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.

• Liquat (Liaqat) Maseeh vs The State2020 MLD 243 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07
  rash and negligent drivingqatl-i-khatacriminal revisionburden of proofidentity of accuseddouble jeopardyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279 and 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a fatal road accident. The core legal questions concerned the legality of simultaneous convictions under these sections and whether the prosecution sufficiently established the identity of the driver and the element of rash or negligent driving. The Court held that simultaneous conviction under Sections 279 and 320 is legally impermissible as they arise from the same transaction. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution's case riddled with doubt, noting visible interpolations in the FIR regarding the accused's identity and a lack of evidence proving rash or negligent conduct. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted. The judgment establishes that criminal negligence requires proof of a gross deviation from the care a reasonable person would exercise, and that the prosecution must prove identity and specific acts of negligence beyond reasonable doubt, rather than relying on mere high speed or the occurrence of an accident itself.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be simultaneously convicted under Section 279 and Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the same incident?
  • Does the mere occurrence of a motor vehicle accident create a presumption of rash and negligent driving?
  • What is the legal standard for proving criminal negligence in cases of fatal road accidents?
  • Is the identity of an accused established when the FIR contains visible interpolations and the witnesses are unknown to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Lin Zhiwei vs The State, etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1112, 2020 PTD 1095, 2020 LHC 901 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-13
  customs smugglingketaminefalse declarationstatutory interpretationcriminal revisionacquittal applicationpenal statute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision arises from the dismissal of applications under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking acquittal in a case involving the alleged smuggling of "Ketamine" disguised as salt. The core legal question was whether "Ketamine" falls within the definition of "smuggle" under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969, or is otherwise prohibited. The Court held that "Ketamine" is not explicitly listed as a prohibited item or narcotic under the Customs Act, 1969, or its associated notifications. It emphasized that penal statutes must be interpreted strictly, with ambiguities resolved in favor of the accused, and courts cannot expand definitions to include substances not legislated as prohibited. However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the acquittal applications, finding that the accused’s submission of false documents, specifically an inaccurate End-User Certificate, constituted a distinct offense under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. The principle established is that while a substance may not be classified as a prohibited good, the submission of false declarations in export documents remains a punishable offense under customs law.

  Questions settled

  • Is Ketamine classified as a prohibited item or narcotic substance under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does the submission of a false End-User Certificate constitute an offense under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • How should a court interpret a penal statute when the definition of a prohibited item is ambiguous or absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali Khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 826 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-21
  civil servantpromotionperformance evaluation reportdeferred promotioncentral selection boardconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, civil servants serving in BS-19 and BS-20 respectively, challenged orders deferring their promotions due to incomplete Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) for the years 2017 and 2018. The core legal question was whether a civil servant could be made to suffer or be deferred for promotion due to the non-availability or incompleteness of PERs arising from the department's failure to maintain them. The Islamabad High Court held that the preparation, completion, and maintenance of PERs is the statutory duty of the employer department, not the civil servant, and an employee cannot be penalized or deferred for the department's failure in this regard. The Court laid down the principle that promotion is a matter of honour, pride, and legitimate expectancy for a civil servant, and departments cannot act in a callous manner by submitting incomplete records to the Central Selection Board while playing with the careers of civil servants. The petitions were disposed of with directions to the respondents to complete the PERs forthwith and consider the petitioners in the next meeting of the Central Selection Board.

  Questions settled

  • Is it the obligation of the employee civil servant or the employer department to prepare and maintain Performance Evaluation Reports?
  • Can a civil servant's promotion be deferred due to incomplete Performance Evaluation Reports caused by the department's failure?
  • Whether the department can introduce new grounds not mentioned in the impugned deferment order during arguments before the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Sabir and 6 others vs Muhammad Akhtar and 63 others2020 PLJ AJ&K 63 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-12-03Read full judgment →
• Liaqat and 4 others vs The State and another2020 YLR 1188 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-07
  chance witnessbenefit of doubtmurder referencepost-mortem delayrigor mortismotive as double-edged weaponocular accountcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder and related offences arising from a private complaint. The core legal questions involve the assessment of ocular testimony given by chance witnesses, the reliability of medical evidence regarding rigor mortis and weapon apertures, and the evidentiary value of recoveries and motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, especially given their lack of injuries despite being in close proximity to the assailants, coupled with delays in the post-mortem examination and discrepancies in medical evidence. The court laid down the principle that the unhurt presence of inimical witnesses in close range of gunfire casts serious doubt on their presence, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the convictions were set aside, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration when their presence at the crime scene is unnatural?
  • Does the failure of assailants to injure inimical witnesses present at the scene create doubt regarding the presence of those witnesses?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of motive when the ocular and medical evidence has been discarded?
  • What is the legal effect of a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs National Accountability Bureau2020 IHC 62 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-26Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs Fayasuddin and others2020 SCMR 1816 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-06-11
  landlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantevacuee trust propertyrent controller jurisdictionejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which allowed the respondent's constitutional petition regarding an ejectment dispute. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) and the property's alleged belonging to the Evacuee Trust Properties Board ousted the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and terminated the relationship of landlord and tenant between the original allottee and the inducted tenant. The Supreme Court held that the induction of the tenant by the respondent created a landlord-tenant relationship, and the mere cancellation or pending dispute regarding the PTD with the Evacuee Trust Property Board did not terminate that relationship or render the Rent Controller without jurisdiction. The Court established the principle that a tenant inducted by a landlord cannot deny the landlord-tenant relationship solely on the basis of a collateral dispute regarding the title or cancellation of transfer documents between the landlord and a third party like the Evacuee Trust Property Board, pending final adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does the cancellation of a Permanent Transfer Deed terminate the relationship of landlord and tenant between the original allottee and the inducted tenant?
  • Does a dispute regarding property ownership with the Evacuee Trust Properties Board oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can a tenant deny the title of the landlord who inducted him on the ground of pending litigation regarding the property's title?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs A.DJ., etc.2020 [M] C L R 337 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-27Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Khan etc vs Chief Settlement Commissioner etc2020 LHC 2031 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-07Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Brohi vs The State2020 SHC 520 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and others vs Safdar Khan2020 SCMR 863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-02
  pre-emptionTalabsco-sharersuperior rightsale pricepostal noticecivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a long-standing pre-emption dispute over a parcel of land in District Charsadda, initially sold on June 13, 2005. The respondent, Safdar Khan, filed a pre-emption suit claiming superior rights under section 6 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987. The trial court dismissed the suit due to the pre-emptor's failure to prove the due performance of Talabs, and the first appellate court initially maintained the dismissal. However, upon remand by the High Court, the appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the respondent had established the requisite Talabs in accordance with law, proved his superior right as a co-sharer, and determined the actual sale price. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had successfully discharged the onus of proving the performance of Talabs through consistent oral testimony and official postal records, and that minor discrepancies in witness statements were mere narrative variations insufficient to defeat a statutory right. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies or narrative variations in the testimony of witnesses regarding the performance of Talabs are sufficient to defeat a pre-emption suit?
  • Can the official testimony of a registration clerk and postal staff, along with relevant receipts and acknowledgment due, legally establish the dispatch and delivery of a pre-emption notice?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the performance of Talabs and superior pre-emptive rights warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does a pre-emptor's failure to establish acquiescence or prior intimation to the satisfaction of the court invalidate their statutory right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Latif Ahmed vs The Chief Secretary Punjab, Lahore and another2021 PLC (C.S. ) 468, 2020 LHC 2594, 2021 [M] C L R 707 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-26
  medical fitness certificatesubsequent appointmentgovernment servantconstitutional petitionPPSC recommendationwithholding appointment letterlien
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant already serving in the Special Education Department, applied for the post of Headmaster (BS-18) through proper channel, was selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission, and accepted the offer of appointment. However, the respondents withheld the appointment letter on the ground that he failed to furnish a fresh medical fitness certificate and that a significant period had elapsed since the recommendations. The core legal question was whether a government servant already in service and medically examined upon initial entry is required to produce a fresh medical fitness certificate on subsequent appointment to another post within the government. The Lahore High Court held that demanding a fresh medical certificate for a serving government servant with no break in service violates government instructions and rules, and an employee cannot be penalized for departmental delays or oversight. The court set aside the impugned orders denying the appointment letter and directed the respondents to issue it within one month, establishing the principle that fresh medical fitness certificates are not mandatory for subsequent government appointments where a valid certificate already exists on first entry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a government servant appointed to a new post through proper channel is required to furnish a fresh medical fitness certificate if one was already provided on first entry into service?
  • Can an appointing authority withhold an appointment letter on the ground of delay caused by its own inaction or oversight?
  • Is a serving civil servant selected for a new post through the Public Service Commission entitled to appointment despite the expiration of time resulting from departmental objections?
  Read full judgment →
• Laraib Builders through Duly Constituted Attorney vs Muhammad2020 YLR 284 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-07Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector E-35 & others vs Mst. Resham Jan2021 YLR 32, 2020 PHC 212 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-12Read full judgment →
• Lal Sherin vs The State and another2020 PHC 490, 2022 YLR 878 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• Lal Muhammad Lakho vs The Chairman NADRA & others2020 SHC 1034 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-20Read full judgment →
• Lal Jan vs Kamalhan and others2020 CLC 1090, 2021 [M] C L R 160 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
• Lal Bux Jahejo vs IInd Additional District Judge, Hyderabad & Others2021 PLD Sindh 388, 2020 SHC 710 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-20Read full judgment →
• Lajpal Rice Mills vs The Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2020 CL. 47 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Laiqat Ali vs Govt of KP2021 PLC (C.S.) 390, 2020 PHC 96 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-23
  regularization of servicecontract employeeunpaid salarieswrit jurisdictionback benefitsservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, appointed on a contract basis, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking regularization of his services from January 21, 2013, with all back benefits, and the release of unpaid salaries from June 2016 onwards. The petitioner alleged that despite continuous service until June 2018, he was denied salary payments and was not treated equally compared to similarly situated employees. Upon reviewing the arguments and the record, the Peshawar High Court noted that the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in a judgment dated November 21, 2019, had upheld a previous High Court ruling regarding similar service matters. Consequently, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the instant petition directly. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case strictly in accordance with the guidelines and principles established in the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment, ensuring compliance with the settled legal position on the regularization and payment of contract employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court direct the consideration of a service matter in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court?
  • Is a contract employee entitled to seek regularization and unpaid salaries through a writ petition under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority and another vs Muhammad Tariq Niaz2020 SCMR 1957, 2020 SCP 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-27
  specific performancepublic auctionhighest biddercontractual obligationspublic functionarydeclaratory suitarbitrary cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a suit for declaration and specific performance filed by the respondent against the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) regarding the auction of a plot. The core legal question was whether the LDA, having declared the respondent the highest bidder and accepted part payment, could unilaterally cancel the auction and re-auction the property based on a higher offer from a non-participant. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the LDA’s conduct was unjustified and lacked legal sanctity, noting that the respondent had fulfilled all contractual obligations and the LDA had formally accepted the bid. The Court emphasized that public functionaries must act within the prescribed limits of the law and cannot arbitrarily frustrate legitimate contracts or public confidence. The principle laid down is that once a public auction process is concluded and a bid is accepted, the authority cannot arbitrarily cancel the transaction to accommodate third-party offers, as such conduct is contrary to the principles of fair dealing and public trust.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public authority unilaterally cancel a concluded auction bid to accept a higher offer from a non-participant?
  • Does the acceptance of a bid and partial payment by a public authority create a binding contractual obligation?
  • Is a public authority permitted to re-auction property after a valid contract has been formed with the highest bidder?
  Read full judgment →
• Kymab Ltd vs Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc2020 SCMR 1437 · Supreme Court of United Kingdom · 2020-06-24Read full judgment →
• Koray Khan vs Manager Operations, Mepco and others2020 MLD 1981 · Lahore High Court · 2020-07-08Read full judgment →
• Kirthar Pakistan BV through Authorize Attorney vs Federation Of Pakistan2020 PTD 1927 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-19Read full judgment →
• Maria Jabeen vs Govt of KP2021 PLC (C.S.) 258, 2020 PHC 428 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-16
  constitutional petitionpublic employmenteligibility criteriacut-off dateamendment of rulesassistant sub-inspectorservice laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by Mst. Maria Jabeen challenging the refusal of the respondent-Department to appoint her as an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Female) despite topping the merit list in the written test and interview. The core legal question was whether a candidate must fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria and qualifications on the last date specified in the advertisement, and whether a subsequent amendment to the recruitment rules can render an ineligible candidate eligible. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that eligibility for public employment must be judged strictly with reference to the cut-off date provided in the service rules or the advertisement. The Court laid down the principle that a candidate who does not possess the required qualification on the last date for submitting applications cannot claim a right to appointment based on subsequent amendments to the rules, as doing so would prejudice other potential candidates who refrained from applying due to lack of the originally prescribed qualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the eligibility of a candidate for public employment is to be determined with reference to the last date specified in the advertisement?
  • Does a subsequent amendment to recruitment rules confer a right of appointment on a candidate who was unqualified on the last date for submission of applications?
  • Can a candidate who lacked the prescribed educational qualification at the inception be considered for public appointment based on subsequent relaxation or rule changes?
  Read full judgment →
• Khyber Ali vs The State and another2020 MLD 1122 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-05
  narcotics controlchain of custodysafe custody of case propertyforensic reportcriminal appealacquittalmalkhanaburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 5.120 kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and safe transmission of the recovered contraband to the forensic laboratory. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody of the case property, noting significant delays in depositing the narcotics into the Malkhana and a lack of evidence regarding the handling of the samples. Consequently, the Court found the forensic report unreliable and insufficient to sustain a conviction. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the unbroken chain of custody of case property; failure to establish safe custody and transmission of samples to the forensic laboratory renders the forensic report legally inconsequential and necessitates the acquittal of the accused. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to establish the safe custody of case property in the Malkhana vitiate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is a forensic report reliable when the chain of custody for the sample parcels is not proven by the prosecution?
  • What is the legal consequence of a delay in depositing recovered narcotics into the Malkhana?
  Read full judgment →
• Khusro Mirza vs The State2020 YLR 1239 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-24
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeauction proceedingsfuture obligationcriminal breachSindh High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the dishonouring of a cheque given as 25% of the hammer-down auction amount for a property purchased through court auction. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail should be granted when a cheque issued during judicial auction proceedings bounces and dishonesty is prima facie apparent from the conduct of the bidder. The court held that no case for pre-arrest bail was made out, finding that the cheque was issued for a future obligation in auction proceedings, was not accepted as mere surety, and its dishonour coupled with failure to inform the court demonstrated dishonesty, precluding extraordinary relief. The court laid down that participation in judicial auction proceedings followed by the issuance of a dishonoured cheque without prior withdrawal of the bid or intimation to the executing court does not warrant pre-arrest bail, and that such observations are tentative in nature.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when a cheque given as 25% of a judicial auction amount is dishonoured?
  • Does a cheque given by a successful bidder in court auction proceedings constitute a surety or an obligation in respect of a transaction?
  • Whether failure to contact the executing court regarding a bounced auction cheque attracts dishonesty sufficient to deny pre-arrest relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs The State through Deputy Prosecutor-General, Sukkur and 8 others2020 MLD 1616 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-15
  criminal revisiondirect complaintcivil litigationabuse of processforgerydismissal of complaintrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Application challenges an order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, dismissing the applicant's direct complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint where the underlying dispute between the parties was already the subject of extensive civil litigation. The High Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the parties had engaged in protracted civil litigation regarding the same property, resulting in a consolidated judgment where the applicant's claims were dismissed and the respondents' claims were decreed. The Court held that the applicant was attempting to convert a purely civil dispute into criminal litigation to harass and pressure the respondents. The Court emphasized that where a competent civil court has already adjudicated the rights of the parties and declared the documents relied upon by the complainant to be null and void, a criminal complaint based on the same facts is an abuse of process. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed as the impugned order required no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can a direct criminal complaint be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil in nature and already adjudicated by a civil court?
  • Is it permissible to initiate criminal proceedings to harass the opposite party after losing a civil suit regarding the same subject matter?
  • Does a trial court have the discretion to dismiss a direct complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the allegations are essentially civil?
  Read full judgment →
• Khush Rang vs The State and another2020 SCMR 1675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-05
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurderabductioncommon intentionrecovery of vehiclecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging an order of the Peshawar High Court which declined post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case involving murder and abduction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the lack of direct evidence and the circumstances surrounding the recovery of a vehicle. The Supreme Court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry, noting the absence of direct evidence, the belated recording of the petitioner's name under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the fact that the dead body was not recovered at the petitioner's pointation. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, converted the petition into an appeal, and admitted the petitioner to bail. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where a case lacks direct evidence and requires further inquiry into the allegations, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of direct evidence and the need for further inquiry into the prosecution's case entitle an accused to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at a belated stage sufficient to deny bail when other direct evidence is lacking?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Alam and others vs Aneel Masih and 10 others2020 CLC 1142 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-21Read full judgment →
• Khursheed Bibi vs The State & another2021 MLD 144, 2020 LHC 1348 · Lahore High Court · 2020-05-14
  post-arrest bailnarcotics offencejudicial discretionfemale accusedprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the alleged possession of 2420 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a female accused of a non-bailable narcotics offence, was entitled to the concession of bail despite the prohibition contained in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed the bail application. The ratio of the decision is that while the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides a category for female accused, it does not confer an automatic right to bail. Instead, the grant or refusal of bail remains a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised based on the facts of the case. The Court emphasized that the heinous nature of the offence and the existence of incriminating evidence justified the refusal of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant an automatic right to bail for a female accused?
  • Is the grant of bail to a female accused in a non-bailable narcotics case a matter of right or judicial discretion?
  • Does the prohibition contained in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 apply to female accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurram Shahzad vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 392 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-02-02
  post-arrest baildishonour of chequeprohibitory clausehabitual offenderpunishment before convictioncriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of cheques issued to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite allegations of being a habitual offender and the existence of other similar cases against him. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the offence under Section 489-F, carrying a maximum punishment of three years, does not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court emphasized that bail cannot be withheld as a punitive measure, nor can it be denied solely based on the existence of other pending cases. Furthermore, as the investigation was complete and no risk of evidence tampering existed, continued incarceration would amount to punishment before conviction, which is impermissible under criminal jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if it does not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be denied to an accused solely on the ground that they are involved in other similar cases?
  • Does the mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused justify the refusal of bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurram Abdul Jabbar through Legal Representative vs Sikandar Haji2020 YLR 1263 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-05Read full judgment →
• Khuram Saleem vs Chairman Punjab Bar Council etc2020 PLJ Lahore 466 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-23Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux Chandio vs Altaf Baloch and others2021 YLR 281, 2020 PLJ Karachi 93 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2020 SHC 1082 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-25
  show cause noticesuspension ordermisconductcivil servantterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional petitionjurisdictionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Sindh Police challenging a show-cause notice and a subsequent suspension order issued against him on allegations of misconduct involving the occupation of private property and threats. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against a show-cause notice and suspension order in service matters, and whether such matters are barred by Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Sindh High Court held that disciplinary proceedings fall within the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, thereby barring the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212(2) of the Constitution in favor of the Service Tribunal. The Court further ruled that a show-cause notice and a temporary suspension order do not constitute punishments, and a writ petition is not maintainable against them unless they are shown to be patently illegal, malafide, or without jurisdiction. The petition was consequently dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against the issuance of a show-cause notice and an order of suspension in service matters?
  • Does the bar under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan apply to disciplinary proceedings and matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  • Whether a show-cause notice or an order of suspension constitutes a punishment under service jurisprudence against which a writ petition lies?
  • Can the High Court interfere with departmental disciplinary proceedings at the stage of a show-cause notice or suspension without a showing of patent illegality or lack of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat Khan vs Province of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 258 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-19Read full judgment →
• Khiyal Saba and another vs The State and othersPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 209, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 499, 2020 SCMR 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-13
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycriminal appealmurderattempt to murderbail concession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail by the Peshawar High Court in a case involving charges under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the specific allegations and evidence presented. The Supreme Court observed that the FIR contained no allegation against the petitioners regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased, Jaram Khan. Furthermore, the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured witnesses remained undetermined, and no incriminating recoveries were made from the petitioners during the investigation. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners' case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under the law. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, converted the petition into an appeal, and granted bail to the appellants, establishing the principle that where the prosecution fails to link the accused to the fatal injuries and the nature of other injuries remains unverified, the case warrants further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of specific allegations regarding the fatal injury in an FIR justify the grant of bail?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of 'further inquiry' for the purpose of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is bail appropriate when the nature of injuries sustained by the injured witnesses remains undetermined by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawand Bux vs Allah Dino & Others2020 SHC 126 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-04Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Salman Rafique and another vs National Accountability Bureau2020 PLD Supreme Court 456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-17
  National Accountability OrdinanceApprover's statementCorroborationFundamental rightsLibertyDignity of manPresumption of innocenceArbitrary arrestProportionalityBailCorruption and corrupt practicesConstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a case where petitioners, Khawaja Saad Rafique and Khawaja Salman Rafique, were accused of corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, related to a housing scheme. The core legal questions revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, particularly an approver's statement, and the adherence of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to legal and constitutional principles. The Supreme Court held that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioners were involved in any offence triable under the NAO. The approver's statement was deemed inadmissible due to procedural irregularities, including the lack of notice to the accused for cross-examination and failure to inform the approver of non-remission to prosecution custody, and its lack of corroboration. The Court emphasized that purely civil or commercial disputes between private entities, without adverse public or governmental interest, do not fall under the NAO. The judgment underscored the paramount importance of fundamental rights, including liberty, dignity, and the presumption of innocence, criticizing NAB's conduct for disregarding law, fairness, and proportionality in exercising its powers of arrest and investigation.

  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Muhammad Nayyer Farid, Advocate vs Pakistan Bar Council2020 PLJ Lahore 560 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khawaja Muhammad Akbar and 4 others vs Azad Government Of The State Of Jammu And Kashmir through Secretary Forest, Muzaffarabad and 9 others2020 CLD 531 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-09-02Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Anwer Majid vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman2020 PLD Supreme Court 635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-02
  post-arrest bailmedical groundsmedical treatment abroadhardshipSupreme Court Rules 1980Exit Control Listmoney laundering
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a criminal appeal filed by a prominent accused seeking post-arrest bail on medical grounds and permission to travel abroad for a high-risk cardiac procedure in a massive money laundering case investigated by the National Accountability Bureau. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether a Bench of two Judges could hear an appeal involving the grant or cancellation of bail, whether an accused facing trial can claim a right to seek offshore medical treatment, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on grounds of hardship and deteriorating health. The Supreme Court held that under the proviso to Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, a Bench of two Judges is fully competent to hear bail matters. On the merits, the Court rejected the request for medical treatment abroad, holding that equality before the law and due process do not entitle an accused to offshore treatment. However, recognizing his severe medical deterioration, advance age, prolonged incarceration of over two years, and required cardiac procedure as constituting genuine hardship, the Court granted post-arrest bail subject to heavy security, placement on the Exit Control List, and cooperation with trial and investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal involving the grant or cancellation of bail be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges of the Supreme Court under Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
  • Is an accused facing criminal trial entitled as a matter of right or legal concession to proceed abroad for medical treatment?
  • Does severe medical deterioration combined with prolonged incarceration constitute a sufficient ground of hardship for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Ahad Rahman and others vs Province of Sindh2020 SHC 350 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-09Read full judgment →
• Khatoon Bibi vs The State etc2021 P Cr. L J 593, 2020 LHC 2463 · Lahore High Court · 2020-05-21
  habeas corpusunlawful detentionpolice excessfundamental rightspolice record keepingcompensationcustodial tortureconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, sought the recovery of three individuals allegedly held in unlawful police custody. The core legal question was whether the detention of the individuals was lawful and whether the police had adhered to statutory requirements regarding arrest and record-keeping. The Court held that the detention was illegal, as the police failed to produce the detenus before a magistrate within twenty-four hours and failed to maintain the Daily Diary/Rozenamcha as required by the Police Rules, 1934. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the detenus and imposed monetary compensation on the responsible police officials for violating the fundamental rights of the victims. The Court affirmed that the High Court has a constitutional duty to satisfy itself that no person is held in custody without lawful authority. It established that police officials are accountable for fundamental rights violations, including unlawful detention and torture, and that courts may award compensation to victims of police excess to restore their dignity and uphold the rule of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the authority to award monetary compensation to victims of unlawful police detention?
  • What are the legal consequences for police officials who fail to maintain the Daily Diary/Rozenamcha as prescribed by the Police Rules, 1934?
  • Is the production of an arrest order by the detaining authority sufficient to satisfy the High Court's duty under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can a bailiff appointed by the High Court demand the examination of police records and search a police station during a habeas corpus proceeding?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Zeb vs The State through Special Prosecutor, A.N.F.2020 P SC (Crl.) 719, 2020 SCMR 444 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-04
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlpassenger in vehiclefurther inquiryrecovery of contraband
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being apprehended as a passenger in a vehicle from which contraband was recovered, facing charges under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Peshawar High Court had previously declined his bail application. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a passenger in a vehicle carrying narcotics, without established prior connection or relationship with the driver, is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting bail to the petitioner. The court held that where investigation fails to establish any prima facie connection or relationship between the passenger and the driver regarding the recovered contraband, a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is made out, entitling the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a passenger travelling in a vehicle from which narcotics are recovered is entitled to post-arrest bail when no connection or relationship with the driver is established during investigation?
  • Does the absence of data establishing a link between a vehicle's passenger and driver make out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Shahzada vs Muhammad Israr and others2020 CLC 1491 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-26Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad and another vs The State and another2020 MLD 1938 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-01-09
  narcoticssafe custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtrecovery proceedingscriminal appealprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2001, for the alleged possession of 1250 grams of charas. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery, safe custody, and chemical analysis of the contraband beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court found multiple fatal flaws in the prosecution's case, including unexplained delays in sending samples for chemical analysis, discrepancies in the weight of the substance between recovery and laboratory receipt, contradictions among prosecution witnesses regarding the vehicle used and the uniforms worn, and the use of an unexplained seal monogram on the parcels. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The judgment emphasizes that while Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2001, creates exceptions to general evidentiary principles, it does not absolve the prosecution from proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Any reasonable doubt arising from faulty investigation must accrue to the accused's benefit as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy in the weight of recovered contraband between the time of recovery and the time of laboratory analysis create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples even under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2001?
  • Does the failure to cite the person who transported the contraband sample to the chemical examiner as a witness affect the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the seal monogram on the recovered parcel does not correspond to the recovery officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Bahadur and others vs Mir Abdul Qayyum and another2020 CLC 893 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-27Read full judgment →
• Khan Afsar vs The State etc2020 PHC 338 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-14Read full judgment →
• Khamiso alias Jogi and another vs The State2020 MLD 1614 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-28
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailappellate discretiondelay in appealSection 426 Cr.P.C.life imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of sentences of life imprisonment awarded to the appellants for murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its discretion to suspend the sentence and grant bail pending the final adjudication of the appeal, given the significant delay in the hearing of the appeal and the existence of potential defects in the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the discretion to grant bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not fettered by the nature of the conviction or the length of the sentence. Finding that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future and noting apparent defects in the impugned judgment that required deeper re-evaluation, the Court suspended the sentences and granted bail to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that the High Court possesses broad discretionary power to suspend sentences pending appeal, provided such discretion is exercised judicially, without requiring a deep appraisal of evidence at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impose limitations on the High Court's power to grant bail to an accused convicted of murder?
  • Is the discretion of the Appellate Court to grant bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restricted by the nature of the conviction or sentence?
  • Should a court conduct a deep appraisal of evidence when considering an application for suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Khamas Saeed vs Director General of Trade Organizations and 42020 CLD 121 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-06Read full judgment →
• Khalil-Ur-Rehman vs Pepco Wapda & others2020 SHC 506 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
• Khalida Bibi vs Mst. Shabnam UN Nisa and 12 others2020 CLC 47 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-26Read full judgment →
• Khalid vs Mepco, etc2020 PLJ Lahore 230 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-21Read full judgment →
• Khalid Nazir Spinning Mills Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2020 CL.526, 2020 PTD 274 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-21Read full judgment →
• Khalid Naseer and another vs The State and another2020 SCMR 1966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-17
  murderocular evidenceabsconsionlife imprisonmentchance witnesscriminal appealmedical evidencesentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the petitioner for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, while commuting his death sentence to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular witnesses, the impact of the petitioner's prolonged absconsion, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding motive. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and the prompt recording of the crime report, was reliable. The Court rejected the argument that the witnesses were 'chance witnesses,' noting their consistency and proximity to the crime scene. Regarding the sentence, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision to commute the death penalty to life imprisonment, noting that while the motive was not independently established, the conviction remained sound. The judgment reinforces the principle that the promptness of medical examination following a crime report effectively precludes the possibility of fabrication, and that a neighbor residing adjacent to the crime scene is a credible witness.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prompt medical examination of a deceased following a crime report preclude the possibility of fabrication of the complaint?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the prosecution fails to independently establish the motive for the crime?
  • Is a witness residing adjacent to the scene of the occurrence considered a credible witness?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs The StatePLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 119, 2020 P SC (Crl.) 680, 2020 SCMR 434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-07
  post-arrest bailforged documentsfurther inquiryexpert opinioncorruptioncriminal breach of trustcheating
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition, converted into an appeal, arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the appellant in case FIR No. 02 registered under sections 419, 420, 468, 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the lack of expert opinion regarding the alleged forged signatures and the fact that a co-accused beneficiary was already granted bail. The Supreme Court held that the absence of expert verification of the signatures and the grant of bail to the co-accused rendered the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and granted post-arrest bail to the appellant, establishing the principle that failure to collect crucial forensic evidence like handwriting expert reports during investigation can tilt the case in favor of further inquiry for bail purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of an expert opinion on alleged forged signatures makes a case one for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the grant of bail to a co-accused who is the primary beneficiary provide a ground for granting bail to another accused allegedly involved in preparing forged documents?
  • Can a criminal petition arising from an order refusing bail be converted into an appeal and allowed when the investigation lacks crucial forensic verification?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 462 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-10
  narcotics smugglingchemical examiner reportevidentiary valuebenefit of doubtcriminal appealdrug analysisconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 22.800 kilograms of Charas. The core legal question concerns the evidentiary value of a chemical examiner's report that fails to specify the testing protocols applied and relies on a test (Duquenois) that detects the presence of a drug but fails to identify its specific nature or kind. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the nature of the substance beyond a reasonable doubt because the chemical report did not conform to the prescribed form under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Govt. Analysts) Rules, 2001, and lacked the necessary confirmation of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Consequently, the Court established the principle that a chemical report failing to state the specific test protocols or failing to identify the specific nature of the contraband is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a chemical examiner's report that fails to mention test protocols and specific drug identification satisfy the requirements of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Govt. Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Is a positive Duquenois test alone sufficient to confirm the nature of a substance as Charas in a criminal prosecution?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained when the chemical analysis report is found to be fatally defective?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Khan vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 1070 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-08
  narcotic recoverychemical examiner reportsample transmission delaypublic witness non-associationdual capacity of police officerpresumption of guiltControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for transporting narcotics, specifically charas and opium, under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the Chemical Examiner’s report, the impact of delayed sample submission, the effect of not associating public witnesses during recovery, and the propriety of the complainant acting as the investigating officer. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. It held that the Chemical Examiner's report was legally sufficient as it specified the protocols applied. The Court further clarified that rules regarding the timeline for sending samples to the laboratory are directory, not mandatory, and that non-association of public witnesses does not vitiate recovery proceedings under the special law. Additionally, the Court affirmed that a police officer may act as both complainant and investigator without causing prejudice to the accused. The judgment reinforces that once the prosecution discharges its initial burden, the presumption of guilt under the special statute shifts the onus to the accused to rebut the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-association of public witnesses during a narcotics recovery vitiate the proceedings under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is a delay in sending narcotic sample parcels to the Chemical Examiner fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can a police officer act as both the complainant and the investigating officer in a criminal case?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for a Chemical Examiner's report regarding test protocols under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Imran Khan Barki vs Government of Punjab, etc2021 PLC (C.S.) 426, 2020 LHC 2892 · Select · 2020-10-01
  civil servicepension rightslimitation perioddisciplinary proceedingssuperannuationshow-cause noticePEEDA Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged a show-cause notice issued by the Communication and Works Department against a retired civil servant nearly five years after his retirement. The core legal question concerned whether departmental proceedings could be initiated against a pensioner after the expiry of the statutory limitation period prescribed under the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, and the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The Court held that the impugned notice was legally unsustainable, as both the Pension Rules and the PEEDA Act mandate that disciplinary proceedings against retired employees must be initiated within one year of retirement. The Court emphasized that when a statute prescribes a time frame for public functionaries to impose penalties or create liability, such provisions are mandatory rather than directory. This ensures that retired employees are not subjected to indefinite uncertainty regarding their pensionary benefits. Consequently, the Court set aside the show-cause notice, ruling that the respondents lacked the authority to initiate proceedings after the lapse of the prescribed limitation period.

  Questions settled

  • Can departmental proceedings be initiated against a retired civil servant after the lapse of one year from the date of retirement?
  • Is the time limit prescribed for initiating disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee under the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, mandatory or directory?
  • Does Rule 1.8(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, impose a mandatory time limit for instituting departmental proceedings against a pensioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain vs Psic Employees Co-operative Housing Society and others2020 PLD Lahore 423, 2020 LHC 304 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain vs Full Bench National Industrial Relation Commission and others2020 PLC 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-05
  grievance petitionindustrial relationslimitation periodgrievance noticedismissal from serviceNIRCmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s grievance petition by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner, a former employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, was dismissed from service on 22.09.2016. He subsequently filed a grievance petition before the N.I.R.C. challenging this dismissal, which was dismissed by the Member, N.I.R.C., and subsequently by the Full Bench, on the basis that it was time-barred. The core legal question was whether the N.I.R.C. correctly dismissed the petition and whether the petitioner had complied with the mandatory procedural requirements for seeking redressal. The Court held that the grievance petition was not maintainable because the petitioner failed to serve a mandatory grievance notice upon his employer as required by Section 33(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court affirmed that judicial liberty to approach a forum does not exempt a litigant from statutory procedural requirements, including the service of a grievance notice and adherence to limitation periods prescribed by the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Is a grievance petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission maintainable without the prior service of a grievance notice on the employer?
  • Does a court's observation granting liberty to challenge an order before an appropriate forum exempt a litigant from statutory limitation periods and procedural requirements?
  • What is the mandatory procedure for a worker to seek redressal of a grievance under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain and others vs Province of Sindh and 03 others2020 SHC 842 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
• Khalas Khan alias Ikhlas Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1515 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-16
  criminal revisionconviction appealconcurrent findingsArshDamanattempt to commit qatl-i-amdhurt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 324, 337-D, and 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay Arsh and Daman following an incident where he fired at the victim, causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through the evidence presented, including eyewitness testimony and the recovery of the crime weapon. The High Court, upon reviewing the record, found that the eyewitnesses remained consistent on material points despite rigorous cross-examination and that the recovery of the crime weapon further corroborated the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition in limine, holding that the impugned judgments were well-founded and free from legal irregularity. The principle affirmed is that where concurrent findings of fact are supported by consistent testimonial and forensic evidence, and no material illegality is demonstrated, the appellate or revisional court will not interfere with the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a revisional court interfere with concurrent findings of fact if the prosecution witnesses remain consistent on material points?
  • Does the recovery of a crime weapon corroborate eyewitness testimony in a trial for hurt and attempted murder?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the defense fails to elicit favorable evidence during cross-examination of eyewitnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Khair-ud-din vs Mst. Sabiha and others2021 PLD Peshawar 85, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 25, 2020 PHC 524 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-22Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad Brohi & others vs District Judge Matiari & others2020 SHC 540 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07Read full judgment →
• Khaeri Khan and 5 others vs Muhammad Siddiqui alias Siddiqo and 82020 CLC 1458 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-25Read full judgment →
• Khadim Nabi vs Rasheed Ur Rehman and another2020 P Cr. L J 433 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-02
  murderdeath sentence enhancementocular accountrelated witnessesmotivemitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, with a cross-petition seeking enhancement to the death penalty. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony from related and interested witnesses, the evidentiary value of unverified crime empties, and the existence of mitigating circumstances to warrant a lesser sentence than death in a premeditated murder. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of related eye-witnesses, being natural, prompt, and consistent, was reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction without strict corroboration, and that a land dispute motive established pre-planning and the absence of mitigating circumstances. The court dismissed the appellant's appeal, allowed the complainant's revision petition, and enhanced the sentence from imprisonment for life to the normal penalty of death. The key principles laid down include that a related witness is not necessarily an interested witness if natural to the occurrence, and that the absence of mitigating circumstances in a pre-planned murder warrants the normal penalty of death.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of related or interested eye-witnesses if their statements inspire confidence?
  • Whether the absence of forensic reports regarding crime empties is fatal to the prosecution case when trustworthy ocular testimony is available?
  • Does a pre-planned land dispute and indiscriminate firing by the accused preclude the finding of mitigating circumstances for awarding a lesser sentence than death?
  • What are the legal requirements for an appellate court to enhance a sentence of life imprisonment to the normal penalty of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs The State2020 SHC 128, 2022 MLD 95 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-06Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Secretary, Ministry of Human Rights, Islamabad, etc2020 [M] C L R 1351, 2020 PLD Islamabad 268, 2020 IHC 68 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-14
  prison reformsfundamental rightsright to lifehuman dignityunder-trial prisonersduty of carejail manualconstitutional petitiontort law
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses petitions concerning grave human rights violations, overcrowding, and abysmal living conditions in prisons across Pakistan. The core legal questions involve determining the constitutional rights of prisoners under Articles 9 and 14, the State's duty of care toward incarcerated individuals, the enforceability of international conventions, and the availability of remedies for inhuman treatment. The Court held that overcrowding, failure to segregate prisoners, and denial of medical care and legal access violate fundamental rights and international obligations. The ratio decidendi establishes that a prisoner retains the presumption of innocence (if unconvicted) and fundamental rights to life and human dignity, imposing a strict fiduciary duty of care on the State. The Court laid down key principles regarding prisoner rights, state accountability under tort law for false imprisonment or negligence, the enforceability of international treaties consistent with domestic law, and the mandatory operationalization of legal aid legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the overcrowding of prisons and the failure to segregate under-trial prisoners from convicted criminals violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the State owe a fiduciary duty of care to incarcerated prisoners to safeguard their right to life and provide adequate medical treatment?
  • Can incarcerated prisoners seek damages or remedies under the law of tort for false imprisonment or degrading treatment resulting from sub-standard prison conditions?
  • Are international conventions ratified by Pakistan enforceable as domestic law without enabling legislation?
  • Does deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners constitute a violation of the constitutional right to life?
  Read full judgment →
• Ken Chung vs Her Majesty the Queen2020 SCMR 1162 · Supreme Court of CanadaRead full judgment →
• Kazim Raza Abidi Advocate and 4 others vs Xviiith Judicial Magistrate and another2020 PLD Sindh 748 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-15
  criminal revisionconcurrent jurisdictionrevisional powersfair trialinterlocutory ordercross-examinationjudicial hierarchy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate during the cross-examination of a prosecution witness. The applicants, defense counsel, sought to exhibit a photocopy of a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which the trial court refused to exhibit, leading to a confrontation and subsequent order by the Magistrate. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction directly against an interlocutory order of a Judicial Magistrate, bypassing the Sessions Court. The High Court held that while it possesses concurrent revisional jurisdiction with the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a party cannot bypass the lower appellate forum without sufficient justification. The court emphasized that bypassing the Sessions Court deprives the aggrieved party of a forum of appeal or revision and violates the principles of a fair trial. Consequently, the court dismissed the application as not maintainable, directing the applicants to approach the Sessions Judge for redressal of their grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal revision application directly maintainable in the High Court against an order of a Judicial Magistrate?
  • Does the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow a party to bypass the Sessions Court?
  • Does bypassing the Sessions Court in favor of the High Court for a revision application violate the principle of fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Kausar Ali Shah vs Regional Police Officer and others2020 PLD Peshawar 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-22Read full judgment →
• Kathiawar Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Makkah Masjid (Regd)2020 SHC 1040 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-20Read full judgment →
• Kashifullah vs The State2020 MLD 675 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-27
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsfurther inquiryrecovery from public transportpossession of contrabandcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of two kilograms of charas from a bus side box. The core legal question was whether the applicant's connection to the recovered narcotics was sufficiently established to deny bail, or if the circumstances warranted further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observed that the narcotics were recovered from an external side box of the bus, not from the applicant's physical possession, and that the bus itself was not taken into custody. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to cite the driver or conductor as witnesses, and there was ambiguity regarding control over the side box. Relying on the principle that recovery from a non-exclusive area without clear evidence of possession or control constitutes a case of further inquiry, the Court held that the applicant's guilt required deeper investigation. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, determining that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of narcotics from an external side box of a bus, rather than the physical possession of an accused, constitute a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to establish exclusive control over the area from which contraband was recovered?
  • Does the failure to cite independent witnesses or the vehicle driver in a narcotics recovery case create grounds for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif vs The State & another2021 MLD 493, 2020 PHC 240 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-31Read full judgment →
• Kashif Feroz vs Federation of Pakistan & another2021 PTD 867, 2020 SHC 1300 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
• Kashif Anwar and others vs The State2020 PTD 474 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-19
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailsales tax fraudfake invoicestax evasionfurther inquirydocumentary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications for pre-arrest bail in a case involving alleged tax fraud, specifically the generation of fake sales tax invoices and illegal input tax adjustments, causing significant loss to the national exchequer. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to confirmation of their pre-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the prosecution's case required further inquiry, as the investigation failed to clearly establish the specific role of the applicants, the actual extent of their alleged benefit, or the technical origin of the fraudulent invoices. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that since the evidence is largely documentary and the matter is still subject to formal tax adjudication, the arrest of the applicants would serve no beneficial purpose for the prosecution. The judgment reinforces the principle that pre-arrest bail is appropriate where the prosecution's case is tentative, lacks specific attribution of criminal liability, and where the accused's incarceration is not necessary for the investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail maintainable when the specific role of the accused in a tax fraud case is not clearly deciphered in the charge-sheet?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the alleged tax liability is still subject to formal adjudication?
  • Is the arrest of an accused necessary when the prosecution's evidence is primarily documentary in nature?
  • Does the trial court have the authority to cancel bail without reference to the High Court if the accused becomes a fugitive?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif @ Kashoo vs The State2020 SHC 516 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07
  bail applicationcriminal proceduredismissed as not pressedpost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court as a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Kashif alias Kashoo against the State. The core legal question concerns the determination of entitlement to bail in criminal proceedings. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant, acting upon the instructions of the applicant, stated that he did not press the bail application. Consequently, the court dismissed the application as not pressed. No further legal principles or holdings were laid down.

  Questions settled

  • What is the effect when a bail application is not pressed by the applicant?
  • Can a bail application be dismissed when counsel states it is not pressed under instructions?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashan Mehdi vs The State2020 YLR 2145 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-01-31
  post-arrest bailsecond bail petitioncontradictions in statementsappreciation of evidencefresh groundsdelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This second post-arrest bail petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of FIR No. 111/2018 registered under Sections 376, 364-A and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Gilgit. The core legal question was whether contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during trial constitute a fresh ground for granting a second bail petition after the dismissal of the first one on merits. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that bail cannot be granted on the ground of contradictions in the statements of examined prosecution witnesses because deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. The petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit, with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within three months, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the trial court afresh on the ground of statutory delay. The key principle laid down is that minor contradictions or discrepancies in witness testimonies cannot be evaluated deeply for the purpose of granting post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded at trial constitute a fresh ground for a second post-arrest bail petition?
  • Can deeper appreciation of evidence be undertaken by a court at the bail stage?
  • What is the remedy available to an accused if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated timeframe directed by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Dad vs Mst. Sharifzadgai2021 MLD 642, 2020 PHC 316 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-08Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux son of Pehlwan Bhayo vs The State2020 SHC 1088 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26
  murderrelated witnessesdelayed FIRocular and medical evidencecriminal appealweapon recoveryappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the murder of his real brother following a minor verbal altercation over employment. The core legal questions involve the credibility and reliability of closely related eye-witnesses, the effect of delay in lodging the First Information Report, and whether inconsistencies existed between the ocular and medical evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of relationship if their presence is natural and their statements remain trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery. The Court affirmed that delay in lodging the FIR, particularly in cases involving family members and funeral rites, is not fatal when adequately explained. The key principle laid down is that related witnesses are often more reliable in heinous crimes as they are unlikely to substitute an innocent person for the actual culprit, and mere relationship does not render a witness 'interested' in the legal sense unless animosity or ulterior motives are proven.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be discarded solely on the ground that they are closely related to the deceased?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report invariably prove fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • What constitutes an 'interested witness' in criminal jurisprudence under Pakistani law?
  • Is medical evidence deemed contradictory to ocular testimony when witnesses state the victim died on the way to the hospital while the doctor notes instantaneous death?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux Magsi & Another vs The State2020 SHC 466 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-04
  protective bailpre-arrest bailsurrender before courtimminent arrestcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for protective bail filed by two applicants, Karim Bux Magsi and Ali Ahmed Magsi, who were implicated in Crime No. 28/2020 registered at Police Station Piaro Lund, District Tando Allahyar, for offenses under Sections 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants asserted their innocence and alleged false implication, expressing a desire to surrender before the competent trial court to seek pre-arrest bail. Fearing imminent arrest by the police, they sought protective bail to facilitate their appearance. The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, granted the applicants protective bail for a period of seven days. This relief was conditional upon the applicants furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 40,000 each and a personal recognizance bond in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar. The order stipulates that the protective bail shall expire after seven days or upon the applicants' surrender before the concerned court, whichever occurs earlier.

  Questions settled

  • Can a high court grant protective bail to an accused to enable them to surrender before a trial court?
  • Is it necessary to touch upon the merits of the case when granting protective bail?
  • What is the standard duration for protective bail granted by the High Court in this context?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bukhsh and another vs The State2020 SHC 636, 2022 PLD Sindh 61 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-12Read full judgment →
• Karamuddin Panhyar S/o Koral Khan Panhyar vs The State2020 SHC 744 · Sindh High Court
  criminal accountability appealmisuse of authorityreconstruction of land recordsreduction of sentencewhite-collar crimeno financial loss
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Assistant Commissioner appointed as an Enquiry Officer for the reconstruction of land records, was convicted by the Accountability Court under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for misusing his authority by making fifteen illegal land entries. On appeal before the Sindh High Court, the appellant did not press the appeal on merits but requested a reduction in sentence. The High Court observed that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the illegal entries were admitted by the appellant. However, noting that the appellant had subsequently canceled the entries himself, no financial loss was caused to the government exchequer, no third party took possession of the land, and considering the appellant's advanced age and status as the sole breadwinner, the Court found him capable of reformation. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal on merits but reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from seven years to five years, while maintaining the fine and disqualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sentence can be reduced on appeal if the appellant did not cause any actual financial loss to the government and subsequently canceled the illegal entries?
  • Can mitigating factors such as advanced age and being the sole breadwinner of a family justify a reduction in sentence under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does the subsequent cancellation of illegal land entries by an accused officer absolve them of the offense of misuse of authority under Section 9(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamat Ullah vs The State and another2020 MLD 153 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-16
  post-arrest bailSection 380 PPCSection 411 PPCprohibitory clauseunwitnessed crimesource of informationfurther inquiryrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by Karamat Ullah seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 380, 411, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an unwitnessed theft at a shop. The core legal questions pertained to whether an accused is entitled to bail when named in an FIR without the complainant disclosing the source of information, where no recovery is made directly from the accused, and where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition and granted bail. The Court held that the complainant failed to disclose the source of satisfaction or information for nominating the accused in an unwitnessed occurrence, and the recovered items were handed over by the petitioner's brother rather than recovered from the petitioner's personal possession or pointation. Furthermore, the offences did not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Cr.P.C., where grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail when nominated in an FIR for an unwitnessed occurrence without the complainant disclosing the source of information and satisfaction?
  • Does the recovery of incriminating articles from a relative of the accused, rather than from his personal possession or pointation, disentitle the accused to bail?
  • Whether post-arrest bail should generally be granted as a rule when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamat Hussain vs The State2020 SHC 262 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-31
  circumstantial evidenceqatl-i-amdcriminal appealSection 342 Cr.P.C.recovery of stolen propertyCall Detail Recordstrangulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the Appellant for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased and theft of her property. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for a capital conviction and the impact of an inadequate examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the trial's validity. The High Court held that while the case rested on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of events, including Call Detail Record (CDR) data placing the Appellant at the crime scene during the time of death and the subsequent recovery of the deceased’s stolen valuables from the Appellant’s possession. The Court affirmed that conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence provided it creates an unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime. Furthermore, the Court laid down that an error or omission in complying with Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not automatically vitiate a trial; it only does so if the error causes prejudice or a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital offense be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does an inadequate examination of an accused under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically vitiate the trial?
  • What is the standard for determining if an error in Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 examination causes a miscarriage of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Water & Sewerage Board through Assistant vs M/s. XenithPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 133 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-27
  Ex-Officio Justice of PeaceJurisdictionAdministrative actionWater and Sewerage BoardIllegal hydrantsCriminal procedureScope of judicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a revision petition challenging an order passed by an Additional District Judge, acting as an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which directed the de-sealing of premises previously sealed by the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board. The core legal question is whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace possesses the jurisdiction to interfere with the administrative actions of government departments or to undo actions taken in compliance with Supreme Court directives, even when police assistance was utilized. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the lower forum exceeded its jurisdiction. The court established that the powers of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are strictly confined to issuing directions to police authorities regarding specific grievances, such as the non-registration of FIRs or police misconduct. These powers do not extend to reviewing or undoing the administrative actions of other government departments, nor can the Justice of Peace assume the role of a declaratory court to determine the legality of such departmental actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace have the jurisdiction to review or undo administrative actions taken by government departments?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace exercise jurisdiction over a matter simply because police provided assistance to a government department during an operation?
  • Is the scope of Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limited to issuing directions to police authorities regarding specific duties?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Gymkhana and others vs Usma n Ahmed Ansari and others2020 MLD 1073 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-09Read full judgment →
• Karachi Circular Railway and Local Train in Karachi_ In the matter of vs N_a2020 SCMR 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-08-06
  Kidney Hill Parkanti-encroachmentpublic amenitiesMaster Plan KarachiKDA Scheme No. 32illegal allotmentopen space
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves various miscellaneous applications concerning urban management, encroachments, and land use in Karachi, including the operation of the Karachi Circular Railway, illegal commercial constructions on public land, and encroachments on public amenities, footpaths, and parks by state institutions and foreign missions. A core legal question addressed relates to the ownership, legal status, and claims over the 62 acres of land known as Kidney Hill Park (KDA Scheme No. 32 'Falaknuma'). The Supreme Court held that the land in question was zoned as an open space in the Master Plan of Karachi and designated for a water reservoir and recreation park, and neither housing societies nor private parties could claim any legitimate legal interest or ownership over it. The Court laid down that land designated as open spaces and public amenities in the Master Plan cannot be utilized, allotted, or converted for residential or commercial purposes by housing societies or revenue authorities, and any purported leases or allotments contrary thereto are null and void.

  Questions settled

  • Can housing societies or private allottees claim legal ownership over land zoned as an open space and public park in the Master Plan of Karachi?
  • Does the Revenue Department possess the power to grant 99-year leases of State land contrary to prohibitory orders of the Supreme Court?
  • What is the legal status of Kidney Hill Scheme No. 32 Falaknuma under the Master Plan of Karachi?
  Read full judgment →
• Kanwar Naveed Jameel (Mpa) vs Chief Sect: Sindh and Others2020 SHC 1298 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
• Kamran vs Kamran Malik and another2020 SCMR 1814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-30
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabetmenttriple murdercriminal appealpre-trial detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged with abetment in a triple murder case. The petitioner was alleged to have exhorted his father, the co-accused, to commit the fatal assault on three brothers. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not attributed any physical harm to the deceased but was accused of instigation, was entitled to the concession of bail pending trial. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's specific role—allegedly instigating his father rather than taking the deadly initiative himself—raised a question of further inquiry under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the petitioner could not be detained merely as a measure of punishment and noting that the investigation was complete, the Court allowed the appeal and granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused's specific role in a crime is subject to further inquiry, particularly regarding the nature of their participation (instigation versus direct action), they are entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the role of an accused who allegedly instigates a crime rather than committing the physical act fall within the ambit of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be kept in detention pending trial merely as a measure of punishment?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and their specific role in the offense requires further evidentiary determination?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Ullah vs The State and another2021 P SC (Crl.) 172, 2021 P S c (Crl.) 172, 2020 SCMR 1214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-06
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurderevidentiary valuecriminal appealcircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused of murder following the discovery of the deceased's body in a field. The prosecution's case relied on a supplementary statement alleging a monetary dispute and the recovery of semi-burnt cell phone handsets at the petitioner's instance. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail pending trial, given the nature of the evidence collected during the investigation. The Supreme Court observed that the evidentiary value of the prosecution's evidence, including the Call Detail Record (C.D.R.) which lacked content details, and the forensic mismatch of the weapon recovered from an accomplice, had yet to be tested through judicial scrutiny. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a definitive nexus between the deceased and the recovered handsets at this stage. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail under the statutory provisions governing pre-trial release.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of content details in a Call Detail Record (C.D.R.) affect the strength of the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the remit of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the grant of bail?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the prosecution has not yet established a definitive nexus between the accused and the incriminating evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Mustafa vs Province of Sindh and others2020 SHC 812 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-23Read full judgment →
• Kamran Murtaza and 6 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 6 others2020 PLD Balochistan 89 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-23Read full judgment →
• Kamran Khalil vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1719 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-23
  pre-arrest bailmatrimonial disputemala fidemedical boardweapon recoverycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 354, 337-F(i), and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code arising from a matrimonial dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of the delayed medical examination, the complainant's non-appearance before the District Standing Medical Board, and the inutility of a belated weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the injured party's failure to appear before the medical board indicated mala fide and that the passage of time rendered any expected weapon recovery useless to the prosecution. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down principles regarding mala fide involvement in matrimonial disputes, the significance of defying a medical board re-examination, and the redundancy of stale weapon recoveries.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-appearance of an injured person before a medical board for re-examination indicate mala fide sufficient to grant pre-arrest bail?
  • Can the delayed recovery of a weapon after several months serve any useful purpose to the prosecution in a bail matter?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when mala fide involvement arising from a matrimonial dispute is apparent?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Anjum s/o Muhammad Ashraf Mughal r/o Mughal Pura, p/o2020 SC AJK 4 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Kamran and another vs The State2020 MLD 1846 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-11-14
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsprohibitory clauseprima facie casecriminal procedurebail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by two accused persons charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following the recovery of 29 kilograms of Charas from a vehicle they were occupying. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offence and the evidence presented. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court dismissed the petition, holding that the accused were prima facie connected to the alleged offence. The Court reasoned that the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics from the vehicle, coupled with the absence of any demonstrated enmity or ill-will between the accused and the police, established reasonable grounds to believe the accused were involved. The Court affirmed the principle that offences under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, which carry a maximum sentence of death, fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby disentitling the accused to bail at the pre-trial stage when prima facie evidence exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a bail petitioner entitled to relief when there is prima facie evidence of involvement in a narcotics offence involving a large quantity of contraband?
  • Does the absence of demonstrated ill-will between the accused and the police impact the court's assessment of a bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Ali vs Amanullah & others2020 MLD 1753, 2020 PHC 86 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-06Read full judgment →