Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Mehar Jan Sundrani vs The State2020 SHC 830 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-10
  pre-arrest bailabsconsionmischief by firefurther inquirymala fideproperty disputedelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through a bail application filed by Mehar Jan Sundrani seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after being refused the same by the Sessions Court. The applicant was implicated in a criminal case involving mischief by fire and creating harassment, stemming from an underlying landed property dispute between the parties. The core legal question revolves around whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed despite the applicant's alleged absconsion and delay in FIR registration, given the merits of mala fide and further inquiry. The Court held that the unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of the applicant from the spot where the fire was actually set, and the pre-existing property dispute made false implication plausible, rendering absconsion alone insufficient to deny bail. The pre-arrest bail was consequently confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted to an accused solely on the ground of absconsion when a strong case for further inquiry is made out?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR support a grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the accused is not alleged to have committed the primary overt act of the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehar and others vs Province of Sindh through District Government2020 MLD 371 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-05
  Civil RevisionMaintainability of suitImpleading governmentRight of appealWritten statementApprobation and reprobationForest landLand reforms
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Application challenged an appellate court judgment that reversed a trial court decree regarding the ownership of agricultural land. The applicants claimed the land as ancestral, while the Forest Department asserted it was government forest land. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the suit due to improper impleading of the Provincial Government, the necessity of framing specific points for determination under Order XLI, Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether a defendant’s failure to file a written statement precludes the right to appeal. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the suit was inherently defective for failing to comply with Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Article 174, Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court affirmed that a defendant who fails to file a written statement may still appeal, and that an appellate court’s comprehensive, issue-wise analysis satisfies the requirements of Order XLI, Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court further ruled that parties cannot benefit from their own procedural errors in impleading government entities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a defendant to file a written statement preclude them from filing an appeal?
  • Is a suit maintainable if the Provincial Government is not impleaded through the correct authority as required by law?
  • Does an appellate court satisfy the requirements of Order XLI, Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by addressing all issues framed by the trial court instead of framing separate points for determination?
  • Can a party challenge the competency of an appeal filed by a government entity when the party itself improperly impleaded that entity in the original suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehar Ali vs Karim Bakhsh (deceased) through L.Rs., etc2021 CLC 42, 2020 LHC 2019 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
• Meero son of Majeed Jatoi vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1237, 2020 SHC 1316 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-11
  murder convictionocular evidenceinterested witnessesminor contradictionsnon-recovery of weaponcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern whether the ocular evidence provided by witnesses related to the deceased is reliable, whether minor contradictions in testimony warrant acquittal, and whether the non-recovery of the crime weapon invalidates the prosecution's case. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court affirmed that the testimony of witnesses related to the deceased is not inherently unreliable, provided it is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. The Court further held that minor discrepancies in evidence are natural and do not undermine the prosecution's case when the core narrative remains consistent. Additionally, the Court established that the non-recovery of a crime weapon is not fatal to the prosecution's case where ocular evidence is credible and supported by medical findings. The judgment reinforces that the intrinsic value of witness testimony, rather than mere relationship or minor inconsistencies, determines the reliability of evidence in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained in the absence of the recovery of the crime weapon?
  • Do minor contradictions in prosecution evidence necessitate the acquittal of an accused?
  • Is the testimony of witnesses who are related to the deceased sufficient to prove guilt if corroborated by medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Meera Shafi vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and others2020 CLC 900 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-27Read full judgment →
• Meer Muhammad Umer vs The State2020 SHC 700 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-19Read full judgment →
• Meer Hazar Khan Chandio and others vs The State2020 SHC 424 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-28Read full judgment →
• Meco (Pvt.) Limited and others vs National Bank of Pakistan2020 CLD 126 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-11Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Ltd vs M/s. Venus Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. and others2020 SHC 364 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-01Read full judgment →
• Mazullah Khan vs Mst. Taraja Begum and others2020 YLR 2206, 2020 PHC 98 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain vs The Senior Director Culture and Sports Recreation2020 SHC 70 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain s/o Muhammad Malik, Caste Jatt r/o Malot, Tehsil Dudyal,2020 SC AJK 6 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Mazhar Ellahi vs The State2020 SCMR 586 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-02-20
  criminal appealmurderous assaultappreciation of evidenceinjured witnessacquittal of co-accusedleave to appealhomicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction for homicide and murderous assault. The petitioner, Mazhar Ellahi, was convicted for the murder of an eighteen-year-old and for causing injuries to a witness who attempted to intervene. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to death and imprisonment, which the High Court subsequently modified, commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment while adding a conviction under Section 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner challenged these convictions, arguing that the acquittal of a co-accused undermined the prosecution's case, that the motive was absent, and that the suppression of a forensic report destroyed the prosecution's evidence. The Supreme Court examined the record, noting the prompt registration of the FIR and the consistency of the injured witness's testimony. The Court held that the acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically invalidate the prosecution's case against the principal offender, especially when the evidence remains consistent. Finding the evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically invalidate the prosecution's case against the remaining accused?
  • Can the testimony of an injured witness be relied upon if the prosecution fails to produce a forensic report?
  • Is the prompt registration of an FIR and consistent testimony sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder despite the absence of a proven motive?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ellahi vs StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-02-20
  criminal petitionmurdermurderous assaultinjured witnessacquittal of co-accusedprompt FIRleave declined
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition assailing the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the petitioner's conviction for murder and murderous assault, while altering the death penalty to imprisonment for life and adding a conviction under Section 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of prompt FIR registration, the credibility of an injured eyewitness, the impact of the acquittal of a co-accused on the prosecution's case against the remaining accused, and the effect of an absent forensic report. The Supreme Court held that the promptness of the proceedings, the natural presence of the injured witness, and medical corroboration firmly establish the petitioner's guilt, and that the acquittal of a co-accused does not undermine the credible testimony regarding the principal offender. The key principle laid down is that the acquittal of a co-accused does not falsify the prosecution case against the main culprit where ocular testimony is consistent, prompt, and corroborated by medical evidence, and that minor evidentiary gaps such as missing forensic reports do not vitiate a conviction supported by reliable eyewitness accounts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused destroy the prosecution case against the remaining convicted accused in a criminal trial?
  • Can an injured eyewitness's testimony be relied upon despite minor discrepancies and the absence of a forensic report?
  • Whether promptness in registering the FIR and conducting medical examinations lends credence to the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ali vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 1571 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-13
  pre-arrest bailmedico-legal certificatefurther inquiryinjury fabricationDistrict Standing Medical BoardPolice Rules 1934criminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from a criminal case involving allegations of house trespass and causing injuries. The petitioner sought confirmation of ad-interim bail, contending that the FIR was lodged with an inordinate 25-day delay and that the medical officer’s report, which suggested the possibility of injury fabrication, lacked supporting reasons. Furthermore, the complainant failed to appear before the District Standing Medical Board for re-examination despite service. The Court held that the complainant's evasive conduct, coupled with the unexplained delay and the unsubstantiated medical opinion, created a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case, rendering it a matter of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court confirmed the petitioner's bail. The judgment emphasizes the necessity for medical officers to provide explicit reasons when opining on injury fabrication and underscores the importance of the "Three Tier" medico-legal structure in preventing false implications. It further directs investigating officers to utilize medical boards to verify suspicious injuries, ensuring that medical evidence remains transparent and reliable in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a complainant's failure to appear before a medical board for re-examination after being duly served constitute evidence of mala fide intent?
  • Is a medical officer required to provide specific reasons when opining that an injury might be fabricated in a medico-legal certificate?
  • Can an investigating officer invoke the jurisdiction of a magistrate to reconstitute a medical board if self-inflicted injuries are suspected?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ali through Attorney vs Messrs Park Avenue Owners/Occupants2020 MLD 257 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-08Read full judgment →
• Mazal Khan vs The State2020 MLD 755 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-09
  post-arrest bailmurderdomestic violenceevidentiary value of witness statementmedico-legal reportcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who is charged with the murder of his wife and the concealment of evidence under Sections 302, 201, 203, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail given the incriminating evidence and the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, noting that the prosecution had established a prima facie case through the statement of the deceased's daughter, who directly implicated the applicant in the brutal physical assault of the deceased. The Court further observed that the medical evidence, showing multiple fractures and severe injuries, contradicted the defense's plea that the victim died from a fall due to epilepsy. The key principle laid down is that where there is sufficient material, including witness testimony and medical reports, to connect an accused to a heinous crime, and where the defense plea lacks evidentiary support, the court must decline the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when direct witness testimony and medical evidence establish a prima facie case of murder?
  • Can a defense plea of accidental death due to a medical condition be accepted in a bail application without supporting medical records?
  • Does the fact that co-accused have been granted bail automatically entitle the main accused to the same relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Mavish Shafi vs PSC & others2020 SC AJK 112 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
• Matti Ullah vs The State2020 SCMR 1222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-01
  narcotic possessionofficial witnessespublic witnessesforensic reportappreciation of evidencecriminal convictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the Special Court (CNS) and the Peshawar High Court, which convicted the petitioner for possessing 7200 grams of cannabis under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt despite the absence of public witnesses, and whether the forensic report and recovery evidence were sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution witnesses, being officials of the Anti-Narcotic Force, provided consistent and credible testimony that remained unshaken during cross-examination. The Court affirmed that the absence of public witnesses does not inherently diminish the value of official testimony, especially when such testimony is reliable and consistent. Furthermore, the Court upheld the validity of the forensic report, noting it followed established protocols. The judgment reaffirms the principle that official acts of state functionaries are statutorily presumed valid, and public apathy should not be exploited to undermine the administration of justice in narcotic cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of public witnesses in a narcotics case automatically invalidate the testimony of official witnesses?
  • Are the official acts and declarations of state functionaries statutorily presumed to be valid in the absence of evidence to the contrary?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained solely on the basis of consistent testimony from official witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Matloob Hussain vs The State2020 YLR 2356 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-12
  Qatal-e-Amdchance witnessreasonable doubtocular evidencecriminal appealSection 342 statementappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for Qatal-e-Amd. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the ocular account provided by a chance witness and the integrity of the weapon recovery. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The judgment laid down that the testimony of a chance witness is inherently suspect and cannot be relied upon unless justifiable reasons for their presence at the crime scene are established. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a single reasonable doubt regarding a witness's presence is sufficient to discard their testimony entirely. Additionally, the Court reiterated that a statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or discarded in its entirety, rather than relying on selective portions to secure a conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be relied upon without justifiable reasons for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Should a statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
  • Is a single reasonable doubt regarding the presence of a witness at the crime scene sufficient to discard their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Matloob Hussain vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 1141 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-12
  criminal appealQatal-e-Amdchance witnessreasonable doubtocular evidenceSection 342 CrPCconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for Qatal-e-Amd under Section 302-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the reliability of the ocular evidence and the recovery of the weapon. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, noting that the primary eye-witness was a "chance witness" who provided no justifiable reason for his presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, the Court found the recovery of the weapon doubtful and the motive unproven. The Court emphasized that a single reasonable doubt regarding a witness's presence is sufficient to discard their testimony entirely. Additionally, the Court clarified that a statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or discarded in its entirety rather than selectively. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the related revision and leave to appeal petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be relied upon without justifiable reasons for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Must a statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
  • Is a single reasonable doubt regarding a witness's presence at the crime scene sufficient to discard their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Master Road Corporation (SMC-Pvt.) Limited vs Master Motors2020 SHC 1402 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-21Read full judgment →
• Master Juman Buriro vs The State2020 SHC 86 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Master Ali son of Matlab Khan R/O Chamkot Hayaserai, Tehsil Lal Qilla,2020 PHC 536 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Masood Alam vs Haji Mubarak Hussain and 03 others2020 CLC 1461, 2020 IHC 20, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 321 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-29Read full judgment →
• Masood Ahmed Wassan and 3 others vs Province Of Sindh through Chief2020 YLR 2597 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-29
  agricultural landland conversionresidential schemeagricultural researchurbanizationfood securityrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court challenging the Sindh Government's decision to carve out 78-13 acres of fertile agricultural research land from a total of 282 acres of the Sindh Horticulture Research Institute Mirpurkhas (entered in revenue records as 'Government Seed Farm' since 1904) to establish a residential scheme named "Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Town". The core legal question was whether the provincial government and revenue authorities could lawfully reallocate and convert long-standing agricultural research land for residential housing projects under the Colonization of Government Lands (Sindh) Act, 1912. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the allocation and conversion of precious agricultural research land for concrete housing schemes were unlawful, non-transparent, and mala fide. The Court ruled that fertile agricultural and research lands must be strictly preserved for agrarian productivity and food security rather than being sacrificed for urban housing. It ordered the immediate restoration of the land to its original status, the deletion of subsequent revenue entries, and the demolition of any raised structures within two weeks.

  Questions settled

  • Can fertile agricultural land attached to a research institute be lawfully converted into a residential housing scheme under the Colonization of Government Lands (Sindh) Act, 1912?
  • Whether the provincial government has the authority to reallocate land dedicated for agricultural research purposes for the establishment of housing projects?
  • Is the conversion of agricultural land for concrete residential structures without valid justification and transparency legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Masjid Farogh e Islam, Bandral, through Muhammad Ishaq s/o2020 SC AJK 100 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mashooque vs The State2020 SHC 1060 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mashooque Ali vs The State2020 SHC 248 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mashooq Ali Rajpar vs Raja Abdul Hameed2020 SHC 852 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
• Maryam Nawaz Sharif vs Chairman, NAB and 2 others2020 PLD Lahore 205 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-04
  post-arrest bailconstitutional petitionNational Accountability OrdinanceAnti-Money Laundering Actassets disproportionate to known sources of incomeabetmentmoney launderinggrant of bail to womanfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed seeking post-arrest bail in an investigation conducted under Section 9(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999 and Section 3 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), 2010. The National Accountability Bureau alleged that the petitioner aided and abetted co-accused family members as Director/CEO of Chaudhry Sugar Mills Ltd and Shamim Sugar Mills Ltd in laundering money and acquiring assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail subject to conditional surety bonds, passport surrender, and monetary deposit. The Court held that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can be exercised to grant bail in appropriate cases to prevent injustice. It laid down that Section 9(a)(xii) NAO operates prospectively, that a legal distinction exists between an aider/abettor (requiring mens rea) and a beneficiary, that mere possession of property is not an offence absent failure to account for it, and that grant of bail to a female accused is the general rule unless compelling disentitling circumstances exist.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to grant post-arrest bail in NAB matters?
  • Is Section 9(a)(xii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 prospective in its operation and application?
  • Is a mere beneficiary of transactions legally distinguishable from an aider or abettor requiring mens rea under accountability laws?
  • Does the grant of post-arrest bail to a female accused constitute a general rule in the absence of compelling disentitling circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Maryam Nawaz Sharif vs Chairman NAB etc2020 PLJ Lahore 16 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-31Read full judgment →
• Martin Dow Marker Ltd., Quetta vs Asadullah Khan & others2020 SCP 210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-05
  reinstatementback benefitsworkmanmisconductabsence from dutycomplete justiceabandonment of relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals filed against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which maintained the reinstatement of the respondent employees in service without back benefits. The core legal questions involve whether the respondents were workmen and the effect of their subsequent refusal to join duty upon being offered reinstatement by the employer. The Supreme Court held that while the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding the respondents' status as workmen could not be disturbed, the respondents' failure to report for duty after being issued reinstatement letters demonstrated a lack of bona fides and an abandonment of the relief granted. The Court laid down the principle that employees who refuse to resume duties upon valid reinstatement and show no willingness to work forfeit their right to equitable relief of reinstatement, and the Supreme Court may mold relief under its constitutional jurisdiction to achieve complete justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower forums regarding the status of an employee as a workman under labor laws?
  • Does the failure of an employee to report for duty after receiving a valid reinstatement letter amount to an abandonment of the relief of reinstatement?
  • Can the Supreme Court mold relief under Article 187 of the Constitution based on subsequent conduct of parties during appellate proceedings?
  • Whether an employee who claims to be a workman can refuse reinstatement on the ground that they were previously employed as officers?
  Read full judgment →
• Martin Dow Marker Ltd., Quetta and others vs Asadullah Khan and others2021 PLC 67, 2021 P SC 1111, 2020 SCP 210, 2020 SCMR 2147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-05
  reinstatementworkman statusbona fidelabour lawcomplete justiceabandonment of reliefindustrial dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns cross-appeals arising from a labour dispute where employees, previously terminated, sought reinstatement. The Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal declared the respondents to be workmen and ordered reinstatement with back benefits. The High Court maintained the reinstatement but disallowed back benefits. Before the Supreme Court, the employer contended that the respondents were not workmen and had failed to report for duty despite a formal reinstatement offer. The core legal question was whether the respondents' failure to resume duty after winning reinstatement orders demonstrated a lack of bona fides and abandonment of relief. The Supreme Court held that while concurrent findings regarding workman status are generally not disturbed, the respondents' refusal to report for duty—based on an unjustified demand to be reinstated as officers—constituted an abandonment of the relief they had successfully sought. Invoking Article 187(1) of the Constitution to do complete justice, the Court set aside the reinstatement order. The key principle established is that an employee who refuses to comply with a reasonable reinstatement order effectively abandons their claim to relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding an employee's status as a workman?
  • Does an employee's failure to report for duty after a reinstatement offer constitute an abandonment of the relief granted?
  • Can the Supreme Court exercise its power under Article 187(1) to mould relief based on the conduct of parties during litigation?
  • Is an employee's refusal to accept reinstatement as a workman justified if they previously sought such status in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Martin Dow Limited vs Federation of Pakistan2020 SHC 312 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-26Read full judgment →
• Martin Dow Limited through Authorized Representative vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Health Services and others2020 PLD Sindh 527 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-21Read full judgment →
• Market Committee, Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) through Chairman vs Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad and 10 others2020 CLC 731 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-03Read full judgment →
• Marex Financial Ltd vs Sevilleja2020 SCMR 1867 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
• Mardan Institute of Sciences vs Vice-Chancellor Abdul Wali Khan2020 MLD 1745, 2020 PHC 136 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
• Marawat Hussain vs Director General Health, Azad Govt. of State of Jammu2020 PLJ AJ&K 27 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad etc vs Amjad Javed2020 PLJ Lahore 402 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad alias Soodi vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1089 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-31
  benefit of doubtchance witnessmurder referenceadverse inferenceocular accountcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pindi Bhattian, convicting the appellant, Maqsood Ahmad alias Soodi, for the murder of Asghar Ali and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account provided by alleged chance witnesses, the failure of the prosecution to produce material witnesses, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the motive and the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found the eye-witnesses to be chance witnesses whose presence was doubtful, noted the prosecution's failure to produce the host of the event (a material witness), and observed that the forensic report regarding the weapon was negative. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of doubt. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits, and if any single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be accepted without convincing explanations for their presence at the crime scene?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution withholding a material witness from the trial?
  • Does the benefit of doubt accrue to an accused as a matter of grace or as a matter of right?
  • Can medical evidence alone establish the identity of an assailant in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsod Spinning Mills Ltd vs Province of Sindh ors2020 SHC 1212 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed vs The Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and another2020 [M] C L R 776 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed and others vs Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Balochistan and others2020 CLC 1151 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-28Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The State2020 MLD 1957 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-05
  honor killingjudicial confessionretracted confessioncircumstantial evidencecriminal appealmurder convictionSection 164 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the murder of his daughter. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence and a judicial confession recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant contended that the confession was involuntary, retracted, and recorded after an unexplained delay, and that there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction. The Court held that a retracted judicial confession, if found voluntary and true, can validly form the sole basis for conviction, especially when corroborated by other facts. It further established that a delay in recording a confession does not inherently invalidate it, provided the magistrate followed legal formalities. The Court found that the medical evidence confirming death by throttling, the recovery of the body from the appellant's residence, and the established motive of honor killing created a complete chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession serve as the sole basis for a criminal conviction?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically render it involuntary or inadmissible?
  • Is a conviction sustainable based on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The State and 3 others2020 P Cr. L J 848 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-22
  superdariinterim custodyvehicle ownershipbanking court decreecriminal revisiontitle dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application arose from a dispute over the interim custody (superdari) of a vehicle. The applicant claimed to have purchased the vehicle from a person who held it under a superdari order issued by a Magistrate. The respondent bank claimed ownership based on title documents and a decree from the Banking Court. The core legal question was whether a person holding a vehicle on superdari can legally sell it, and whether the criminal court can determine the entitlement of custody based on prima facie title. The High Court held that a person possessing a vehicle under a superdari order cannot legally sell it, as such possession does not constitute proof of title. The Court affirmed that while criminal courts do not adjudicate final civil title, they must examine prima facie entitlement for custody. Since the bank held the title documents and a valid decree, the appellate court's decision to hand over the vehicle to the bank was correct, especially to prevent the vehicle from deteriorating in custody, subject to final adjudication by the civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person holding possession of a vehicle under a superdari order legally sell or transfer its ownership?
  • Does possession of a vehicle under a superdari order constitute proof of title?
  • To what extent can a criminal court examine title or ownership when deciding custody of property under superdari?
  • Does the mislabeling of an order as a 'judgment' by an appellate court prejudice its legality or constitute a fatal legal error?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain etc vs Mst. Fazloon Bibi etc2020 CLC 2001, 2020 LHC 1583 · Lahore High Court · 2020-07-16Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs vs Misri Khan2020 PLD Supreme Court 749, 2021 P SC 1217, 2020 SCP 184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-24
  pre-emptionTalb-i-Ishhadacknowledgement receiptmode of proofproduction of postmandocumentary evidenceQanun-e-Shahdat Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal, filed under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, arises from a pre-emption suit dismissed by the Trial Court, decreed by the District Judge, and subsequently dismissed again by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction. The core legal questions involved the necessity of proving the delivery and receipt of the Talb-i-Ishhad notice through the production of the postman or by confronting the respondent with the acknowledgement receipt, as well as the proper mode of tendering documents in evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where the purchaser denies receipt of the Talb-i-Ishhad notice, the pre-emptor must legally establish its delivery either by producing the postman or by properly confronting the respondent with the acknowledgement receipt during testimony. The Court laid down that mere exhibition of documents through a counsel's unsworn statement without following the rules of evidence and producing original or certified copies does not dispense with the mandatory proof required under the law, particularly under the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984.

  Questions settled

  • Is it necessary to produce the postman or confront the respondent with the acknowledgement receipt to prove the delivery of the Talb-i-Ishhad notice when its receipt is denied?
  • Can documents be validly tendered in evidence through a simple unsworn statement of a counsel without following the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984?
  • What is the effect of failing to establish the delivery and receipt of the Talb-i-Ishhad notice in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ali vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 278 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-08
  criminal compromisecompoundable offencesnon-compoundable offencesprinciple of mergerbeneficial interpretationacquittalappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under sections 324, 382, 506/2, 337-H(2), and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Following the conviction, the appellant and the complainant reached an amicable compromise, seeking to resolve the dispute and restore peace. The core legal question was whether non-compoundable offences, specifically sections 382 and 506/2 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, could be compounded when the primary offences in the same incident were compoundable under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that non-compoundability should not be read in isolation but in the context of the specific case. Applying the principle of merger and beneficial interpretation, the Court ruled that where parties have genuinely settled their differences, minor non-compoundable offences should be treated as compromised alongside the major compoundable ones to foster societal peace. Consequently, the Court accepted the compromise, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and discharged his bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Can non-compoundable offences be compounded if they arise from the same incident as compoundable offences?
  • Does the principle of merger apply to minor non-compoundable offences when the major offence is compounded?
  • Should the non-compoundability of an offence be read in isolation or in the context of the specific criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ali son of Arbab Ali Chandio vs The State2020 SHC 1280 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-09Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ali and another vs The State and another2020 MLD 1138 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-01
  Illegal Dispossessions Actforcible dispossessionwrongful dispossessionburden of prooflicenseecriminal appealproperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a conviction under the Illegal Dispossessions Act, 2005, where the trial court sentenced the appellants for allegedly dispossessing the complainant from his property. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of Sections 3(1) and 3(3) of the Act and whether the prosecution established the necessary ingredients for conviction. The High Court held that the conviction under Section 3(2) was unsustainable because the complainant admitted he had permitted the appellants to reside in the house, thereby negating the element of illegal entry required under Section 3(1). Furthermore, the Court found that the complainant failed to provide independent, confidence-inspiring evidence to prove forcible or wrongful dispossession under Section 3(3), as required to sustain a conviction. The Court laid down the principle that Section 3(1) applies only to illegal entry without lawful authority, whereas Section 3(3) addresses independent acts of forcible dispossession. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossessions Act, 2005 apply to a person who was permitted by the owner to reside in the property?
  • Is proof of forcible or wrongful dispossession a necessary requirement for a conviction under Section 3(3) of the Illegal Dispossessions Act, 2005?
  • Does an acquittal or conviction under the Illegal Dispossessions Act, 2005 prevent the initiation of other criminal proceedings on the same facts?
  • Can a conviction under the Illegal Dispossessions Act, 2005 be sustained if the complainant fails to produce independent evidence of the alleged forcible dispossession?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ali and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 68 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-04
  Illegal Dispossession Act 2005forcible dispossessionwrongful dispossessionlicenseeburden of proofcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the trial court's judgment convicting the appellants under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, for allegedly dispossessing the complainant from his property. The core legal question was whether the appellants' entry and subsequent occupation of the property constituted an offence under Section 3(1) and 3(3) of the Act, given that the complainant had initially permitted them to reside there. The High Court held that Section 3(1) requires an entry without lawful authority; since the appellants were permitted residents (licensees), their initial entry was lawful, rendering Section 3(1) inapplicable. Regarding Section 3(3), which addresses forcible or wrongful dispossession, the Court held that the complainant failed to prove the alleged forcible dispossession beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the absence of independent evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The judgment establishes that permission to reside negates the 'illegal entry' element of Section 3(1), and that the burden of proof for forcible dispossession under Section 3(3) remains strictly on the complainant, requiring independent evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to a person who was permitted by the owner to reside on the property?
  • What are the essential ingredients to establish an offence under Section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Is proof of ownership sufficient to establish the offence of forcible dispossession under Section 3(3) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a conviction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be sustained where the complainant fails to produce independent evidence of forcible dispossession?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed Akhter vs The State2021 KLR Criminal Cases 82, 2020 MLD 233 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-09
  forgery of judicial recordcriminal appealpublic servant corruptionmisuse of public officeconviction and sentencingfraudulent reinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of a government teacher for forgery and corruption, specifically regarding the submission of a fake High Court acquittal order to secure reinstatement and salary arrears. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s actions constituted the offenses of forgery and corruption under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established that the appellant had knowingly used a forged judicial document to derive illicit financial gain. While the Court found that the trial court’s application of Sections 409, 420, and 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not strictly applicable, it maintained the conviction by invoking Section 466 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside Sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The principle laid down is that a public servant who utilizes fabricated judicial records to obtain employment benefits commits a serious offense against public justice, warranting conviction for forgery of public records.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court modify the sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 under which an accused is convicted if the evidence supports a different offense?
  • Does the production of a forged High Court order to obtain salary arrears constitute an offense under Section 466 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a public servant liable for criminal prosecution when they secure employment benefits through the submission of fabricated judicial documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Faqir Muhammad and 3 others2020 PLD Lahore 737 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-15Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and others vs State and othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1511 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-24
  abductionrapebenefit of doubtmedical examinationDNA testdelay in FIRcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants under Sections 365-B and 376(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code, alongside a criminal revision seeking enhancement of sentences. The core legal question involves determining whether the prosecution proved the charges of abduction and rape beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant delays in reporting, the victim's initial refusal for a medical examination coupled with a belated subsequent examination, the absence of DNA or chemical examiner reports, and the dropping of independent eyewitnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable, riddled with doubts, and insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court laid down the principle that an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, a victim's initial refusal for medical examination followed by a belated request, and the failure to conduct a DNA test in gang-rape allegations create serious doubts regarding the prosecution's case, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the refusal of an alleged victim to undergo an immediate medical examination and her subsequent belated request for the same casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Is a DNA test considered sine qua non in gang-rape allegations to ascertain the truth when the chemical examiner's report is absent?
  • Does an unexplained delay of four days in reporting an abduction to the police render the prosecution's version untrustworthy?
  • Can a conviction for abduction and rape be sustained solely on the testimony of interested witnesses when independent eyewitnesses have been given up?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Haider Kiyani vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1779 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-27
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealbenefit of doubtrecovery memoprocedural irregularityburden of proofwitness contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the evidence presented. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable and set it aside, acquitting the appellant. The ratio of the decision rests on the existence of irreconcilable contradictions in the testimonies of material prosecution witnesses regarding the drafting of the complaint and the procedural irregularities in the investigation, specifically the failure of the investigating officer to personally register the FIR. Furthermore, the Court noted that the recovery memo bore the FIR number before the FIR was actually registered, indicating manipulation. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution and that the benefit of doubt is a right, not a concession. Even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind necessitates the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of an FIR number on a recovery memo prepared before the registration of the FIR indicate manipulation of evidence?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when prosecution evidence contains irreconcilable contradictions?
  • Does the failure of an investigating officer to personally register an FIR, despite being present at the scene, cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mano vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (F.S.C.) 678, 2022 YLR 396 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-01-09
  criminal revisionprohibition ordersafe custody of sampleschemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtenhancement of sentenceappellate powersrecovery witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts convicting the petitioner under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for possessing contraband liquor. The core legal questions involved the legality of the appellate court enhancing the sentence without issuing notice under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the prosecution proved its case regarding safe custody and transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner, as well as compliance with search and seizure procedures. The Federal Shariat Court accepted the petition, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond a shadow of doubt due to unexplained delays in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner, non-compliance with safe custody rules, failure to associate independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and procedural defects in sample collection. The key principles laid down include that an appellate court cannot enhance a sentence under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that the prosecution must strictly prove the safe custody and secure transmission of samples, and that any single doubt created in the prosecution case entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court has the power to enhance a sentence under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 confer powers of sentence enhancement upon an appellate court?
  • Is the prosecution bound to prove safe custody and secure transmission of recovered contraband samples to the Chemical Examiner?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to associate respectable inhabitants of the locality during a house search under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Manju Devi vs The State of Rajasthan2020 P SC (Crl.) 411 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-04-16
  Section 311 CrPCmaterial witnesspost-mortem examinationvideo-conferencingcommission for examinationdelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of India arising from the dismissal of an application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The appellant, mother of the deceased, sought to summon and examine a medical doctor residing in Nigeria who had conducted the initial post-mortem on the deceased, or alternatively to record his testimony via video-conferencing through a commission. The Trial Court had rejected the application primarily due to the eight-year pendency of the trial and the availability of a photocopy of the post-mortem report, which order was upheld by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders, holding that the prolonged duration or age of a case cannot displace the fundamental requirement of securing material evidence essential for a just decision. The Court directed the Trial Court to record the witness's deposition by issuing a commission and utilizing video-conferencing under Sections 284 and 285 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prolonged pendency or age of a criminal trial justify rejecting an application to summon an essential witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Whether the evidence of an overseas medical witness essential to a just decision can be recorded via video-conferencing by issuing a commission under Sections 284 and 285 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Does the availability of an unproved photocopy of a post-mortem report negate the necessity of examining the doctor who conducted the post-mortem under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Manjhi Khan vs The State2020 SHC 48 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-15
  narcotics controlpossession of charasbenefit of doubtpolice witnessesdelay in chemical examinationcriminal appealacquittalcontradictions in evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 for possessing 1200 grams of charas. The core legal question involves determining whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given the reliance solely on police witnesses despite available public witnesses, material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, and an unexplained five-day delay in sending the recovered substance to the chemical examiner. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The court held that non-association of independent witnesses despite availability, coupled with glaring contradictions among police witnesses and delayed transmission of the sample to the chemical laboratory, created serious doubts regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court laid down that where a criminal conviction hinges entirely on police testimony characterized by material contradictions, unexplained delays in forensic dispatch, and lack of independent corroboration, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to acquittal when the prosecution relies solely on police testimony marred by material contradictions and fails to associate independent witnesses despite availability?
  • Does an unexplained delay of several days in sending the recovered contraband to the chemical examiner create a dent in the prosecution's case regarding possible tampering?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act be sustained when the chain of custody and safe transmission of the case property are not satisfactorily established?
  Read full judgment →
• Mangal vs Taj Muhammad & another2020 PHC 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-02Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, Overseas Pakistani Foundation and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M_O Labour Manpower and Overseas Pakistani and another2020 PLC 8 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-02-07
  writ jurisdictionmaintainabilityOverseas Pakistanis Foundationmaster and servantnon-statutory rulesservice disputepensionary benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a judgment directing the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation (OPF) to finalize an inquiry against a former employee within one month or release his retirement benefits. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is maintainable against the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation regarding service-related disputes. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable, setting aside the impugned judgment. Relying on established precedents, the Court reasoned that the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation is a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, not a statutory body created by the Federal Government, and does not perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation. Furthermore, the Foundation's service rules are non-statutory, meaning the principle of master and servant applies, precluding the invocation of constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. While allowing the appeal, the Court expressed strong disapproval of the Foundation's delay in processing the respondent's pensionary benefits, noting that withholding dues for nine years without proven allegations of misconduct constitutes a significant injustice, and urged the Foundation to resolve the grievance promptly.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation a statutory body amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained against the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation regarding the terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Malkiewicz and others vs Serafin2020 SCMR 1073 · Supreme Court of United Kingdom · 2020-03-18Read full judgment →
• Malik Wajid vs The State & others2020 P Cr. L J 1416, 2020 PHC 118 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-11
  quashment of FIRsui jurisNikahabductionfree consentIslamic jurisprudenceguardian consentwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under Section 365-B/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging the abduction of Mst. Faiza Bibi. The core legal question addressed was whether a sui juris Muslim female possesses the legal capacity to contract a valid marriage without the consent of her Wali (guardian), thereby negating the allegation of abduction. The Peshawar High Court held that a sui juris Muslim female of sound mind has the absolute right to enter into a valid Nikah of her own free will without requiring the consent of her guardian. Relying on established principles of Islamic jurisprudence and precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the validity of the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged victim. Furthermore, given the victim's statement confirming her free-will marriage and the complainant's subsequent compromise, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the quashment of the FIR, emphasizing that the criminal proceedings were no longer sustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sui juris Muslim female contract a valid marriage without the consent of her Wali?
  • Does the free-will marriage of an alleged victim of abduction constitute grounds for the quashment of an FIR?
  • Is the consent of a guardian required for the Nikah of an adult Muslim female under Islamic law?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Ubaidullah vs Government of Punjab, etc2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 392, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 65, PLD 2020 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-14
  disability quotapersons with disabilitiessanctioned postsreasonable accommodationhuman dignitysocial model of disabilityright to livelihoodrecruitment criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeal concerning the recruitment against the disability quota under the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981. The petitioner challenged the selection process for the post of Senior Elementary School Educator (Arabic), where only one candidate was appointed under the disability quota out of 81 advertised posts. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition and intra-court appeal. The Supreme Court addressed whether the statutory disability quota must be calculated on the basis of advertised vacancies or total sanctioned posts. The Court held that the disability quota must be determined on the total sanctioned strength of the establishment and apportioned among distinct cadres, rather than being restricted to arbitrarily advertised vacancies. Calculating the quota based solely on advertised posts unlawfully undermines the statutory rights and livelihood prospects of persons with disabilities. The Court set aside the High Court's judgments, directed the reconsideration of the petitioner's application against the unfulfilled quota seats, and instructed governments to adopt rights-respecting terminology and provide reasonable accommodation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statutory disability quota under the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981 must be calculated based on total sanctioned posts or only the advertised vacancies?
  • How should an establishment apportion and allocate the statutory disability quota across different categories and cadres of posts?
  • Can an establishment adjust or shift the disability quota to another post if a specific category of posts has fewer than 50 sanctioned seats or is unfit for persons with disabilities?
  • Whether the State and employers are under a legal obligation to provide reasonable accommodation and accessibility at the workplace for employees with disabilities?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Tariq Hanif Awan vs The State & 2 others2021 P Cr. LJ 250, 2020 LHC 1794 · Lahore High Court · 2020-07-10
  pre-arrest bailnon-prosecutioncriminal procedurejudicial discretionanticipatory bailbail applicationcustody
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, which dismissed the petitioner's pre-arrest bail application for non-prosecution due to his absence. The core legal question was whether a court possesses the authority to dismiss a pre-arrest bail application for non-prosecution upon the accused's failure to appear, or if such applications must be adjudicated on their merits. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable. The Court determined that once a pre-arrest bail application is admitted and notice is issued to the State, the court is legally obligated to decide the matter on its merits, regardless of the accused's absence. The Court emphasized that dismissing such applications for non-prosecution encourages dilatory tactics and abuse of the legal process. The key principle laid down is that while the presence of an accused is generally required for bail proceedings, courts must decide admitted bail petitions on merits rather than dismissing them for non-prosecution, ensuring that justice is served while preventing the misuse of the judicial system.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court dismiss a pre-arrest bail application for non-prosecution if the accused fails to appear?
  • Is a court obligated to decide a pre-arrest bail application on merits once it has been admitted and notice issued?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the dismissal of bail petitions for non-prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Sarfaraz Khan vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and 7 others2020 CLC 1712 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Qamar Hussain vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 344 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-19
  circumstantial evidencecriminal appealmurderrapepoisoningchain of causationacquittalmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the rape and murder of the deceased. The prosecution's case, based entirely on circumstantial evidence, alleged that the appellant abducted the deceased, raped her, and administered a lethal dose of a benzodiazepine tranquillizer. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established a complete, unbroken chain of causation linking the appellant to the administration of the poison and the subsequent death of the deceased. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Key discrepancies in witness testimony, the failure to produce critical call data records, the medical impossibility of detecting semen several months post-occurrence, and the lack of evidence regarding the quantity of the drug administered rendered the prosecution's evidence unreliable. The Court affirmed the principle that in cases of unseen occurrences, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused, which was not achieved in this instance. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on circumstantial evidence where the chain of causation is broken?
  • Is medical testimony regarding the presence of semen reliable when the autopsy is conducted months after the alleged rape?
  • Does the failure to produce call data records and key witnesses undermine the credibility of a prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Mushtaq Ahmed vs President of Pakistan and others2020 IHC 170 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Eftikhar and another vs Syed Abid Hussain and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 646 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-03
  murderocular accountrelated witnessesmedical evidencemotiverecovery of weaponsquantum of sentencemitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Peshawar, convicting the appellants under Sections 302(b)/34 and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing them to life imprisonment and imprisonment respectively. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, the establishment of motive arising from a property dispute, and the corroboration of ocular testimony with medical evidence and weapon recoveries. The Peshawar High Court held that mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render their testimony unreliable if they are natural witnesses, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports of weapon matches. The court affirmed that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, including the motive and recoveries, and that the trial court exercised proper judicial discretion in awarding life imprisonment instead of the death penalty by considering mitigating circumstances. The appeal and the connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of related eye-witnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Does the proof of motive alone suffice for a conviction in a murder case without corroborating ocular evidence?
  • Whether positive forensic matching of crime empties with recovered weapons corroborates the ocular account in a criminal trial?
  • Is the existence of multiple accused persons considered a valid mitigating circumstance for awarding life imprisonment instead of the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Ebadat Khan and 2 others vs Saeedullah Yousafzai and another2020 MLD 1357 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-10-18Read full judgment →
• Malik Changez Khan vs The State through P.-G. Sindh and 11 others2020 P Cr. L J 1639 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-06
  Anti-Terrorism Court jurisdictiontransfer of criminal caseSessions Court powersCode of Criminal ProcedureSection 526 CrPCspecial courtscriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Application challenged an order by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta, which dismissed the applicant's request to transfer a criminal case to the Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether an ordinary court of criminal jurisdiction possesses the authority to transfer a case from its own docket to an Anti-Terrorism Court upon determining the offence is triable by the latter. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that Sessions Courts lack the statutory power to transfer cases to Special Courts, as the latter are not subordinate to the former. The court affirmed that if a Sessions Judge believes a case falls within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court, the proper procedure is to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court under Section 526(3), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Alternatively, if a case was erroneously filed in an ordinary court, the court may return the challan to the investigating agency for submission to the correct forum, but this does not constitute a judicial transfer of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Sessions Court or Additional Sessions Court have the authority to transfer a case pending on its docket to an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • What is the correct procedure for a Sessions Court to follow if it determines a case is triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Are Special Courts constituted under special statutes subordinate to the Sessions Court within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court alter or add a charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced?
  Read full judgment →
• Maleeha Syed vs Akistan Medical and Dental Council through Registrar2020 YLR 97 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malay Khan vs The State & another2021 MLD 379, 2020 PHC 222 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-14Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Nawaz and others vs Pakistan Electric Power Company (Pvt.)2020 PLC (C.S.) 645 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-04
  recruitment policyjudicial reviewadministrative discretionpolicy decisionwrit jurisdictionpublic employmentinterview weightage
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the recruitment policy of the Pakistan Electric Power Company (PEPCO) for the post of Junior Engineers. The petitioners, electrical engineering graduates, contested the revised recruitment criteria, which allocated 40% marks for academic qualifications, 40% for written tests, and 20% for interviews. They argued that the 20% allocation for interviews allowed for unstructured, arbitrary discretion and that the policy change during the ongoing recruitment process was illegal. The Lahore High Court held that the challenge was premature, as the recruitment process was ongoing and the petitioners' claims of arbitrariness were based on mere apprehensions rather than evidence of actual bias or lack of structure. The court further ruled that the determination of weightage for recruitment criteria is a policy decision within the domain of the employer, and in the absence of demonstrated illegality or concrete prejudice, the court will not interfere with such administrative discretion. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a challenge to recruitment criteria premature if the recruitment process is still ongoing?
  • Can a court interfere with the weightage assigned to academic qualifications, written tests, and interviews in a recruitment policy?
  • Does the allocation of marks for interviews in a recruitment process constitute unstructured discretion without evidence of arbitrariness?
  Read full judgment →
• Major Raja Zahid Mahmood vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan and others2020 [M] C L R 1152, 2020 PLD Islamabad 38 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
• Majid Ali vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 610 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
• Majid Ali vs Addl. District Judge, etc.2020 [M] C L R 289 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-04Read full judgment →
• Majeed Khan vs Additional District Judge, Sahiwal District Sahiwal and 52020 PLJ Lahore 470 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-11Read full judgment →
• Maj. (R) Muhammad Siddique (deceased) through L.Rs vs Muhammad2020 LHC 3338 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mahmood-ul-Hassan and others vs Province of the Punjab through Chief2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 84 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  Service appealpromotion ratiocadre strengthdelegated legislationconstitutional equalitydue processcivil servicePunjab Provincial Management Service
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged the 7:3 promotion ratio between ex-PCS and ex-PSS cadres established under the Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, arguing it was arbitrary and discriminatory. The core legal question was whether this ratio, derived from an alleged consensus of retired association presidents, satisfied the requirements of fairness, equality, and due process. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the impugned ratio was ultra vires to Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as it lacked a rational basis in the actual sanctioned cadre strength. The Tribunal determined that the ratio should instead be calculated based on the objective sanctioned strength of each cadre at the time of the rules' promulgation, resulting in a 63% to 37% split. The key principle laid down is that delegated legislation governing service conditions must be based on verifiable, objective data rather than arbitrary consensus, and administrative actions affecting civil servants' promotional prospects must strictly adhere to the constitutional principles of equality and due process, ensuring that merged service cadres are treated fairly without discriminatory practices.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service tribunal examine the vires of rules prescribing promotion ratios between merged service cadres?
  • Is a promotion ratio based solely on the consensus of retired association representatives legally sustainable?
  • Does a promotion ratio that ignores the actual sanctioned strength of merged service cadres violate the constitutional right to equality?
  • Must delegated legislation governing service conditions be based on objective, verifiable data?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Alam @ Grenade son of Maqsood Alam vs The State2020 SHC 266 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-01
  post-arrest bailextortionbhattadelay in FIRfurther inquirystatutory delayanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from FIR No. 149 of 2019 registered at Police Station Super Market, Karachi, under Sections 384, 385, and 386 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, concerning allegations of extortion ("bhatta"). The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the delayed reporting of the crime, the absence of prompt information, and the statutory period spent in incarceration without conclusion of the trial. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained delay of over one month in lodging the FIR, the absence of currency note particulars, and the protracted trial without the requirement of further custodial interrogation brought the case within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, and that unjustified incarceration cannot be satisfactorily repaired by subsequent acquittal, thereby admitting the applicant to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of over one month in lodging an FIR for extortion bring a case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused has suffered prolonged incarceration and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future?
  • Is bail to be withheld as a punishment when the accused is no longer required for custodial interrogation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahfooz Khan and 17 others vs Secretary, Aviation Division, Islamabad and 3 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1315 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-08-28
  up-gradation of postsservice lawconditional concurrencerecruitment rulescivil servantsretrospective promotionAirport Security Force
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, retired employees of the Airport Security Force (A.S.F.), filed a writ petition seeking up-gradation of their posts effective from 12.03.2015, the date the Finance Division conveyed conditional concurrence for such up-gradation. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to retrospective up-gradation despite the fact that the administrative conditions—specifically the amendment of recruitment rules—were not fulfilled until August 2016. The Court held that the up-gradation of posts was conditional and dependent upon the amendment of recruitment rules and subsequent selection processes. Consequently, the petitioners could not claim the benefit of up-gradation from the date of the Finance Division's concurrence, as the conditions precedent had not been satisfied at that time. The Court affirmed the principle that the up-gradation of a post does not automatically equate to the up-gradation of its incumbent, and that such benefits are subject to the fulfillment of prescribed statutory and administrative conditions. The petition was dismissed, as the petitioners failed to establish a legal right to the claimed retrospective relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the up-gradation of a post automatically result in the up-gradation of its incumbent?
  • Can an employee claim the benefit of a conditional up-gradation of a post from the date of administrative concurrence if the conditions were not met at that time?
  • Is the up-gradation of posts in the Airport Security Force subject to the amendment of recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Madrissa Hanfia Majadadia Taleem-Ul-Quran (Banain & Binaat) through President vs Government Of Punjab through Commissioner Rawalpindi and others2020 PLJ Lahore 357 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Madiha Ishaq and another vs Estate Officer, Estate Office, Islamabad and another2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 21 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-10-27Read full judgment →
• Madiha Ishaq and another vs Estate Officer and another2020 PLC (C.S.) 510 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-01-27
  government accommodationcivil revisionregularization of servicesfederal government servantallotment rulesservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts which dismissed the petitioners' suit for declaration and injunction regarding the allotment of government accommodation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a regularized government employee, was entitled to retain the government accommodation previously allotted to her retired father under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the lower courts' judgments. The Court held that the petitioner's services were validly regularized, qualifying her as a 'Federal Government Servant' under the Rules. The Court established that under Rule 15(2) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, a serving child living with a retired Federal Government Servant is eligible for the allotment of the same accommodation, provided they meet the criteria and apply within the stipulated timeframe. The Court emphasized that administrative notifications, unless withdrawn, remain effective, and lower courts must correctly interpret the legal status of such notifications and the definitions provided within governing rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a child of a retired Federal Government Servant is entitled to the allotment of the parent's government accommodation under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Does a regularized daily-wage employee qualify as a 'Federal Government Servant' under Rule 2(g) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Can a court rely on a judgment that has been set aside by a higher appellate bench to determine the validity of an administrative notification?
  Read full judgment →
• M.D. Pepco Wapda House Gujranwala and others vs (Malik) Abid Hussain2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 30 · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 2019-10-05Read full judgment →
• M. Tariq Proprietor, Rawalpindi vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Rto, Rawalpindi2020 PTD (Trib.) 2189 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-02-10Read full judgment →
• M. Tariq Mansoor Advocate vs The Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 270 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-03Read full judgment →
• M. Tariq Asad, Asc vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 PLD Islamabad 338, 2020 IHC 98 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-01Read full judgment →
• M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, Chief Justice, High Court of Azad Jammu &2020 SC AJK 54 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• M. Nazir Inayatullah Transport Company vs The State & others2020 PLD Lahore 747, 2020 PLJ Lahore 249, 2020 LHC 1014 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-20Read full judgment →
• M. Khalid Aziz vs The State through Director General NAB, Balochistan2020 P Cr. L J 1291 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-01-06
  limitation periodcondonation of delayvoluntary returnNational Accountability Ordinancecriminal Ehtesab appealtime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal Ehtesab appeal challenged an accountability court's judgment arising from a reference under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to condone the delay in filing an appeal under section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, given that the special law prescribes a different period of limitation and excludes section 5 by operation of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Balochistan High Court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is not applicable to appeals filed under section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 because section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 excludes its application where a special law provides a distinct limitation period. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was thrown out as time-barred without entering into the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to an appeal filed under section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 exclude the application of section 5 of the said Act when a special law prescribes a different period of limitation?
  • Can the question of limitation be dismissed as a mere technicality when considering a time-barred appeal under special legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Javed Shafi and 7 others vs S.H.O. Police Station Shorkot City and 22021 CLD 422, 2020 MLD 2078 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-10Read full judgment →
• Lucky Cement Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2021 PTD 835, 2020 SHC 958 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-16Read full judgment →
• Luck Cement vs Govt GM SNGPL2020 CLC 1799, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 131, 2020 PHC 296 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-23Read full judgment →
• Lt. Commander (R) Engr: Abdul Aziz Narejo vs K.P.T and Others2020 SHC 1076 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-24Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (Retd.) Shahid Hamid through Duly Constituted Attorney vs State2020 CLD 419 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-14Read full judgment →
• LPG Association of Pakistan vs Federation of Pakistan etc2020 LHC 2274 · Lahore High Court · 2020-07-16
  legislative competencecompetition lawcompetition commission of pakistancompetition appellate tribunalfundamental rightsinter-provincial tradevalidation clauseeighteenth amendment
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter before the Lahore High Court involved numerous petitions challenging the legislative competence of Parliament to enact the Competition Ordinance 2007, Competition Ordinance 2009, Competition Ordinance 2010, and the Competition Act 2010, along with the vires of specific provisions of the Competition Act 2010, including Sections 43, 44, and 62. Petitioners argued that competition law falls outside the federal legislative domain, particularly post-Eighteenth Amendment, and that the Competition Commission of Pakistan and the Competition Appellate Tribunal unconstitutionally exercise judicial powers. The core legal questions centered on Parliament's legislative competence regarding competition, the constitutional validity of the adjudicatory and appellate mechanisms established under the Act, and the legal continuity of proceedings initiated during gaps between successive ordinances. The Full Bench held that Parliament possesses the requisite legislative competence under the Constitution—drawing upon entries related to inter-provincial trade, external affairs, and the enforcement of fundamental rights—and that the validation clause effectively preserved pending proceedings. The court dismissed the petitions, while addressing procedural safeguards for the appellate tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Parliament has the legislative competence under the Constitution of Pakistan to enact competition laws and regulate anti-competitive behavior?
  • Does the Competition Commission of Pakistan exercise unconstitutional judicial power in violation of Articles 175 and 203 of the Constitution?
  • Whether Sections 43 and 44 of the Competition Act 2010 violate Article 185 of the Constitution by providing a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Whether Section 62 of the Competition Act 2010 validly cures the gap periods and saves proceedings initiated under the lapsed Competition Ordinances?
  Read full judgment →
• Lizhen Wu R/o China & others vs Additional Collector of CustomsPTCL 2020 CL. 225 · Customs Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →