq Baghpati and others2020 P C T L R 1303, 2019 CLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal challenged the dismissal of a civil suit seeking damages and compensation from the ex-directors of a defunct shipping company, M/s. Tristar Shipping Lines Limited. The appellant, a former employee, sought recovery for unpaid dues and alleged financial losses resulting from the company's failure to issue clearance certificates. The core legal question was whether the ex-directors could be held personally liable for the company's liabilities after its liquidation and dissolution. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a company is a separate legal entity distinct from its directors, who are not personally liable for corporate debts. The Court emphasized that upon a winding-up order, directors are divested of their powers, and the official liquidator assumes control. Furthermore, the appellant failed to prove the alleged damages and had previously executed an indemnity bond accepting a settlement as full and final satisfaction of his claims. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the suit was misconceived, lacked a cause of action, and was time-barred, upholding the trial court's dismissal of the appellant's claim.
Questions settled- Can ex-directors of a company be held personally liable for the company's unpaid employee dues after the company has been wound up and dissolved?
- Does the principle of separate legal entity protect directors from personal liability for corporate debts?
- What is the effect of a winding-up order on the powers of a company's directors?
- Is a suit for damages maintainable where the plaintiff has previously executed an indemnity bond accepting a settlement as full and final?
- Muhammad Aijaz Yousafzai vs The State2020 YLR 1431 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Aijaz Yousafzai, in connection with FIR No. 285/2019, registered for offences under sections 395, 170, and 171 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, given allegations of his involvement in a dacoity and impersonation scheme, despite his contention that he was falsely implicated based on inadmissible co-accused statements and that there was an unexplained delay in FIR registration. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant failed to establish mala fide on the part of the complainant or police. The Court affirmed that statements of co-accused can serve as incriminating circumstantial evidence at the bail stage to form a prima facie view of involvement. Furthermore, the Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his arrest was sought for ulterior motives of humiliation or disgrace, and that the delay in lodging the FIR was plausibly explained by the ongoing extortion demands, thereby disentitling the applicant to pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Can the statement of a co-accused be used as circumstantial evidence to establish a prima facie case at the bail stage?
- What criteria must an accused satisfy to be granted the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail?
- Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Muhammad Afzal vs The State2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 96, 2021 P S c (Crl.) 106, 2020 SCP 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that had modified the petitioner's conviction for murder. The petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, was convicted by the trial court for the murder of Iltaf Hussain and sentenced to death, while a co-accused was sentenced to life imprisonment and another was acquitted. The High Court subsequently acquitted the co-accused and converted the petitioner's death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the acquittal of co-accused persons and arguments regarding the motive and evidence. The Supreme Court held that the ocular evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses was consistent and credible, and the occurrence in broad daylight precluded misidentification. The Court affirmed that the prosecution had proven its case against the petitioner to the hilt. The key principle laid down is that the acquittal of co-accused persons does not automatically entitle a remaining convict to the benefit of doubt if the prosecution has otherwise established the specific overt acts of the convict through consistent and reliable evidence.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of co-accused persons automatically entitle the remaining convict to the benefit of doubt?
- Is the absence of a forensic report or recovery of a weapon sufficient to invalidate a conviction when ocular evidence is consistent and reliable?
- Can a court discard a prosecution version based on a rule of caution without substantial material support?
- Muhammad Afzal vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 1538 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the vires of an investigation conducted by a supervisory police officer in FIR No.161/2019 registered under Section 462-K of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for electricity theft. The core legal question was whether a supervisory police officer empowered to verify investigations under Article 18(10) of the Police Order, 2002 can substitute their own conclusions for those of the investigating officer or conduct a fresh investigation. The Lahore High Court held that verification under the Police Order, 2002 is confined to reviewing the existing record of investigation and does not include the power to re-investigate or substitute findings. The Court ruled that if a supervisory officer disagrees with an investigation's conclusions, they must initiate the formal process for a change of investigation under the law rather than altering findings directly. The petition was accordingly accepted.
Questions settled- Can a supervisory police officer substitute their own conclusions for those of the investigating officer under the guise of verification?
- What is the scope and meaning of verification of investigation by a supervisory officer under the Police Order, 2002?
- How must a supervisory officer proceed if they find serious faults with an investigation conducted by an investigating officer?
- Muhammad Afzal vs Muhammad Hussain and 3 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1648 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hafizabad, whereby respondents were acquitted of charges relating to cheating, forgery, and using as genuine a forged document. The complainant lodged an FIR alleging that the respondents created a bogus death entry of a deceased person in the municipal records to obtain undue personal gain. The trial court had initially convicted the respondents, but the appellate court set aside their conviction and sentence, leading to the present appeal. The Lahore High Court observed that crucial inquiry reports were neither proved nor produced in evidence, essential ingredients of cheating and dishonest inducement were absent, and the prosecution failed to establish the foundational elements of forgery or connivance among the accused. Holding that giving false information and making a corresponding entry does not amount to making a false document under the relevant penal provisions without requisite proof, the High Court found no illegality in the appellate acquittal and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does giving false information and making a corresponding entry in a public register amount to making a false document constituting forgery under Section 463 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an accused be convicted for forgery when the prosecution fails to prove the essential ingredients of the offense and neglects to produce inquiry reports in evidence?
- Whether an appellate court is justified in setting aside a conviction where the foundational evidence regarding the connivance of the accused is missing.
- Muhammad Afzal vs Chief Executive Officer, Khushab and another2020 PLC (C.S.) 282 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 2019-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal was filed before the Punjab Service Tribunal by a retired primary school teacher challenging the imposition of a penalty withholding a portion of his pension. The core legal questions involved whether disciplinary proceedings could be validly initiated and concluded against a civil servant after retirement under the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, and whether vague allegations and a penalty imposed without considering the defense version or supporting evidence were sustainable. The Tribunal held that departmental proceedings initiated after retirement were valid if completed within one year, but set aside the penalty orders on merits, finding the charges vague, lacking supporting evidence, and violative of the principles of natural justice. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary penalties cannot be sustained when based on presumptive, self-styled, and vague allegations without reliable evidence or consideration of the accused person's defense.
Questions settled- Can disciplinary proceedings be initiated against a civil servant after retirement under the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
- Are penalty orders sustainable when the charges of subversive and immoral activities are vague and lack supporting evidence?
- Does the failure to consider an appellant's defense version vitiate a departmental penalty order?
- Can a delay in filing a service appeal be condoned where the appellant produces medical prescriptions for a short span of illness?
- Muhammad Afzal etc vs Muzaffar Khan & others2020 KLR Criminal Cases 108, 2020 P Cr. L J 721, PLJ 2020 Cr.C (Islamabad) · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-West, Islamabad, whereby a complaint under Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was allowed and the appellants were convicted under Section 3(2) of the Act. The core legal question was whether the Illegal Dispossession Act applies to disputes between co-sharers over unpartitioned joint inherited property involving civil disputes rather than professional land grabbers. The Islamabad High Court held that the Act does not apply to run-of-the-mill disputes between co-owners or co-sharers where properties remain unpartitioned and a civil dispute regarding title or possession exists, and that co-sharers cannot be prosecuted under the Act absent evidence of being property grabbers or land mafia. The court laid down the principle that joint property disputes between co-sharers must be resolved through civil courts or revenue authorities rather than criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellants.
Questions settled- Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to disputes between co-sharers over unpartitioned joint property?
- Can a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act be entertained when the matter of possession is subject to an ongoing civil or revenue dispute?
- Whether ordinary persons with no antecedents as property grabbers or land mafia can be prosecuted under the Illegal Dispossession Act?
- Muhammad Affan through Mst. Rafia Aijaz vs Wasif Khan and 2 others2020 YLR 1009 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Abid Farooq vs The State and another2020 P Cr.L J 1179 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonor of cheques. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s decision to compel the accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses himself, due to the absence of his defense counsel, violated the accused's right to a fair trial and due process. The court held that the trial court’s procedure resulted in a miscarriage of justice. It emphasized that the right to cross-examination is a fundamental and valuable right of an accused in criminal proceedings, which cannot be effectively exercised by an unrepresented layman. The court ruled that directives for the expeditious disposal of cases do not authorize courts to deprive an accused of the right to legal representation and a fair trial. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court with directions to allow the petitioner's counsel to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses within a specified timeframe.
Questions settled- Does compelling an unrepresented accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses personally constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial?
- Can a trial court's directive for the expeditious disposal of a case override the accused's right to legal representation during cross-examination?
- Is the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses by an unrepresented accused a valid substitute for cross-examination by a legal counsel?
- Muhammad Abdullah vs Superintendent District Jail, Khanewal2020 PLD Lahore 670 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Abdaal alias Abdali vs Government Of Punjab and others2020 PLD Lahore 471 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged preventive detention orders issued against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the detention grounds, the necessity for the detaining authority to independently apply its mind to the material, and whether the availability of an alternate remedy barred the High Court’s jurisdiction. The Court held that the detention orders were unsustainable, declaring them without lawful authority and quashing them. The Court established that preventive detention requires objective satisfaction based on concrete, non-vague evidence, rather than mere criminal history or indefinite allegations. It emphasized that grounds for detention must be precise to enable effective representation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the detaining authority must independently evaluate the material, and failure to produce evidence supporting the detention renders the order invalid. Finally, it affirmed that the availability of an alternate remedy does not preclude the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, when fundamental rights are at stake.
Questions settled- Does the availability of an alternate remedy under the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
- Can preventive detention be justified solely on the basis of a person's past criminal history?
- Is a detention order valid if the detaining authority fails to independently apply its mind to the material placed before it?
- Does the failure to provide precise and specific grounds for detention render a detention order invalid?
- Muhammad Abbas vs The State2021 P SC (Crl.) 90, 2020 PLD Supreme Court 620, 2020 SCP 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a jail petition filed by a petitioner convicted of the qatl-i-amd (murder) of his wife under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged his conviction, contending that the incident occurred under grave and sudden provocation due to his wife's alleged bad character, thereby seeking conversion of the conviction to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to prove grave and sudden provocation, as the evidence showed no such circumstances. Crucially, the Court held that murders committed in the name or on the pretext of honour (ghairat) cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as specifically excluded by the provisos added in 2005 and 2016, and the definition of fasad-fil-arz. The Court affirmed that such killings must be punished under Section 302(a) or 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The judgment clarifies that honour killings are not legally mitigating factors and mandates strict adherence to the statutory framework and Islamic injunctions regarding proof and procedure.
Questions settled- Can a murder committed in the name or on the pretext of honour be brought within the ambit of Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does a statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which is not on oath, constitute sufficient evidence to establish grave and sudden provocation when contradicted by other evidence?
- Is the definition of fasad-fil-arz applicable to murders committed in the name of honour?
- Does the requirement to seek guidance from the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah under Section 338-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 permit the justification of honour killings?
- Muhamamd Essa vs Muhammad Yaseen & others2020 SHC 102 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
- Muhabat Khan vs Anwarullah alias Lapo2020 YLR 545 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal matter arises from an appeal filed against the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent and whether sufficient incriminating evidence existed to interfere with the acquittal. The court held that appeals against acquittal require very strong and convincing grounds, as the presumption of initial innocence is multiplied after an acquittal, and noted that the sole incriminating testimony relied upon by the appellant was a conscious and deliberate improvement not found in the earlier police statement. The court dismissed the appeal in limine, establishing the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal absent compelling grounds and palpable legal infirmity in appreciating evidence.
Questions settled- What grounds are required to upset an acquittal recorded after a full trial?
- Does a contradiction between a witness's deposition and their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. amount to a deliberate improvement?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment that contains no legal infirmity?
- Mufti Kafayat Ullah vs The State and another2020 SCMR 1248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Mufti Kafayat Ullah, challenged his conviction under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for the alleged murderous assault on his estranged wife and brother-in-law in the District Court premises at Islamabad. The trial magistrate convicted him, and his appeals to the Sessions Court and the High Court were dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of guilt could be sustained on oral testimony that lacked crucial corroboration and suffered from material investigative flaws. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the lower courts' judgments, thereby acquitting the appellant. The Court laid down the principle that where an alleged murderous assault rests solely on oral testimony with inherent missing links, failure to secure vital physical evidence or associate key eyewitnesses—such as the police official who intervened—renders the prosecution's case unsafe for maintaining a conviction, particularly in the presence of persisting animosity between the parties.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murderous assault can be sustained solely on oral testimony when the investigating officer fails to secure key physical evidence and associate vital eyewitnesses?
- Does the failure to meet the requirements of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 regarding weapon recovery undermine the prosecution's case?
- Can concurrent findings of guilt by three lower tribunals be set aside by the Supreme Court in the presence of inherent flaws and persisting animosity?
- Mubeen Ahmad Qureshi vs The State and others2020 YLR 566 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two separate bail applications: one for pre-arrest bail by Mubeen Ahmad Qureshi and one for post-arrest bail by Qamar-uz-Zaman, both arising from FIR No. 25/2017 involving allegations of misappropriation of funds at the National Bank of Pakistan, Timber Market Branch, Multan. The core legal questions concern whether the petitioners are entitled to bail given the evidence connecting them to the alleged offences of fraud and misappropriation. Regarding Mubeen Ahmad Qureshi, the Court held that because his role was identical to a co-accused who had already been granted bail, the rule of consistency applied, and his pre-arrest bail was confirmed. Conversely, the Court dismissed the post-arrest bail application of Qamar-uz-Zaman, finding prima facie evidence connecting him to the crime, including handwriting expert reports confirming he filled fraudulent cheques and issued bogus receipts. The key principles laid down are that the rule of consistency in bail matters requires granting similar relief to co-accused persons with identical roles, and that post-arrest bail is not appropriate where overwhelming prima facie evidence connects the accused to the alleged misappropriation.
Questions settled- Does the rule of consistency require that a co-accused be granted bail if another co-accused with an identical role has already been granted bail?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when there is prima facie evidence, including forensic reports, connecting them to the alleged misappropriation of bank funds?
- Can a petitioner be denied bail when statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 specifically name them as the primary culprit?
- Mubarak Mai and others vs Additional District Judge, Khanewal and others2020 YLR 1875 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-30Read full judgment →
- Mst: Jannat vs Mazhar and Others2020 SHC 116 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zohra Khatoon vs Ghulam Farid2020 PLJ SC 249, 2020 P SC 213, 2020 SCMR 465, 2020 SCP 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which allowed a civil revision and set aside concurrent judgments of the Subordinate Courts dismissing the respondent's pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land. The core legal questions concerned whether the pre-emptor made Talb-i-Muwathibat immediately upon gaining knowledge of the sale and whether notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was issued within the statutory period of two weeks under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-Emption Act, 1987, as well as the effect of making an unsubstantiated plea regarding the sale consideration. The Supreme Court held that the pre-emptor had knowledge of the sale on or soon after the date of execution (25th January 2003) but falsely claimed knowledge on a later date to bring the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad within time, thereby failing to make the demands within the mandatory statutory periods. The Court further held that making a completely unsubstantiated statement regarding the sale price to gain an undue advantage violates the injunctions of Shariah and disentitles a pre-emptor from claiming pre-emption. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the pre-emption suit.
Questions settled- Whether the limitation period for issuing a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad begins from the actual date of knowledge of the sale obtained by the pre-emptor?
- Does making an unsubstantiated plea regarding the sale price to gain an advantage disentitle a pre-emptor from claiming pre-emption?
- Are concurrent findings of subordinate courts liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction when there is no illegality or material irregularity?
- Mst. Zill-e-Huma vs Secretary Education (Higher Education) College &2020 PLC (C.S.) 45, 2019 PHC 194 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the requirement of eleven years of experience for the post of Associate Professor under the Directorate of Higher Education as advertised by the Public Service Commission, arguing discrimination because a related post under the Directorate of Commerce Education & Management Sciences required only five years of experience. The core legal questions were whether different qualification criteria across different government directorates constitute unconstitutional discrimination, and whether an advertisement criteria based on statutory service rules can be challenged without challenging the rules themselves. The Peshawar High Court held that different departments can prescribe distinct qualification and experience criteria based on their specific functional requirements, constituting a reasonable classification with an intelligible differentia, and that the petitioner could not challenge the advertisement criteria without challenging the underlying service rules. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether prescribing different experience criteria for similar posts in different government directorates amounts to unconstitutional discrimination?
- Can qualification and experience criteria provided in an employment advertisement be challenged without challenging the underlying service rules?
- Whether the guarantee of equal treatment under the law mandates identical treatment for all public sector employees regardless of departmental differences?
- Mst. Zahida Nasreen vs Additional District Judge, Tehsil Malikwal, etc2020 [M] C L R 1577 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zahida Begum vs Ashfaq Ahmed and others2020 LHC 687 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Yasmeen vs Muhammad Ishfaq and 4 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 1121, 2022 YLR 459 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the dismissal of a complaint filed under Sections 7 and 11 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, wherein the appellant alleged that false imputations of Zina and derogatory statements had been made against her through affidavits. Special leave to appeal was granted by the Federal Shariat Court. Upon examining the record, the Court identified severe and incurable legal irregularities committed by the trial court, including relying on preliminary inquiry statements without recording a proper examination-in-chief on oath during the trial, mismanaging witness depositions, and failing to formulate points for determination as mandated by Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that evidence recorded in disregard of mandatory provisions of law, particularly the rules governing the examination of witnesses under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, is inadmissible and cannot form the basis of a valid judgment. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a de novo trial.
Questions settled- Can statements recorded during a preliminary inquiry be utilized as substantive evidence during a trial without conducting a formal examination-in-chief on oath?
- Whether failure to formulate points for determination under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 renders a judgment invalid in the eyes of the law?
- What are the recognized exceptions under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 where statements made by a witness without cross-examination are admissible?
- Does a legal defect or procedural irregularity committed by a trial court prejudice the rights of the litigants?
- Mst. Yasmeen vs Javed and another2020 SCMR 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed by the complainant Mst. Yasmeen against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had acquitted respondent Javed after setting aside his conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) PPC. The core legal question pertained to whether the High Court's findings of acquittal were based on a correct reappraisal of the evidence and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court observed that despite the prosecution's claim that the matter was reported to the police within three hours of the incident, the relevant column 'brief history of crime' in the inquest report was left entirely blank. The Court held that this omission alone cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case and the credibility of the eyewitnesses. Additionally, no source of light was established despite load-shedding at night, no recovery was made, and co-accused facing identical allegations were previously acquitted. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the acquittal.
Questions settled- Does leaving the 'brief history of crime' column blank in an inquest report cast doubt on the promptness and veracity of a prosecution FIR?
- Can eyewitness testimony be safely relied upon when the incident occurred in darkness without any proven source of light?
- Whether an appeal against acquittal can succeed when co-accused charged with identical roles have already been acquitted without challenge-free?
- Mst. Yasmeen Gul vs Muhammad Zubair and 02 others2020 PLD Peshawar 173, 2020 PHC 132 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Tareeza Riaz vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1751 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Through this criminal petition, Mst. Tareeza Riaz sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 08/2020 registered under Sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 read with Sections 420 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station FIA C.C.R.C, Lahore. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of blackmailing, capturing objectionable videos after rendering the complainant senseless, and circulating them. The Lahore High Court held that the possibility of malafide involvement of the petitioner could not be ruled out at this stage, noting discrepancies regarding the lack of specific dates, absence of medico-legal reports, lack of proof linking phone numbers to the petitioner, and the female status of the accused. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down the principle that tentative assessment of record pointing towards potential malafide on the part of the complainant warrants the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in cybercrime and allied offenses.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when malafide on the part of the complainant is apparent from the tentative assessment of the record?
- Does the absence of a medico-legal report supporting allegations of administering an intoxicant justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is a female accused entitled to favorable consideration while deciding a petition for pre-arrest bail?
- Mst. Tahseeb vs The State2020 SHC 1050 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sughran Mai vs The State & another2020 MLD 1944, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1036, 2020 LHC 1168 · Lahore High Court · 2020-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This post-arrest bail petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the petitioner, a 55-60 year old woman accused of committing Qatl-i-Amd under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested entirely on the suspicion of the complainant and witnesses, with no eye-witnesses to the occurrence, no recovery of incriminating material from the petitioner, and no established motive. Additionally, the cause of death remained undetermined. The Lahore High Court observed that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot equate to "reason to believe" or serve as proof of guilt. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, as a woman of advanced age with no prior criminal record, she was entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 497(1). The petition was accepted, and post-arrest bail was granted.
Questions settled- Can a strong suspicion of guilt, in the absence of eye-witnesses or recovery, constitute a 'reasonable ground' to deny bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the heinous nature of an offence alone justify the refusal of post-arrest bail if the case otherwise requires further inquiry?
- Is a female accused of advanced age entitled to special consideration for bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mst. Sughran Begum etc vs Malang Khan etc2020 LHC 2189 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shehla Jabbar and another vs Additional District Judge, Multan and 22020 YLR 571 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shazia Bibi alias Sharjika Bibi vs The State etc2021 YLR 777, 2020 PHC 238 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shareefan vs Ghaffar & others2020 SHC 1072 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Sindh High Court as a Criminal Revision Application filed by the applicant, Mst. Shareefan, challenging the conviction or sentence awarded to the private respondents by the Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I/MTMC Dadu. At the commencement of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant intended to pursue the appropriate legal remedy before the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction for the enhancement of the conviction and sentence. Consequently, the counsel requested to withdraw the instant Criminal Revision Application. The Court, noting the applicant's stated intention to exhaust the alternative legal remedy available before the Sessions Court, allowed the request. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Application was dismissed as not pressed, with the Court disposing of the matter in light of the applicant's decision to seek relief in the proper forum.
Questions settled- Can a party withdraw a criminal revision application to pursue a remedy before a Sessions Judge?
- Is a Sessions Judge the appropriate forum for seeking enhancement of a sentence awarded by a Magistrate?
- Mst. Shaneela Raza and another vs Allied Bank Limited & another2020 SHC 974 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shama Touqeer vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 324, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 360 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of narcotics. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of contraband beyond reasonable doubt and whether the forensic report relied upon by the trial court met the mandatory requirements of the law. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fatally undermined by material contradictions in the testimonies of recovery witnesses regarding the timing and circumstances of the seizure. Furthermore, the Court found that the forensic report failed to comply with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, as it omitted essential test protocols and detailed results, rendering it unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits and that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Questions settled- Does a forensic report that fails to specify test protocols and detailed results satisfy the requirements of Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
- Can an accused be convicted for narcotics possession based solely on oral police testimony when the recovery proceedings are riddled with material contradictions?
- What is the effect of material discrepancies between prosecution witnesses regarding the time and place of recovery on the credibility of the prosecution's case?
- Mst. Shakeela vs Muhammad Arif Abbasi & another2020 SHC 768 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shakeela & Another vs Province of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 50 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shaista Gul d/o Muhammad Zafar Ali, r/o Khema, Union Council2020 PHC 24 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Shahnaz Begum etc vs Additional District Judge etc2021 PLD Lahore 69, 2020 LHC 3399 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shahnaz & another vs Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 580 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shaheena Bibi vs Shaukat Ali and others2021 [M] C L R 409, 2020 MLD 1279, 2020 LHC 263 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shaheen Bibi vs Pervaiz Aslam and others2020 PLJ Lahore 362 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shabana Younas & others vs Chief Secretary, Govt: of Khyber2021 PLJ Peshawar 39, 2020 PHC 506 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, legal representatives of a deceased civil servant, challenged the removal of their predecessor from service after his death caused the abatement of his pending service appeal. The core legal questions were whether the cause of action for service-related benefits survives the death of a civil servant and whether the High Court possesses constitutional jurisdiction to entertain such a petition when the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over legal heirs. The Court held that the right to pensionary benefits is not purely personal and survives the death of the civil servant; therefore, the proceedings do not abate. Furthermore, because the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to civil servants, the High Court may exercise constitutional jurisdiction to provide a remedy where none exists. The Court found the removal order procedurally improper and disproportionate, noting the department concealed the deceased's serious medical condition from the competent authority. Consequently, the Court set aside the removal order and remanded the matter for the determination of pensionary benefits.
Questions settled- Does the death of a civil servant during the pendency of a service appeal cause the cause of action to abate?
- Can legal heirs of a deceased civil servant approach the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction when the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain their claim?
- Is the removal of a civil servant for absence from duty disproportionate when the department was aware of the civil servant's serious medical condition?
- Mst. Shabana Malik vs Government Of Punjab through Secretary and 32020 PLC (C.S.) 790 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Khushab, which dismissed the petitioner's application for appointment to the post of Elementary School Educator (Science-Maths) against a vacant minority quota seat. The core legal question concerns whether unfilled minority quota posts must be filled through candidates on the open merit list pursuant to the recruitment policy or carried forward to a new policy. The court held that under Clause 16(h) of the Contract Policy 2016-2017, if a minority quota post cannot be filled due to the non-availability of a minority candidate, it must be filled from the open merit list, thereby vesting a right in the next eligible candidate on that list which cannot be defeated by subsequent recruitment policies. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to process the petitioner's appointment.
Questions settled- Whether unfilled minority quota posts are required to be filled through candidates available on the open merit list under the Contract Policy 2016-2017?
- Does a right vest in the next candidate on the open merit list when a vacancy occurs due to the non-availability of a minority candidate?
- Can the appointment of an eligible candidate from the open merit list against a vacant minority quota seat be denied on the ground that seats will be filled under a new recruitment policy?
- Mst. Shabana Kausar vs District Judge and others2020 CLC 2099 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shabana Bibi and another vs S.H.O., P.S. Drig, District Qamber at2020 [M] C L R 981 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sardaran Bibi etc vs Town Committee Khuddian and another2020 CLC 1630, 2021 [M] C L R 682, 2020 PLJ Lahore 270, 2020 LHC 881 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sana Gul and 3 others vs Usman Khan and 2 others2020 YLR 1850 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Saman Naz vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Federal Education and Profession Training Islamabad and 4 others2020 PLJ Islamabad 184, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 905 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses three consolidated writ petitions challenging repatriation orders issued by the Federal Directorate of Education (F.D.E.) to return female teachers serving on deputation to their respective parent provincial departments, alongside a related plea for permanent absorption under the wedlock policy. The core legal questions revolved around whether a deputationist possesses a vested right to complete a tenure, remain on deputation under the wedlock policy, or claim permanent absorption in the borrowing department without the consent of the parent department and compliance with statutory formalities. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a deputationist has no vested or fundamental right to complete a deputation period, remain indefinitely, or be absorbed without the parent department's No Objection Certificate and formal concurrence. The court laid down the principle that deputation is a contract terminable at any time in the exigencies of service, the wedlock policy does not override statutory deputation limits or compel absorption, and absorption cannot be claimed as of right.
Questions settled- Does a deputationist have a vested right to complete their tenure or remain on deputation for an indefinite period?
- Whether a deputationist can claim permanent absorption in the borrowing department without the formal concurrence of the parent department?
- Does the wedlock policy exempt a deputationist from repatriation when the parent department refuses to issue a No Objection Certificate for an extension?
- Can a deputationist invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge an administrative order of repatriation?
- Mst. Saman Naseer vs Additional District Judge, Lahore etc2020 LHC 47, 2020 CLC 549, 2020 PLJ Lahore 111 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a suit for jactitation of marriage, which was dismissed by the trial court, though the marriage was dissolved on the basis of Khula. The appellate court upheld the decision, leading to the instant constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question revolved around the validity of the Nikah and whether the petitioner had contracted the marriage of her own free will and volition. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent had successfully established the execution of a valid Nikah through the production of the Nikah Khawan, marginal witnesses, computerised registration certificates, and the petitioner's own statements made in previous judicial proceedings. The Court laid down the principle that an adult Muslim female of sound mind can contract a valid marriage of her own free will without the intervention of a wali or a wakeel under Hanafi law, and that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction unless proven perverse or arbitrary.
Questions settled- Whether the marriage of an adult female without the intervention of a wali or wakeel is valid under Hanafi law?
- Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in family matters be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- What are the essential requirements for a valid marriage under Islamic law as reflected in the precedents and texts?
- Whether a Nikah Nama once impugned loses its status as a public document and requires strict proof of execution?
- Mst. Saira vs S.S.P., Islamabad and 5 others2020 YLR 2657 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Safina Shah vs The State etc2021 YLR 1135, 2020 PHC 486 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Saeeda Bano vs Allied Bank limitd & another2020 SHC 712 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sadia Jamshaid vs Province of Punjab & another2020 CLC 1972, 2020 LHC 1993 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sabiran Bibi w/o Muhammad Latif vs Malik Shahid2020 SC AJK 102 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sabiha Laeeq vs District and Sessions Judge (West), Islamabad and another2020 CLC 1282, 2020 IHC 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Saba vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior2020 PLD Sindh 35 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rubina Kalam Elahi & others vs District & Session Judge Central2020 SHC 1008 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Remat Bibi and others vs Federal Secretary, Government Of Pakistan, Ministry of Minorities and 3 others2020 MLD 440 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board and the Federal Secretary, through which properties allotted to the petitioners' predecessor were declared evacuee trust property and the Permanent Transfer Deeds (PTDs) were cancelled after more than four decades. The core legal question was whether a single entry of 'well charitable' in the easement column of a property register card for one survey number could legally convert a multi-survey residential property into a public charitable trust, and whether such action was sustainable after inordinate delay. The Sindh High Court held that the mere presence of a well or bore-well allowing neighbors to take water constitutes a private act of charity ('Ishta' or sacrificial gift) rather than a public trust, which under Section 5 of the Trusts Act requires a registered instrument. The Court further ruled that the respondents' action was barred by laches and that the Chairman lacked jurisdiction to cancel bona fide transfers after decades of silence. The petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside, laying down that historical water-sharing arrangements without a formal registered trust deed do not create evacuee trust property.
Questions settled- Whether the mention of a charitable well in a property register card is sufficient to classify an entire multi-survey property as evacuee trust property?
- Can a public charitable trust over immovable property be established without a registered instrument under Section 5 of the Trusts Act 1882?
- Whether the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board has the jurisdiction to cancel a Permanent Transfer Deed after a delay of over forty years?
- Does a property owner allowing neighbors to fetch water from a bore-well constitute the creation of a trust under personal law?
- Mst. Rasheeda Chandio vs The State & others2020 SHC 1048 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant, Mst. Rasheeda Chandio, filed a Criminal Transfer Application seeking the transfer of a Sessions Case pending before the Ist Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Shikarpur, to another court within the Larkana Division. The applicant alleged that she faced threats to her life from absconding accused persons involved in the murder of her daughter and nephew. The trial court's report indicated that despite the framing of charges, the complainant party had failed to appear for the recording of evidence on seven separate hearing dates. The respondent opposed the transfer, arguing the grounds were insufficient. The Court, however, allowed the application, noting the applicant's apprehension of danger from the absconding accused and the necessity of ensuring the expeditious disposal of the case, which is a right of both parties. Consequently, the case was withdrawn from the Shikarpur court and transferred to the Sessions Judge, Larkana, with the discretion to either conduct the trial personally or assign it to an Additional Sessions Judge/Model Criminal Trial Court in Larkana.
Questions settled- Can a criminal case be transferred to another district if the complainant apprehends danger from absconding accused persons?
- Is the failure of the complainant to appear for evidence recording a relevant factor in deciding a transfer application?
- Does the right to expeditious disposal of a case justify the transfer of a trial from one district to another?
- Mst. Rasheed Bibi vs Muhammad Arshad and others2020 MLD 1875 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent orders of the trial court and the appellate court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for an interim injunction in a suit for declaration. The petitioner, claiming ownership of land via a gift deed, sought to restrain the respondents from dispossessing her or transferring the property, following the respondent's subsequent transfer of the same land to another party via mutation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss sufficient to warrant an interim injunction. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case because her claim relied on an unregistered gift deed whose genuineness required evidentiary proof, whereas the respondent held a mutation in the revenue record. The Court affirmed that where a document forming the basis of a claim requires evidence for validation, a prima facie case cannot be presumed. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner was protected by the principle of lis pendens, rendering the interim injunction unnecessary.
Questions settled- Can an interim injunction be granted when the underlying claim is based on an unregistered document that requires proof through evidence?
- Is a prima facie case established when the claim relies on a document that has not been produced before a competent authority for transfer?
- Does the principle of lis pendens provide sufficient protection to a party seeking an interim injunction in a property dispute?
- Mst. Rasheda Parveen and others vs Province of Sindh and others2020 SHC 1152 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rani widow of Mushtaque vs Province of Sindh and 11 others2020 SHC 12 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Raees Begum vs Addl. District Judge, etc2020 YLR 2575, 2020 LHC 162 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rabia Qavi and others vs Mst. Hina Qavi Khan and others2020 PLD Sindh 263 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This miscellaneous appeal was filed by the stepdaughters and son of the first respondent challenging an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi-Central, regarding the distribution of a deceased person's assets, specifically the proceeds of three life insurance policies and a bank account. The core legal question centered on whether life insurance policy proceeds form part of the deceased's heritable estate (Tarka) subject to distribution under Muhammadan Law, or belong exclusively to the designated nominee, and the effect of the nominee predeceasing the policyholder. The Sindh High Court held that life insurance benefits, which do not mature during the lifetime of the insured, do not form part of the Tarka and belong exclusively to the surviving nominee. Furthermore, a nomination lapses if the nominee predeceases the nominator, rendering the policy proceeds part of the estate for distribution among all legal heirs. The court partially modified the impugned order, declaring the first respondent exclusively entitled to the policies where she was the living nominee, and directing the remaining assets and the policy of the predeceased nominee to be distributed among all legal heirs.
Questions settled- Whether the proceeds of a life insurance policy form part of the heritable estate (Tarka) of a deceased person?
- Does a nominee of a life insurance policy become the absolute owner of the policy amount or act merely as a recipient?
- What is the legal effect on a life insurance nomination if the nominee predeceases the policyholder?
- Can a succession certificate be granted in summary proceedings when complex questions of law or fact arise regarding the quantum of shares?
- Mst. Rabia Bibi vs Additional Sessions Judge and 3 others2020 PLD Lahore 690 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 338 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the grant of pardon in a murder case. The core legal questions involve whether an accused can seek pardon at a belated stage after the close of prosecution evidence, whether co-accused have a right to object, and the considerations governing the tender of pardon. The Lahore High Court held that Section 338 permits the High Court or Sessions Court trying a case to tender a pardon at any time before judgment is passed, provided the victim's heirs consent in cases of hurt or qatl and the prosecution joins in the request. The Court established that co-accused have no right to object to the grant of pardon since they will have full opportunity to cross-examine the approver. The petition was accepted, setting aside the trial court's order and directing the tender of pardon subject to the condition of full and true disclosure under Section 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can an accused person apply for the grant of pardon under Section 338 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the prosecution has closed its evidence?
- Whether co-accused persons have a legal right to object to the tender of pardon to an accomplice?
- Is the power of the court to tender pardon under Section 338 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 circumscribed by the considerations of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What are the mandatory statutory conditions required for tendering a pardon in offences relating to hurt or qatl?
- Mst. Rabia Basri vs Abdul Waheed2020 YLR 1019 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Qasim Jan vs Senior Superintendent Police, District Neelum Azad2020 PLJ AJ&K 71 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Mst. Parveen Akhtar vs Mst. Kubra Bibi, etc2020 [M] C L R 1546 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nuzhat Gulzar and 10 others vs Shamim Gul Durrani and 2 others2020 CLC 1334 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nusrata vs Govt2020 PLC (C.S.) 1046, 2020 PHC 138 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the widow of a deceased sepoy of the Frontier Constabulary, who was gunned down by militants on the day he was granted casual leave, seeking the grant of the Shuhada Package. The core legal question was whether an employee killed on the exact day casual leave was granted, prior to its legal commencement under the rules, falls within the definition of 'Shaheed' under the Payment of Compensation Rules, 2014. The Peshawar High Court held that according to Rule 27 of the Civil Servants Rules, 1986, leave commences from the day following the day charge is handed over, meaning the deceased was still on bona fide government duty on the day of the incident. The court ruled that the deceased qualified as 'Shaheed' and allowed the petition, directing respondents to award compensation in accordance with the applicable schedule.
Questions settled- When does the period of casual leave officially commence for a civil servant or member of a uniformed force under the Civil Servants Rules, 1986?
- Does an employee killed on the same day casual leave is granted qualify as 'Shaheed' under the Payment of Compensation Rules, 2014?
- Are the heirs of a Frontier Constabulary sepoy killed by militants while technically on duty entitled to the Shuhada Package and death compensation?
- Mst. Noreen Gul vs Govt.2020 PHC 318 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor-ul-Sahar & Anabiya Tahir Khan vs Tahir Naqash Khan Khattak2021 CLC 374, 2020 PHC 368 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Jehan and others vs Miss Shahnaz and 3 others2020 PLD Sindh 652 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nazia daughter of Aijaz Ali by caste Ghunio vs Naveed Ahmed son of Israr Ahmed by caste Sadhayo2020 SHC 1084 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasrin vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited Through Sam Head, Head, Multan and 5 others2020 CLD 992, 2020 CLC 982, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 226, 2022 [M] CLR 937, · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasira Khaleeque Khan and 7 others vs Muhammad Laiq Khan2020 YLR 1833 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasim Begum, etc vs Muhammad Nawaz, etc2021 CLC 1269, 2020 LHC 2981 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naseem Akhtar vs Nazir Hussain and others2020 CLC 1900 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Najm-un-Nisa vs Govt. of KP through Secretary Education2021 PLC (C.S. ) 434, 2020 PHC 104 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, addresses the eligibility of married women applying for posts of Primary School Teachers (PST) on a union council basis, where the criteria require candidates to be permanent residents of the specific union council. The core legal question revolves around determining the permanent place of residence of a married woman for public employment when her Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) reflects her husband's residence versus her prior domicile. The Peshawar High Court held that the permanent place of residence of a married woman before entering service is deemed to be that of her husband, and the entry in her CNIC serves as evidence of her permanent residence, irrespective of whether the CNIC was updated after the job advertisement. The court established that a married woman normally follows the domicile or permanent residence of her husband during the subsistence of the marriage for the purpose of such appointments.
Questions settled- What is the determinative factor for the permanent place of residence of a married woman applying for a government post on a union council basis?
- Does a married woman normally follow the domicile or permanent residence of her husband during the subsistence of the marriage?
- Can a candidate rely on a CNIC updated after the publication of a job advertisement to claim permanent residence in a specific union council?
- Does the fundamental right to reside and settle in any part of Pakistan under Article 15 of the Constitution override local residency criteria for public employment?
- Mst. Naila Younus vs The State2020 MLD 1036 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Mst. Naila Younus, who is charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of her husband. The core legal question was whether the applicant, a female accused, was entitled to the concession of bail despite being nominated in the FIR with specific allegations of murder, and whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the length of her incarceration warranted bail. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision is that while courts may exercise discretion in favor of female accused, this is not an automatic right, especially in serious offenses where the accused is prima facie involved. The Court emphasized that bail for women is not a right in every case and must be decided based on the specific facts and circumstances. Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial was at the verge of conclusion in a Model Court, rendering the release of the accused inappropriate at this stage.
Questions settled- Is a female accused automatically entitled to the concession of bail in a murder case merely by virtue of her sex?
- Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically entitle an accused to bail if the delay is not explained?
- Should a court grant bail to an accused when the trial is at the verge of conclusion in a Model Court?
- Mst. Nagina Begum vs Abdul Majeed Ali and 4 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 30 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant challenged a trial court order that prohibited the defense from cross-examining a prosecution witness by confronting him with contents of a previous written application not yet exhibited in evidence. The core legal question was whether a witness can be cross-examined and confronted with previous written statements or documents without those documents first being exhibited in evidence. The Sindh High Court held that under Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements in writing relevant to the matters in question without the writing being shown or proved, provided that if the party intends to contradict the witness with the writing, the witness's attention must first be called to those parts. The court ruled that the trial court erred in disallowing the cross-examination merely because the document was not exhibited, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the revision application.
Questions settled- Can a witness be cross-examined regarding a previous written statement without the document being exhibited in evidence?
- When is the production of a previous written statement mandatory during the cross-examination of a witness?
- Does Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply to proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
- Mst. Nabila Taj, etc vs Murad, etc2021 CLC 757, 2020 LHC 2959 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nabila Niaz etc vs Secretary Health etc2020 PLC (C.S.) 675, 2020 LHC 571 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, contract employees serving as School Health & Nutrition Supervisors since 2009, sought regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, having completed three years of continuous service, were entitled to regularization under the 2018 Act, notwithstanding the State's objection regarding the necessity of Punjab Public Service Commission recommendations. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to be considered for regularization. The appointing authority was directed to refer their cases to the Commission or the Scrutiny Committee, as applicable, to verify eligibility and statutory conditions. Pending this determination, the petitioners' services shall not be terminated. The Court affirmed that the 2018 Act was intended to curtail prolonged contract employment for permanent posts. It established that contract employees meeting the three-year service threshold and statutory criteria must be processed for regularization, emphasizing that such employment practices are subject to judicial scrutiny to prevent exploitative, indefinite contract arrangements.
Questions settled- Are contract employees who have completed three years of continuous service eligible for regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018?
- What is the procedure for regularizing contract employees whose posts fall within the purview of the Punjab Public Service Commission?
- Can the services of contract employees be terminated while their eligibility for regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 is being determined?
- What role do Scrutiny Committees play in the regularization process under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018?
- Mst. Muniran Bibi vs State, and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 932 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 challenges the judgment dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CNS), Burewala, convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Act and sentencing her to four years' imprisonment with a fine. The prosecution alleged that 1480 grams of charas were recovered from the appellant during a raid. The core legal questions before the High Court concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved an unbroken chain of safe custody and safe transmission of the narcotics sample, and whether uncorroborated daily diary entries and non-examination of a key witness vitiated the conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody and safe transmission of the samples, citing material contradictions regarding the handling dates. Furthermore, the absence of Roznamcha entries regarding the departure of the raiding party and the non-production of the courier who delivered the complaint cast fatal doubts. Setting aside the conviction, the Court acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Does a failure to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples vitiate the reliability of the Chemical Examiner's or Forensic Science Agency's report?
- Does the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 apply before the prosecution discharges its initial burden of proof?
- What is the evidentiary effect of failing to produce daily diary (Roznamcha) entries regarding the departure and arrival of the police raiding party?
- Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 stand when a material witness who delivered the complaint to the police station is withheld from the witness box?
- Mst. Mumtaz Yaqoob etc. vs Additional Sessions Judge etc.2021 PLJ Lahore 295, 2020 PLJ Lahore 221 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Motia Masood through Special Attorney vs Muhammad Yasir and another2020 CLC 1910 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Family Court, which closed the petitioner's right to cross-examine the respondent's witnesses. The core legal question is whether the trial court acted in undue haste by depriving the petitioner of the valuable right of cross-examination without granting reasonable and sufficient opportunities. The Court held that the right to cross-examine is a fundamental procedural right essential for discovering the truth and ensuring a fair trial. It observed that procedural rules are intended to advance justice rather than entrap litigants. Finding that the trial court failed to provide adequate opportunities for cross-examination while the respondent had previously been granted numerous opportunities to produce evidence, the Court set aside the impugned order. The key principle laid down is that the right to cross-examine should not be lightly curtailed, and courts must ensure that litigants are afforded real, fair, and reasonable opportunities to exercise this right before resorting to closure, as procedural rules must be interpreted to facilitate, not frustrate, the ends of justice.
Questions settled- Is the right to cross-examine a witness considered a valuable right that should not be lightly deprived?
- Can a trial court close the right of cross-examination without granting reasonable and sufficient opportunities to the party?
- Should procedural rules be interpreted to advance the cause of justice or to entrap litigants?
- Mst. Mir Zalai vs Ghazi Khan and othersPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 215, 2020 PSC CRI 458, 2020 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the acquittal of the respondents. The case pertained to a murder that occurred after dark, where the prosecution relied on the testimony of eye-witnesses to establish guilt. The core legal question centered on the reliability of these witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the visibility of the occurrence. Upon review, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to provide independent proof of available electric light at the scene. Furthermore, the eye-witnesses were categorized as chance witnesses who could not justify their presence at the time of the incident. A critical evidentiary gap was noted as the witnesses claimed their clothes were smeared with the deceased's blood, yet no such clothing was secured or produced as evidence. The Court held that the circumstances surrounding the FIR were suspicious and the prosecution's narrative lacked credibility. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, ruling that the witnesses were unreliable and likely did not witness the event, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
- Mst. Mamoona Bibi vs Syed Muhammad Umair and others2020 YLR 2086, 2020 LHC 172 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Majdan & another vs Province Of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 772 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mairaj Bibi, Etc vs Muhammad Shafique, Etc2020 PLD Lahore 888, 2020 LHC 1025 · Lahore High Court · 2020-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents against the sale of agricultural land was concurrently decreed. The core legal questions pertained to whether the suit was hit by partial pre-emption, whether the plaintiffs established a superior right of pre-emption as collaterals, and whether the plaint should have been rejected due to issues concerning court fee deficiencies and non-payment of procedural costs. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondents successfully proved their relationship and superior right through both oral and documentary evidence, that the suit was not one of partial pre-emption as typographical errors in the plaint were duly rectified, and that no contumacy was established regarding the court fee since the trial court never explicitly determined a deficiency. The court reaffirmed the principle that non-payment of minor costs or procedural oversights without contumacy should not defeat substantive rights, and detailed the narrow scope of interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit is rendered defective as a case of partial pre-emption when a typographical error regarding a khasra number in the body of the plaint is subsequently rectified through an amendment?
- Does the failure to immediately deposit procedural costs imposed for the production of additional evidence amount to contumacy warranting the rejection of a document or dismissal of a suit?
- Can a plaint be rejected for non-payment of a court fee deficiency under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the trial court has failed to explicitly determine and order the makeup of such deficiency?
- What are the strict parameters and requirements for interfering with concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a second appeal?
- Mst. Lala Rukh Yousafzai vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 PLC (C.S.) 198 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a visually impaired candidate, challenged the refusal of her appointment as a Secondary School Teacher (S.S.T.) despite topping the merit list under the disabled quota. The respondents justified the rejection on two grounds: the petitioner’s blindness rendered her incapable of performing teaching duties, and her Master’s degree was acquired after the application cut-off date. The core legal questions concerned whether blindness constitutes an automatic disqualification for teaching and whether qualifications obtained after an application cut-off date can be considered for merit evaluation. The Court held that blindness per se is not a hindrance to teaching, and in the absence of expert evidence, such an objection is invalid. Furthermore, where rules are silent, additional marks for higher qualifications obtained before the actual evaluation of candidature are permissible. While the Court set aside the impugned order, it invoked the principle of locus poenitentiae to protect the appointment of the already-appointed respondent, directing the authorities to appoint the petitioner to the post. The judgment establishes that disability is not an inherent bar to employment and that merit evaluation should account for qualifications held at the time of assessment.
Questions settled- Does blindness per se constitute a valid ground for disqualifying a candidate from a teaching position?
- Can a candidate be awarded additional marks for a higher degree obtained after the application cut-off date but before the evaluation of candidature?
- Does the principle of locus poenitentiae protect the appointment of a candidate already in service despite the selection process being found flawed?
- Mst. Khalasa Begum vs Samar Abbas through Next Friend2020 CLC 128 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-06-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khairi vs Muhammad Ibrahim & Others2020 SHC 206 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khadija through Attorney vs Viiith Additional Sessions Judge (East)2020 PLD Sindh 74 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kalsoom Bibi vs Javed Iqbal and others2020 YLR 2224 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kalsoom Begum vs Rizwan Shah and others2020 SCMR 2029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the appellant sought to pre-empt a sale of land based on her status as a co-sharer and contiguity. The trial and appellate courts initially decreed the suit in her favor, but the High Court subsequently dismissed it, questioning her status as a co-sharer due to a delayed mutation and finding discrepancies in the performance of Talbs. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a mutation does not create or destroy rights but merely reflects existing revenue records; the appellant's status as a co-sharer was established by a 1976 court decree, regardless of the subsequent mutation date. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appellant sufficiently proved the dispatch of Talb-i-Ishhad notices by producing official witnesses from the post office, satisfying the requirements of Section 26 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956. The Court also affirmed that minor narrative variations in witness testimony regarding Talbs do not invalidate the claim. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decree was restored.
Questions settled- Does a mutation entry in revenue records create or destroy an existing right to property?
- Is the personal appearance of the specific postman who delivered a notice necessary to prove service of Talb-i-Ishhad?
- Does Section 26 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act 1956 apply to the proof of service of pre-emption notices?
- Do minor narrative variations in the testimony of witnesses regarding the performance of Talbs invalidate a pre-emption claim?
- Mst. Jawairia Abbas vs Baha-Ud-Din Zakariya University through Vice2020 PLJ Lahore 213 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Jannat Khatoon vs Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 776 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Janat (Kamli) & another vs Province of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 42 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-15Read full judgment →