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.
- Mst. Jamila Kakar vs Mst. Surriya Nasreen and 4 others2020 CLC 1895 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jameela vs Province of Sindh and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 176 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by candidates who, having been successful in a 2004 recruitment process for Junior School Teacher positions, had their offer letters cancelled in 2007 due to the implementation of a new recruitment policy. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to appointment despite the cancellation of the recruitment process and the significant delay in approaching the Court. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the cancellation of the recruitment process was valid and that the petitioners could not rely on previous court orders, which were based on the consent of the parties and did not establish a binding precedent. The Court further held that the petitions suffered from laches due to the inordinate delay in filing. The key principle laid down is that consent orders cannot be cited as precedents for appointments on merits, and candidates cannot claim a vested right to appointment based on offer letters issued under a recruitment process that has been lawfully annulled by the government.
Questions settled- Can a consent order passed by a court be cited as a binding precedent for the appointment of candidates?
- Does a candidate possess a vested right to appointment based on an offer letter that was subsequently cancelled due to a change in recruitment policy?
- Is a constitutional petition challenging the cancellation of a recruitment process maintainable after an inordinate delay?
- Mst. Isba Habib vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1689 · Lahore High Court · 2020-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the blackmailing of an overseas Pakistani through the distribution of objectionable videos. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a female accused, was entitled to bail given the nature of the offenses and the evidentiary record. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the offenses charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that for non-prohibitory offenses, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Furthermore, the Court observed that the primary allegations of drugging and extortion were directed at co-accused, and confessions made before the Federal Investigation Agency were inadmissible. The principle laid down is that where offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail should be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist to justify refusal.
Questions settled- Is a confession made before the Federal Investigation Agency while in custody admissible in evidence?
- Does the grant of bail become the rule rather than the exception for offenses falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court deny bail to a female accused for non-prohibitory offenses without exceptional grounds?
- Mst. Iqbal Begum (deceased) through L.Rs, and others vs Mst. Rashida2020 YLR 2131 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Iffat Yaqoob vs Rpo, Faisalabad & others2020 YLR 1256, 2020 LHC 127 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hussan Bano vs Mst. Asia Khatoon2021 PLJ Peshawar 1, 2020 PHC 496, 2021 CLC 855 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Humera and another vs Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 594 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hani through L.Rs. and 8 others vs Government of Sindh through Secretary Board of Revenue, Karachi and 3 others2020 YLR 2323 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Gul Sanga etc vs The State & others2021 P Cr.LJ 66, 2020 PHC 66 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Gul Adam and another vs Ashraf Aman and 3 others2020 YLR 2448 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-09-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Zuhra Jahangir and another vs Vice-Chancellor, University Of The Punjab, Lahore and 8 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 285 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by two Research Officers seeking regularization of their services and payment of outstanding dues after serving for approximately ten years on contract basis at the Centre of Applied Molecular Biology. The core legal question was whether long-serving contract employees whose peers had been regularized are entitled to regularization and protection against discriminatory termination, and whether an alternate remedy bars constitutional jurisdiction where substantial justice demands relief. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that continuous service for a decade creates a legitimate expectancy of retention, and failure to regularize them while regularizing similarly situated peers constitutes discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution. The court laid down the principle that public functionaries must act fairly and justly without discrimination, that technicalities of law should not bar substantial justice in hardship cases, and that the right to work is an integral part of the right to livelihood entitled to constitutional protection.
Questions settled- Whether long-term contract employees acquire a legitimate expectancy of regularization in service after continuous employment spanning several years?
- Does the refusal to regularize certain contract employees while regularizing their similarly situated peers constitute a violation of the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the availability of an alternate remedy under a university statute bar the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction when public functionaries act discriminatorily and deny substantial justice?
- Whether the right to work and retain employment can be treated as a fundamental right associated with the right to livelihood?
- Mst. Ghafooran Bibi vs Muhammad Amin Nasir and others2021 [M] C L R 316, 2020 MLD 1773 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fozia Inayat and 35 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 PHC 418, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 341 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by the petitioners to challenge the appointments of private respondents (respondents No. 13 to 155) to various Class-IV and other low-scale posts in the Tehsil Municipal Administration. The petitioners contended that the appointments were made without any public advertisement or requisition from the District Employment Exchange, in violation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules 1989 and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Council Servants Rules 1980. The official respondents admitted that no advertisement was published and no requisition was made, but argued that the employees were not civil servants and thus not bound by those rules. The Peshawar High Court held that the rules of 1989 and the notifications of 2008 apply to local council recruitments in the absence of explicit local policies. The Court ruled that backdoor appointments made without public advertisement or employment exchange registration violate the constitutional guarantee of equality and freedom of profession under Article 18. Consequently, the Court set aside the appointments and directed a fresh selection process.
Questions settled- Whether initial recruitment to Class-IV posts in local government can be lawfully made without public advertisement or registration with the District Employment Exchange?
- Can the principle of locus poenitentiae be invoked to protect public employment appointments obtained in violation of the prescribed statutory procedure?
- Do the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules 1989 apply to local council servants in matters not specifically provided for in their own service rules?
- Mst. Fouzia vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 100 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Mst. Fauzia, facing trial in Crime No. 10 of 2019 registered at Police Station Saahil, Karachi, for an offence under Section 6/9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, regarding the alleged recovery of 2 Kgs of Charas. The core legal questions involve whether the mere gravity of an offence against society and statutory bars warrant indefinite pre-trial incarceration, and whether missing details in the FIR regarding the wrapped shape of the recovered contraband along with the gender and welfare of the accused's minor children constitute grounds for further probe and post-arrest bail. The High Court held that the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that an allegation of a crime against society cannot justify indefinite detention without reasonable grounds, that the FIR's failure to specify the shape and wrapping of the recovered substance calls for further probe, and that being a woman with minor children dependent on her serves as a favorable circumstance under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principles laid down include that bail decisions must be based on a tentative assessment of available material rather than solely on the applied offence or statutory bars, and that the welfare of minor children and the gender of the accused are relevant mitigating factors when considering liberty.
Questions settled- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the ground that the charged offence is a crime against society?
- Does the failure of an FIR to specify the exact shape and wrapping of recovered narcotics create grounds for further probe warranting bail?
- Is the gender of an accused woman and the welfare of her dependent minor children a relevant circumstance for consideration under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mst. Fehmida D/o Ali Muhammad vs Mst. Fehmida W/o Haji Jokhio & others2020 SHC 1294 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima Faryad and others vs Government Of Punjab and others2020 CLC 836 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated writ petitions were filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan by students seeking directions for the issuance of laptops under the Chief Minister’s Laptop Scheme. The petitioners, having secured over 90% marks in their matriculation examinations between 2015 and 2017, claimed entitlement based on the Government of Punjab's established criteria. The core legal question concerned whether the government was bound to honor its policy commitments and notifications regarding the distribution of laptops to high-achieving students. The Court held that under the doctrine of sovereignty and legitimate expectation, the government must adhere to its commitments and policies, as citizens are entitled to place implicit faith in official representations. Citing judicial precedent, the Court emphasized that official commitments should not be lightly disregarded. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioners to present their documents to the focal person for verification and ordered the Higher Education Department to provide necessary online access to ensure the delivery of laptops to eligible candidates within a specified timeframe.
- Mst. Farzana vs The State2020 MLD 49 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II/Judge Special Court, Takht Bhai, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 15,000 grams of charas. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and whether the mere presence of the appellant in a vehicle containing contraband constitutes sufficient evidence of conscious possession. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to significant evidentiary gaps, including the failure to independently weigh each packet of contraband and inconsistencies regarding the timing of the raid and the recovery process. Furthermore, the court emphasized that mere presence in a vehicle is insufficient to establish criminal liability without proof of conscious knowledge of the illicit activity. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered her immediate release, reiterating the principle that the prosecution must prove its case through reliable, confidence-inspiring evidence to sustain a conviction.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an individual in a vehicle containing contraband constitute sufficient evidence of conscious possession to sustain a conviction?
- Is it mandatory for the prosecution to weigh each packet of recovered contraband independently in narcotics cases?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to produce evidence regarding the specific recovery process create a reasonable doubt requiring acquittal?
- Mst. Farhat Imam vs Sajid Nazif2020 CLC 1874, 2020 CLC 1878, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 121, 2020 PHC 158 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fakhr-un-Nisa vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and 032020 SHC 930 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Dilara Bibi vs The State through-General, Kyber Pakhtunkhwa and another2020 MLD 949 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Chanani Begum (Deceased) through LRs vs Mst. Qamar Sultan2020 P SC 934, 2020 SCMR 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the religious faith of the late Mst. Anwar Sultan, which determined the distribution of her estate. The appellant asserted the deceased was a 'Sunni' Muslim, while the respondent contended she was 'Shia'. The core legal question concerned the admissibility of the deceased’s prior statement declaring her faith and the criteria for determining religious identity in succession matters. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the deceased’s voluntary declaration of faith, even if made in previous proceedings, is admissible and carries significant weight. The Court affirmed that while there is an initial rebuttable presumption that a Muslim in the Indo-Pak subcontinent is 'Sunni', this presumption loses sanctity once challenged. Faith must be determined based on surrounding circumstances, way of life, parental faith, and the faith of kith and kin. The Court further held that specific practices, such as hoisting an Alam of Hazrat Abbas, serve as strong evidence of 'Shia' faith. Consequently, the concurrent findings of fact regarding the deceased's 'Shia' faith were upheld.
Questions settled- Is a person's voluntary declaration of their own religious faith admissible in subsequent legal proceedings regarding their estate?
- Does the initial presumption that a Muslim is 'Sunni' by faith persist once that faith is challenged in court?
- What factors should courts consider when determining the religious faith of a deceased person for the purpose of succession?
- Can the hoisting of an Alam of Hazrat Abbas be considered a strong indicator of 'Shia' faith in legal proceedings?
- Mst. Brikhna vs Faiz Ullah Khan and others2020 SCMR 1618 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal concerned a dispute over a female heir's claim to her Sharai share in her father's legacy. The core legal question was whether the claim was barred by limitation and acquiescence, and whether the petitioner was entitled to her share despite the absence of a mutation in her favor. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree. The Court held that inheritance vests by operation of law immediately upon the death of the predecessor, rendering the heir a co-sharer in the property. It clarified that mutation is not a document of title but merely a fiscal record for updating rights. Furthermore, the Court determined that the principle of limitation and acquiescence established in Grana v. Sahib Kamala Bibi is not universally applicable to all inheritance claims. The Court emphasized that denying women their due Sharai share is contrary to Sharia and the law, confirming the petitioner's entitlement to her 1/7th share.
Questions settled- Is a mutation entry in revenue records considered a document of title?
- Does the principle of limitation and acquiescence in inheritance matters apply universally to all cases?
- When does a legal heir become a co-sharer in the property of a deceased predecessor?
- Mst. Bisma Noreen vs Federation of Pakistan & others2020 SHC 386 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bilqis Bang and another vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing2020 P Cr. L J 354 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal challenged the dismissal of a civil suit by a learned Single Judge who held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to adjudicate a dispute regarding the non-mutation of properties affected by National Accountability Bureau proceedings. The appellants had purchased properties from individuals against whom references and inquiries were pending before the National Accountability Bureau, and housing authorities refused mutation due to restrictions imposed by the Bureau. The core legal question was whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking directions for property mutation when the property is subject to freezing or restrictions by the National Accountability Bureau. The Sindh High Court held that matters concerning the National Accountability Bureau are criminal in nature and governed by a special law having an overriding effect, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court laid down that third parties or aggrieved persons claiming ownership of properties affected by Bureau actions must seek their remedy before the Accountability Court under Section 13 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 rather than filing a civil suit.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding property mutation when the property is subject to restrictions or freezing orders by the National Accountability Bureau?
- Are matters concerning the National Accountability Bureau considered civil or criminal in nature for the purpose of court jurisdiction?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for a third party claiming to be an aggrieved person against the freezing or attachment of property by the National Accountability Bureau?
- Do the provisions of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 have an overriding effect over ordinary civil laws?
- Mst. Bibi Sundas and others vs Mst. Bibi Shahida and others2020 CLC 1475 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Benish Liaquat vs The Station House Officer and 2 others2020 MLD 740 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Beenish Mobin and others vs Federation of Pakistan and another2020 SHC 926 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Beena vs Raja Muhammad and others2020 PLD Supreme Court 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a custody dispute where the High Court, exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, set aside concurrent findings of the Family and Appellate Courts that had granted physical custody of a minor son to the mother. The High Court had based its decision on a 'khula' agreement where the mother purportedly surrendered custody rights, and on the mother's physical disability and lack of financial independence. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that a mother's right to 'hizanat' (custody) cannot be surrendered as consideration for 'khula' under Muslim Personal Law, and any such contractual clause is void under Sections 23 and 25 of the Contract Act, 1872, as being against public policy and without lawful consideration. The Court further ruled that physical disability and financial status are not grounds to disentitle a mother to custody. The Court emphasized that the right to dignity under Articles 9, 14, and 25 of the Constitution protects persons with disabilities from discriminatory labels and ensures their participation in family life.
- Mst. Beena vs Raj Muhammad, etc2021 PLJ SC 50, 2020 P SC 1177, 2020 SCP 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a custody dispute over a minor child, Muhammad Rayyan, between his mother (petitioner) and father (respondent). The Family Court and Appellate Court granted custody to the mother, but the High Court set aside these concurrent judgments, citing an agreement where the mother waived custody rights in exchange for khula and noting her physical disability and financial status. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that an agreement to surrender the custody of a child as consideration for khula is void, contrary to public policy, and repugnant to Islamic principles of hizanat. The Court emphasized that a mother's right to custody cannot be bargained away, nor can her physical disability or financial status be used to deny her the right to raise her child. The Court further condemned the use of derogatory language regarding persons with disabilities, affirming that such labeling infringes upon constitutional guarantees of dignity and non-discrimination. The Court restored the custody of the minor to the mother, directing immediate compliance.
Questions settled- Can a mother legally surrender the custody of her minor child as consideration for obtaining khula?
- Is an agreement between parents regarding the custody of a minor child enforceable if it is contrary to the welfare of the minor?
- Does a mother's physical disability or financial status constitute valid grounds to deprive her of the custody of her minor child?
- Can a High Court set aside concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in custody matters without valid legal or Shariah justification?
- Mst. Basri Irshad vs Touqir Hayat & others2021 YLR 1267, 2020 PHC 188 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Balqees Begum vs Addl. District Judge, etc2020 LHC 1996 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Balqees Begum vs Additional District Judge and others2021 [M] C L R 526, 2020 LHC 1996, 2020 CLC 1950 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Azeema Khatoon and 2 others vs Mst. Hakimzadi and 10 others2020 YLR 1394 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aysha Asif vs Governor State Bank Of Pakistan and others2020 CLD 1431 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ayesha Altaf vs Fahad Ali, etc.2020 [M] C L R 731 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Attia Bano and others vs Abdul Majeed2020 SCMR 1396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants, legal heirs of the late Arshad Mehmood Humayun, challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts which declared the respondent, Abdul Majeed, the true owner of a residential property in Islamabad. The respondent, a U.S. resident, asserted that the property was purchased and constructed using his funds, with the deceased acting as a benamidar for procedural convenience, a claim supported by an agreement dated 22.4.1993. The appellants contended that the deceased purchased the property with his own resources and that the agreement was forged. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting the respondent's established financial capacity, the lack of evidence regarding the deceased's income, and the corroborative testimony regarding the agreement's execution. The Court held that the respondent successfully discharged the burden of proving the benami nature of the transaction. Affirming the lower courts' decisions, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the totality of circumstances and evidence, including the agreement and witness testimony, conclusively established that the deceased was merely an ostensible owner, while the respondent provided the resources for the property's acquisition.
Questions settled- What is the standard of proof required to establish a benami transaction in a property dispute?
- Can an agreement executed by a deceased person acknowledging another's title serve as sufficient evidence to prove a benami arrangement?
- Does the failure of legal heirs to establish the financial source of their predecessor's property acquisition support a claim of benami ownership by a third party?
- Mst. Asma Bibi vs Chairman Reconciliation Committee, etc2020 PLD Lahore 632, 2020 PLD Lahore 679, 2020 LHC 144 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged a divorce confirmation order and a divorce registration certificate issued by the Chairman of a Reconciliation Committee/Union Council, contending that the proceedings were ex parte, fraudulent, and conducted without proper notice. The core legal question concerned the assumption of territorial jurisdiction by the Union Council Chairman when the wife was residing abroad at the time of the alleged pronouncement of talaq. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was residing in the USA at the relevant time, the Union Council in Pakistan lacked jurisdiction, as the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and relevant notifications vest such authority regarding overseas Pakistanis in officers of Pakistan Missions abroad. Furthermore, documents executed abroad must be properly attested by the Pakistani Consulate. The Court set aside the impugned divorce order and registration certificate as void and without legal effect, establishing that domestic Union Councils cannot entertain divorce proceedings for wives residing abroad unless prescribed procedures involving attested powers of attorney and missions abroad are strictly followed.
Questions settled- Does a local Union Council in Pakistan have jurisdiction to confirm a divorce when the wife was residing abroad at the time of the pronouncement of talaq?
- What procedure must be adopted for an overseas Pakistani husband to pronounce and register a divorce in Pakistan?
- Are un-attested documents and faxed affidavits executed abroad by a resident of a foreign country admissible as proof of divorce?
- What is the effect of conducting divorce proceedings through an unauthorized person in the absence of proper attestation from a Pakistani Consulate abroad?
- Mst. Aqeela and another vs Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 582 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. Anjum Shehnaz and others vs Karachi Development Authority2020 CLC 163 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Anita Anam and others vs General Public and others2021 KLR Civil Cases 115, 2020 CLC 1053 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Alam Bibi vs Kasb Bank, registered office at 76-B,E_1, Main Boulevard, through its Manager, etc2020 LHC 734 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Alam Bibi through L.Rs vs Mst. Alam Bibi through L.Rs2020 CLC 1835 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by a subsequent transferee of property from an auction purchaser, seeking to set aside a judgment of the High Court that had nullified an auction sale. The core legal questions concerned whether a pendente lite transferee could maintain an independent application under Section 12(2) separate from the auction purchaser, and the implications of the auction purchaser's withdrawal of an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Lahore High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant, having acquired the property during the pendency of proceedings, was bound by the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court ruled that the transferee's interests were inseparable from those of the auction purchaser, and that Section 12(2) cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal, especially when the principal auction purchaser had voluntarily withdrawn their appeal against the judgment, thereby conferring finality to it. Consequently, the applicant lacked the locus standi to maintain the application.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent transferee pendente lite can maintain an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 independently of the auction purchaser?
- Does the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 bar a pendente lite purchaser from claiming rights independent of the transferor?
- What is the legal effect of the withdrawal of an appeal by the auction purchaser on a separate application filed by a subsequent transferee against the same judgment?
- Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be utilized as a substitute for the remedy of an appeal?
- Mst. Afzal Bibi vs Hazoor Shah and others2020 YLR 2398 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Afsheen and others vs Government Of Sindh through Home Secretary2020 PLJ Karachi 50 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Afroze vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home Department2020 PLJ Karachi 30 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Adeela Saeed Qureshi vs Saad Mehmood Sherani & 2 others2020 SHC 1334 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-15Read full judgment →
- Mst Zahida & another vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 44 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-15Read full judgment →
- Mst Suraiya vs SSP Complaint cell Badin & others2020 SHC 1320 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mst Shabiran @ Saeeda &another vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 98 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
- Mst Safeena Shah vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 668, 2020 PHC 488 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed by an under-trial prisoner seeking permission to deposit cash security in lieu of furnishing bail bonds, following a previous grant of bail. The core legal question was whether the Court has the authority to order cash security under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while Section 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not authorize a Court to demand cash security of its own motion, it permits the Court to accept such a request if made by the accused, particularly when the accused faces genuine difficulty in arranging local sureties. The Court emphasized that the statutory language 'permit him to deposit' implies that cash security is an enabling provision for the accused's benefit rather than a coercive power of the Court. Consequently, the Court allowed the applicant to deposit the surety amount in cash, provided she also furnished a personal bond and a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the relevant Judicial Magistrate.
Questions settled- Does Section 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 authorize a Court to demand cash security from an accused?
- Under what circumstances can a Court permit an accused to deposit cash security instead of furnishing bail bonds?
- Can a Court order the deposit of cash security on its own motion?
- Mst Nargis Begum vs Asfandyar2020 PHC 476 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-15Read full judgment →
- Mst Mubina Khatoon vs Federation Of Pakistan & Others2020 SHC 1182 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-16Read full judgment →
- Mst Koonj vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 640 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-13Read full judgment →
- Mst Farah Deeba vs Said Muhammad alias Toti2021 MLD 580, 2020 PHC 248 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-19Read full judgment →
- Mst Bibi Roza vs Wali ur Rehman2021 CLC 746, 2020 PHC 416 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-12Read full judgment →
- Mst Aisha &another vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 46 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-15Read full judgment →
- Ms. Zahidjee Textile Mills Ltd. Provident Fund Trust vs Executive Director, SECP2020 CLD 545 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2020-01-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Amir and others vs The State2020 MLD 1777 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court No. IV, Karachi, which convicted the appellants under Sections 324/353/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, following an alleged police encounter. The Sindh High Court scrutinized the prosecution's evidence and found the story of the encounter to be unnatural and unbelievable. Key discrepancies included the lack of any injuries to police personnel or damage to police property despite a prolonged exchange of fire, conflicting statements regarding the location of the appellant's gunshot wound, and contradictions regarding how the injured appellant was transported to the hospital. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and timely transmission of the recovered weapons to the forensic laboratory. The High Court held that in cases of alleged police encounters, the standard of proof is exceptionally high, and the police cannot investigate their own cause without compromising the independent character of the investigation. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, set aside their convictions, and ordered their acquittal.
Questions settled- What is the standard of proof required in cases involving alleged police encounters?
- Can the police department independently investigate a case where they are the complainants and investigators of their own cause?
- What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of recovered weapons to the forensic laboratory?
- Whether a joint mashirnama of recovery and arrest pertaining to multiple distinct FIRs is legally sustainable?
- Ms. Shamim Naqvi vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, through Secretary and 4 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1449 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged her termination from service by the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority (DHA) via a constitutional petition, alleging procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against a statutory authority when the underlying service rules are non-statutory, and whether the 'Master and Servant' principle governs the employment relationship. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It determined that while DHA is a statutory body, its service rules are non-statutory and merely internal instructions. Consequently, the employment relationship is governed by the 'Master and Servant' principle, precluding the High Court from exercising writ jurisdiction to adjudicate service-related grievances. The principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce terms and conditions of service where the rules governing the employment are non-statutory; in such instances, the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved employee is to file a civil suit for damages or other relief.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a statutory authority when the service rules governing the employee are non-statutory?
- Does the 'Master and Servant' principle apply to employees of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority?
- Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to adjudicate service grievances governed by non-statutory rules?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for an employee of a statutory authority governed by non-statutory service rules who is aggrieved by termination?
- Ms. Shama Hassan and 35 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary and 2 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1044 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed by 36 employees of the Pakistan Steel Mills, serving as teaching and non-teaching staff under the Hadeed Welfare Trust, seeking regularization of their contractual services. The core legal question was whether these employees were entitled to regularization in light of previous judicial precedents and the treatment afforded to their colleagues in similar positions. The respondents initially contested the claim, arguing that the petitioners were employees of the Hadeed Welfare Trust and that the Establishment Division's regularization policies were inapplicable. Upon review, the Court observed that the petitioners' case was substantively identical to previous litigation decided by the Sindh High Court and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the same relief as their counterparts in the cited precedents, noting that the Supreme Court had previously rejected attempts to restrict regularization based on grade or scale. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petitions, directing that the petitioners be granted regularization in accordance with the principles established in the Supreme Court's orders dated 21.03.2017 and 03.06.2019.
Questions settled- Are contract employees of the Pakistan Steel Mills entitled to regularization based on the principle of parity with previously regularized colleagues?
- Does the regularization of contract employees apply across all grades and scales in the Pakistan Steel Mills?
- Can the Pakistan Steel Mills deny regularization to employees based on their initial appointment through the Hadeed Welfare Trust when similar employees have already been granted relief?
- Ms. Saltanat Khan and Company vs Executive/Superintendent Engineer2020 YLR 998 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
- Ms. Rehana Ahson & Another vs Mr. Zulfiqar Mohammad2021 CLC 901, 2020 SHC 146 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-11Read full judgment →
- Ms. Mashal Khalidi vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 758 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
- Ms. Iffat Rana and 2 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary2020 PLC (C.S.) 1548 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition filed by Assistant Nursing Superintendents sought ante-dated up-gradation in BPS-17 from the date of the creation of the posts or from the date their junior colleagues were up-graded, along with consequential benefits. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were subjected to discriminatory treatment in violation of their fundamental rights by the delayed up-gradation of their posts compared to parallel cadre junior staff. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioners were indeed subjected to discriminatory treatment and administrative disparity, violating the principle of equality before law. The Court ruled that similarly placed employees cannot be treated differently and directed the respondents to up-grade the petitioners' posts to BPS-17 from the date when the parallel posts of Head Nurses were up-graded, along with all consequential benefits. The key principle laid down is that the State cannot apply divergent yardsticks to similarly placed civil servants, and discriminatory denial of up-gradation or ante-dated promotion resulting in the reversal of seniority violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Questions settled- Whether the non-grant of ante-dated up-gradation to civil servants while granting the same to junior colleagues in a parallel cadre constitutes discriminatory treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can similarly placed government employees be subjected to divergent yardsticks in matters of promotion and up-gradation?
- Whether the High Court can direct the up-gradation of posts with consequential benefits to remove administrative disparity and reverse discriminatory treatment?
- Ms. Asmat Begum vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary M/O2020 IHC 144 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Zakia Hussain and another vs Syed Farooq Hussain2020 SCP 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a civil dispute concerning a sale agreement for an apartment in Karachi, where the vendor appellants failed to complete the sale and unilaterally cancelled the agreement, prompting the vendee respondent to file a suit for specific performance and declaration. The core legal questions involved whether an attorney with no personal knowledge of the transaction can depose on behalf of a party under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the legality of recording evidence through a local commission, and whether time was the essence of the contract given that the apartment lacked legal construction approval from the Karachi Building Control Authority at the time. The Supreme Court held that while an attorney must generally have first-hand knowledge, the non-appearance of the principal was not fatal under the circumstances, that commissions can be issued with the consent of parties, and that the time was not of the essence because the appellants concealed material defects regarding the lack of building approval. The court dismissed the appellants' appeals with costs, affirming the decree for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act 1877.
Questions settled- Is an attorney competent to depose as a witness on behalf of a principal who resides abroad?
- Can a local commission be appointed for recording evidence with the consent of the parties under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether time can be considered the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property when the vendor conceals material legal defects regarding property approval?
- Does the non-appearance of a plaintiff as a witness automatically result in an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Mrs. Wasim Sultana vs Public at Large2020 YLR 1285 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-27Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Sitara Khanum vs Provincial Government, through Chief Secretary2020 PLC (C.S.) 986 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner challenging her removal and substitution from the merit list for the post of Aya (BS-1) at City Hospital Gilgit, despite being recommended by the Departmental Selection Committee. The core legal questions involve whether contingent paid staff possess preferential rights against removal and whether the petitioner was rightly excluded on grounds of domicile. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court allowed the petition, holding that the substitution of the petitioner's name in the subsequent notification was unjust, without legal justification, and contrary to government instructions protecting contingent paid staff from removal. The Court laid down that contingent paid staff cannot be arbitrarily removed from service on the basis of non-availability of posts, and that arbitrary, non-transparent substitution of recommended candidates on incorrect factual premises of domicile is illegal and without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether contingent paid staff can be removed on the basis of non-availability of posts under government instructions?
- Does a candidate recommended for appointment by a Departmental Selection Committee have a right against arbitrary substitution?
- Whether a petitioner's domicile can be incorrectly asserted to deny appointment when official records establish otherwise?
- Mrs. Shahina Shakeel vs The Chairman NAB, etc2020 P Cr. L J 1004, 2021 PLJ Lahore 87, 2020 LHC 861 · Lahore High Court · 2020-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses consolidated writ petitions filed by Mir Shakil Ur Rehman and another challenging the legality of their arrest, inquiry proceedings, remand orders, and call-up notices issued by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in connection with an alleged illegal exemption and allotment of plots in Johar Town, Lahore, dating back to 1986. The core legal questions revolved around whether NAB's inquiry and arrest of the petitioner under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for a 34-year-old matter involving land exemption were lawful, whether physical remand orders passed by the Accountability Court were sustainable, and whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked to quash these proceedings on grounds of malafide. The Court held that the inquiry and arrest were conducted within the statutory authority of NAB under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, that the remand orders were well-reasoned, and that disputed factual controversies cannot be resolved through constitutional petitions. The petitions were consequently dismissed as meritless and premature, leaving the petitioner at liberty to seek bail at an appropriate stage.
Questions settled- Whether the National Accountability Bureau has the jurisdiction under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to initiate an inquiry and arrest a person in respect of a matter dating back several decades?
- Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 be invoked to prematurely challenge an ongoing NAB inquiry and factual controversies?
- Whether physical remand orders passed by an Accountability Court under Section 24(D) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 can be set aside when based on reasonable grounds?
- Whether a call-up notice and subsequent arrest by NAB in a land exemption case involving public loss fall within the ambit of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- Mrs. Shahida Perveen vs Saeed Ahmed and others2020 [M] C L R 1550 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mrs. Shahida Parveen vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1412 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-23Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Sanam Irshad Shah and 2 others vs State Life Insurance Corporation2020 CLD 778 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Nishat Usmani and Others vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1360 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Nasima Yousuf through Special Lawful Attorney vs Tehseen Abass2020 PLD Sindh 68 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision arose from an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge dismissing a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The applicant, acting as attorney and purchaser of the disputed property, argued that the trial court failed to examine the facts of the complaint, erroneously confused the applicant with a party from cited case law, and omitted to call for a mandatory police report under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The High Court observed that the trial judge acted in a slipshod manner by referencing parties from an annexed precedent rather than the actual pleadings, failing to apply proper judicial mind or supply adequate reasons. Setting aside the impugned order, the High Court remanded the matter for fresh decision after obtaining a police report in accordance with law. The court held that judicial decisions must reflect due application of mind rather than mechanical disposals motivated by case clearance, and directed the transfer of the case to another competent judge.
Questions settled- Can a trial court dismiss a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 without calling for a mandatory police report as contemplated under the statute?
- Does a judgment satisfy legal requirements if the judge confuses the parties named in cited precedents with the actual litigants before the court?
- Can 'rush of work' or a desire to increase disposal statistics excuse a court from delivering a reasoned and properly considered judicial decision?
- Whether an order passed in a slipshod and mechanical manner without application of judicial mind warrants remand and transfer of the proceedings to another judge?
- Mrs. Najma Iqbal and Others vs National Accountability Bureau and Others2020 P Cr. L J 421 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged notices issued by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) seeking to recover unpaid fines and take possession of confiscated properties following their conviction in a corruption reference, having already served both their substantive sentences and additional imprisonment in default of paying the fine. The core legal questions were whether undergoing imprisonment in default of fine absolves a convict from the liability to pay the fine, whether NAB has the authority to issue such recovery notices, and whether such proceedings constitute double jeopardy. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that serving a default sentence does not discharge the underlying civil liability to pay the fine, particularly where the convict had sufficient means to pay but opted for imprisonment. The court held that the legislature intended primarily to recover misappropriated state funds. Furthermore, fines are recoverable as arrears of land revenue pursuant to the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and the Land Revenue Act, 1967. The key principle laid down is that undergoing imprisonment in default of fine operates as a reasonable punishment but does not extinguish the convict's financial liability to pay the fine or invalidate the lawful execution of property confiscations ordered by the court.
Questions settled- Does undergoing a term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine absolve a convict of the liability to pay the fine?
- Does the National Accountability Bureau have the authority to issue notices for the recovery of fines and the possession of confiscated properties under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- Does initiating proceedings to recover a fine after the convict has served a default sentence amount to double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Can a convict initiate a fresh round of litigation to challenge the confiscation of properties after the matter has attained finality up to the Supreme Court?
- Mrs. Musarrat Islam through legal heirs vs Mrs. Farzana Anwer and another2020 YLR 607 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-21Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Azra Riaz vs Addl. District Judge & others2020 LHC 3278, 2021 CLC 623 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-03Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Afroz Shah and another vs Advocate General Sindh and 11 others2020 CLC 785 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-05Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Adeeba Khan vs The State2020 CLD 1434 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, a former Branch Manager of a bank, who was charged with embezzlement, cheating, and fraud involving Rs. 47.5 million in a Term Deposit Certificate case. The accused contended that she had resigned prior to the alleged offenses, that the evidence did not connect her to the transactions, and that the case was based on mala fide intentions. Conversely, the prosecution argued that the accused utilized her position to facilitate parallel banking, forged application forms, and misappropriated funds, with evidence including forensic analysis of her mobile phone and internal bank inquiry reports. The Court, upon reviewing the arguments and the material available on record, found that the allegations were supported by sufficient prima facie evidence, including the accused's involvement in operating accounts using her own contact details and the seizure of incriminating documents. Consequently, the Court held that the case did not warrant the grant of bail at this stage, as the accused failed to demonstrate that her case fell within the scope of further inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether a bank official accused of large-scale embezzlement involving parallel banking is entitled to post-arrest bail when prima facie evidence links them to the transactions?
- Does the resignation of a bank employee prior to the discovery of fraud automatically entitle them to bail if the prosecution alleges their involvement in the underlying scheme?
- Can a bail application be dismissed where forensic evidence and internal bank inquiries corroborate the allegations of fraud against the accused?
- Mrs Zeenat Salim vs Pakistan Naval Forms, etc2020 IHC 124 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-23Read full judgment →
- Mr. Taj Ali Khan & others vs Dr. Khalid Mahmood2020 CLC 1840, 2020 PHC 260 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mr. Asif Mannaan & others vs Mr. Suleman Lallani & others2020 CLD 1095, 2020 PLD Sindh 660, 2020 SHC 292 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-16Read full judgment →
- Mor Khan and another vs The State2020 YLR 942 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the murder of the deceased, Imam Din, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, armed with pistols, intercepted the complainant and witnesses, killing the deceased due to old enmity. The trial court convicted the appellants based on ocular testimony, medical evidence, and the recovery of crime weapons matched by forensic reports. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained despite defense arguments regarding the witnesses' relationship to the deceased and alleged contradictions in evidence. The Court held that the conviction was sound, affirming that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The key principles laid down are that the mere relationship of a witness to the deceased does not render them an 'interested witness' or invalidate their testimony if it is otherwise truthful and consistent, and that related witnesses are often more reliable in murder cases as they are unlikely to falsely implicate innocent persons while the real culprit escapes.
Questions settled- Does the mere relationship of a witness to the deceased render their testimony unreliable or classify them as an interested witness?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence despite defense claims of enmity?
- Is the testimony of related witnesses in a murder case inherently untrustworthy?
- Moon Enterpriser CNG Station, Rawalpindi vs Sui Northern Gas2020 P SC 966, 2020 PLJ SC 205, 2020 SCMR 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a recovery suit filed by Respondent No. 1 against the Petitioner for unpaid gas consumption bills. After the Petitioner was granted leave to defend and the Respondent's evidence concluded, the Trial Court (Gas Utility Court) granted multiple adjournments for the Petitioner to lead evidence. On 24.09.2019, the court granted a final opportunity with a specific warning that failure to comply would result in the closure of the right to produce evidence. Upon the Petitioner's failure to produce evidence on the scheduled date, the Trial Court closed their right under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the CPC, a decision subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the petition, held that the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3 are essential to check the abuse of process through frivolous adjournments. The Court laid down that where a party is granted a 'last opportunity' with a warning, the court must enforce that order strictly to maintain judicial integrity. The ratio establishes that once the conditions of Rule 3 are met—specifically the grant of time at a party's request coupled with a warning of consequences—the closure of evidence must follow default.
- Momin vs The State and another2020 KLR Criminal Cases 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Juvenile Court convicting the appellant under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for sodomy committed against a minor. The core legal question revolves around whether the trial court erred in framing the charge under the Pakistan Penal Code instead of the special provincial legislation, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010. The Peshawar High Court held that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 is a special law possessing an overriding effect under Section 61, which prevails over the general provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 unless the latter is more protective. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the matter for a de-novo trial with directions to properly frame the charge under the applicable special law.
Questions settled- Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 override the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in cases involving offences against children?
- What is the effect of framing a charge under a general law when a special law is applicable?
- Can an appellate court remand a matter for a de-novo trial due to a defective charge?
- Momin Ali & others vs The State2020 YLR 1160, 2020 SHC 2 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offenses including attempted murder, police encounter, and illegal possession of arms and explosives. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the evidence presented. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed and doubtful. The court noted significant contradictions regarding the recovery of weapons, the lack of injuries sustained by either party during the alleged shootout, and the failure to prove the safe custody and transit of recovered items to forensic experts. Furthermore, the court observed that the investigation was managed and lacked credibility. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. If a single circumstance creates doubt, the benefit must accrue to the accused as a matter of right, regardless of the heinous nature of the alleged offense.
Questions settled- Does the failure to prove the safe custody and transit of recovered weapons to a forensic laboratory entitle an accused to acquittal?
- Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery of weapons and the circumstances of an alleged police encounter?
- Is the benefit of the doubt a matter of right for an accused when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Does the absence of injuries to either party during an alleged shootout at close range cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's version of events?
- Molvi Muhammad Hasan Pathan vs Home Secretary, Government of Sindh2020 SHC 940 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-10Read full judgment →
- Moin Jamal Abbasi vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary and 22020 PTD 660 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the High Court of Sindh challenged the Customs Authorities' refusal to release an imported vintage car, a 1963 Lincoln Continental Convertible, upon payment of US$ 5,000 as duty. The petitioner invoked Notification S.R.O. 833(I)/2018 dated 03.07.2018, which exempted vintage or classic cars manufactured prior to January 01, 1968 from custom duties and taxes exceeding US$ 5,000 per unit. The respondents withheld release, citing potential ambiguity and lack of corresponding amendment in the Import Policy Order, 2016. The High Court examined Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, and Paragraphs 5 and 20 of the Import Policy Order, 2016. The Court held that the Federal Government possesses explicit statutory authority to exempt duty and relax import prohibitions or restrictions. The issuance of S.R.O. 833(I)/2018 reflected a clear intention to grant both tax concession and relaxation of general import prohibitions for vintage cars. Under Section 223 of the Customs Act, 1969, customs authorities are legally bound to execute notifications issued by the Federal Government. The Court allowed the petition and directed the immediate release of the vehicle upon payment of US$ 5,000.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Government have the authority under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 and Paragraph 20 of the Import Policy Order, 2016 to exempt vintage cars from custom duties and relax import restrictions?
- Are customs authorities legally bound under Section 223 of the Customs Act, 1969 to enforce statutory exemption notifications issued by the Federal Government?
- Can customs authorities withhold the release of imported goods governed by a statutory exemption notification pending administrative clarification regarding the Import Policy Order?
- Mohsin Yousaf vs Judge Family Court, etc.2020 [M] C L R 896 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
- Mohsin Baloch s/o Haji Hassan vs The State2020 SHC 352 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 7(1)(a), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, sentencing them to death. The core legal question was whether the death sentence should be maintained or reduced to imprisonment for life in light of mitigating circumstances such as unproven motive and general attribution of fatal shots. The Sindh High Court held that while the prosecution successfully proved the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the failure to prove motive and the uncertainty regarding which accused fired the fatal shot constitute sufficient mitigating grounds to exercise judicial caution. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals regarding the conviction but partly allowed them by converting the death sentences into imprisonment for life on two counts, while maintaining the remaining convictions and sentences. The key principle laid down is that the unproven motive and general roles of multiple accused in a murder case serve as mitigating circumstances warranting the substitution of the death penalty with life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive serve as a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Whether the absence of clarity on which specific accused inflicted the fatal blow justifies the commutation of a death penalty?
- Can the High Court convert a death sentence to imprisonment for life while upholding the underlying conviction for murder and terrorism?
- Mohsin Abbas vs Qadir Khan Mandokhail and 6 others2020 PLD Sindh 94 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application was filed against the order of a judicial magistrate dismissing a direct criminal complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether an aggrieved party can directly approach the High Court in revision against an order of a magistrate without first exhausting the remedy before the District and Sessions Judge, given the concurrent jurisdiction under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that although the High Court and Sessions Court possess concurrent jurisdiction, judicial propriety and the hierarchy of the judiciary require that an aggrieved party must first approach the Court of Sessions Judge against an order of an inferior court, such as a magistrate. Bypassing the Sessions Court deprives the opposing party of a forum and may violate the principle of fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the court disposed of the revision application by directing the office to transmit the proceedings to the District and Sessions Judge for a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an aggrieved party can directly file a criminal revision in the High Court against an order passed by a magistrate without first approaching the District and Sessions Judge?
- Does the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the Sessions Court under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit bypassing the court of lowest grade?
- Is an order dismissing a direct complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a magistrate deemed an order passed by an inferior court to the Sessions Judge?
- Mohibullah vs The State2020 YLR 1241 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, sentencing him to death. The prosecution case was that the appellant fatally shot a Levies official who attempted to apprehend him during a street quarrel. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the sustainability of terrorism charges for a private crime, and the presence of mitigating circumstances for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. The Balochistan High Court held that while the ocular account, medical evidence, and forensic reports firmly established the appellant's guilt for the murder, the invocation of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 was unwarranted since the incident stemmed from private enmity and lacked the requisite design or intent to constitute terrorism under Section 6 of the Act. Consequently, the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 was set aside. Furthermore, considering that the attack was unpremeditated and the deceased was not in uniform, the High Court held that mitigating circumstances existed, altering the death sentence to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Whether an offence committed in furtherance of a private vendetta or personal enmity can be tried and punished under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Does a single unpremeditated firearm injury inflicted during a chance encounter warrant the mitigation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Whether the uncorroborated testimonies of official witnesses are sufficient to sustain a murder conviction when supported by prompt lodging of the FIR and positive forensic ballistic reports?
- Mohibullah and another vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 1039 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and revision petition arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pishin, convicting the appellant Mohibullah under section 302(b), 337-A(iii), and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to life imprisonment and terms of rigorous imprisonment with compensation and fine. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony when the eyewitness was not initially named in the FIR, the explanation of discrepancies in medical timing, and the application of vicarious liability through common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Balochistan High Court held that the omission of an eyewitness name in the FIR does not vitiate the prosecution case if the witness is natural, independent, and consistent, and that acting in concert with deadly weapons demonstrates a shared common intention to commit the crime. The court dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the revision petition for enhancement of sentence, maintaining the trial court's judgment.
Questions settled- Does the omission of an eyewitness's name in the First Information Report render their subsequent testimony untrustworthy?
- Can common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 develop on the spur of the moment during the commission of an offense?
- Whether minor discrepancies in the timing recorded on a medical certificate are fatal to the prosecution's case when explained by the medical officer?
- Is the presence of an injured eyewitness sufficient to establish the presence of the accused and rule out substitution of culprits?
- Mohammed Saleem Khan vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2020 SHC 124 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Zaman Tabassum and others vs Mehmood Ahmed Butt and others2020 PLJ AJ&K 12, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 181 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Usman vs P.O Sindh & others2020 SHC 1180 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-15Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Tahir vs Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Peshawar and others2020 PTD (Trib.) 1081 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-05-03Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Sajid vs Additional District Judge and others2020 CLC 1178 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-27Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Mumtaz vs Riffat Kousar & others2020 SC AJK 120 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Arif vs The State through Additional Advocate General Azad2020 P Cr. L J 461 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 2019-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Bhimber dated 30.06.2018, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 302(c) and 341 of the Azad Penal Code and sections 13/20/65 of the Arms Act. The core legal question addressed is whether a criminal appeal can be maintained and filed on behalf of a convict who has been convicted in absentia without first surrendering before the court. The Shariat Appellate Bench held that an appeal filed in absentia by a convict is not maintainable without the appellant surrendering. The key principle laid down is that a convict sentenced in absentia must surrender before the court before their criminal appeal can be entertained or maintained.
Questions settled- Is a criminal appeal maintainable when filed on behalf of a convict who was convicted in absentia without surrendering?
- Can an appellant challenge a trial court conviction without surrendering before the appellate court?