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.

• Kamil Rehman and others vs Haji Rehman Bangash and another2020 CLC 1251 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-14Read full judgment →
• Kamil Khan vs Govtt: of KPK through Secretary & others2021 PLJ Peshawar 21, 2020 PHC 520 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• Kamil Jan vs Shahzad alias Mano and 2 others2020 YLR 1926 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-09
  appeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtrobberyappellate interferencedelayed FIRHudood lawscriminal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, regarding charges under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was legally sustainable given the prosecution's evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the acquittal was well-founded and maintained the judgment, dismissing the appeal. The Court reasoned that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting significant delays in lodging the FIR, contradictory explanations regarding the delay, and the absence of recovered incriminating evidence. The Court affirmed the principle that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that appellate courts should not interfere with acquittal judgments that are based on reasonable and plausible grounds, as suspicion cannot substitute for legal proof.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances should an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Can suspicion or high probability serve as a substitute for proof in criminal cases?
  • What is the legal effect of an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamal-Ud-Din vs The State2020 MLD 2059 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-30
  murderocular testimonyabscondencedeath sentence commutationinterested witnessescriminal appealalibisudden occurrence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions concerned whether the ocular testimony of related witnesses was reliable despite delays in recording statements, whether the acquittal of co-accused mandated the appellant's acquittal, and whether the sentence was proportionate given the circumstances. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony consistent and the appellant's abscondence as corroborative evidence. However, the court altered the sentence from death to life imprisonment, noting the sudden nature of the occurrence and the absence of a proven motive. The judgment affirms that the relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not invalidate their testimony if they are natural witnesses, that minor delays in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not fatal, and that a sudden, unprovoked incident without established motive may warrant mitigating a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused in a criminal case automatically entitle the remaining accused to acquittal based on the same evidence?
  • Is the testimony of related witnesses inadmissible in a murder trial if they are the only ocular witnesses?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment if the prosecution fails to establish a motive for the crime?
  • Does a delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the prosecution's case fatal?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaloo vs Province of Sindh through Secretary (Land Utilization) Department2020 YLR 2362 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Kaleem Ullah son of Mir Aslam Khan, r/o village Bar Ghazi Kalan, District2020 PHC 530 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kaleem Anwar vs The State etc2020 PHC 334 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-11Read full judgment →
• Kaleem Abbasi & others vs The State & others2020 SC AJK 74 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-03-31
  interim reliefCOVID-19bailunder-trial prisonersinherent jurisdictionsuspension of ordermass release
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications for ex-parte ad-interim relief filed during the pendency of petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court order. The High Court had directed the mass release of under-trial prisoners on bail due to the COVID-19 pandemic, categorizing them by the severity of their alleged offenses, while excluding those charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the inherent jurisdiction to order the bulk release of prisoners in such circumstances. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, at this preliminary stage, held that the operation of the impugned High Court order should be suspended until the petitions for leave to appeal are heard and completed. The Court directed jail authorities to cease any releases pursuant to the High Court's order and mandated the re-lodging of any prisoners already released under that directive. The principle established is that, pending final adjudication by the Supreme Court, mass release orders issued by a High Court regarding under-trial prisoners are subject to suspension to maintain the status quo.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have the inherent jurisdiction to order the bulk release of under-trial prisoners due to a pandemic?
  • Can the Supreme Court suspend the operation of a High Court order granting mass bail to prisoners pending the final disposal of a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Are jail authorities required to re-lodge prisoners released pursuant to a High Court order that has subsequently been suspended by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Kalawati Ashok Kumar Parmar and 3 others vs Sharad Dattatraya Tapray2020 [M] C L R 877 · Bombay High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kainat Soomro and Ors vs Province of SIndh and Ors2020 SHC 152 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-13Read full judgment →
• Kainat Soomro and 2 others vs Province Of Sindh through Chief Secretary2020 PLD Sindh 611 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-31
  rape trialSupreme Court guidelinesDNA testingin camera proceedingsvulnerable witnessesconstitutional mandateimplementation of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners approached the Sindh High Court seeking directions for the respondents to implement the Supreme Court's guidelines for the investigation, prosecution, and trial of rape cases as laid down in Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab (2013 SCMR 203). Upon reviewing compliance reports submitted by judicial authorities regarding pending cases in District Courts and Anti-Terrorism Courts in Sindh, the High Court observed that implementation of measures such as mandatory DNA testing, in camera trials, video conferencing, and the installation of screens to shield victims and vulnerable witnesses remained alarmingly low. The Court held that decisions and directives of the Supreme Court are binding under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution and must be enforced in letter and spirit by all judicial and executive authorities. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with explicit directions issued to the Home Secretary, Inspector General of Police, Prosecutor General, District Judges, and Presiding Officers of Anti-Terrorism Courts in Sindh to ensure full compliance with the apex court's mandate.

  Questions settled

  • Are the decisions and legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court binding on all other courts in Pakistan?
  • Do executive and judicial authorities have a constitutional duty to act in aid of the Supreme Court?
  • Can provincial authorities and courts be directed to fully implement guidelines established by the Supreme Court for rape trials and investigations?
  Read full judgment →
• Kafyat Ullah Khan vs Inspector-General of Police, Islamabad and another2020 PLC (C.S.) 212, 2020 SCMR 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-16
  service lawmajor penaltydismissal from servicedouble jeopardyleave without payunauthorized absenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the petitioner's penalty of dismissal from service to removal from service. The petitioner, a civil servant, had been dismissed from service, and his period of unauthorized absence was simultaneously treated as leave without pay. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court is whether the imposition of a major penalty of dismissal from service, combined with the treatment of the period of absence as leave without pay, constitutes an impermissible double penalty. The petitioner relied on precedent suggesting such orders are unsustainable, while the respondent cited conflicting case law supporting the maintenance of dismissal penalties despite the treatment of absence as leave without pay. Recognizing a conflict in the existing jurisprudence of the Supreme Court regarding whether treating an absence period as leave without pay alongside a dismissal order amounts to a double penalty, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve this legal inconsistency. The appeal is to be heard on the existing record.

  Questions settled

  • Does the imposition of a major penalty of dismissal from service, coupled with treating the period of absence as leave without pay, constitute an impermissible double penalty?
  • Is a dismissal order sustainable when the period of absence leading to the dismissal is simultaneously treated as leave without pay?
  Read full judgment →
• Kabir vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 736 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-24
  COVID-19under-trial prisonersright to lifebailprohibitory clauseprison overcrowdingduty of care
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves 270 consolidated petitions filed by under-trial prisoners incarcerated in Central Prison, Rawalpindi, seeking bail during the COVID-19 pandemic. The core legal question was whether prisoners charged with offences falling under the prohibitory clause could be granted bail in light of the extraordinary health risks posed by the pandemic within overcrowded prison facilities. The Court held that the State bears a fundamental duty of care to protect the life and health of incarcerated individuals, who are entirely dependent on prison authorities. Given the impossibility of maintaining social distancing in overcrowded prisons and the potential for a deadly outbreak, the Court allowed the petitions and admitted the petitioners to bail, subject to specific conditions. The key principle laid down is that the right to life is paramount and remains protected even during incarceration; therefore, the State must take proactive measures to safeguard prisoners from health crises, and the emergence of a pandemic constitutes a fresh ground for reconsidering bail, even for offences otherwise falling under the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Does the outbreak of a pandemic like COVID-19 constitute a fresh ground for bail for under-trial prisoners?
  • Does the State have a duty of care to protect the life and health of incarcerated prisoners during a health crisis?
  • Can prisoners charged with offences falling under the prohibitory clause be granted bail in extraordinary circumstances such as a pandemic?
  Read full judgment →
• K.G.K vs Her Majesty the Queen2020 SCMR 1125 · Supreme Court of CanadaRead full judgment →
• K. Virupaksha & Anr vs The State of Karnataka & Anr2020 P SC (Crl.) 659 · Supreme Court of India · 2020-03-03
  SARFAESI Actcriminal proceedings quashingabuse of processbank loan recoverynon-performing assetdebt recovery tribunalcriminal intimidation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the High Court's refusal to quash a criminal complaint and FIR registered against bank officials for alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arising from loan recovery proceedings. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings are maintainable against bank officials for actions taken during the recovery of dues under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, particularly when the borrower has already pursued statutory remedies. The Supreme Court held that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, is a self-contained code providing specific mechanisms for addressing grievances regarding asset valuation and recovery. The Court ruled that criminal proceedings cannot be utilized as an intimidatory tactic to bypass these statutory remedies. Because the borrower had already exhausted civil and appellate remedies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal, initiating criminal proceedings for the same underlying grievances constituted an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR and complaint against the appellants, emphasizing that banking systems cannot be held to ransom through such litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be initiated against bank officials for actions taken during the recovery of dues under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002?
  • Does the initiation of criminal proceedings for grievances already adjudicated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, constitute an abuse of the process of law?
  • Is the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, considered a complete code for addressing grievances related to the recovery of secured assets?
  Read full judgment →
• K-Electric Limited vs Syed Anwar Ali & others2020 SHC 1346 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-16Read full judgment →
• JZ Enterprises Pvt. Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Communications, Government of Pakistan2020 IHC 13 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
• Justice Qazi Faez Isa vs The President of Pakistan and others2020 KLR Supreme Court 299, 2020 PLD Supreme Court 346, 2020 SCP 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-19
  Presidential ReferenceSupreme Judicial Counciljudicial independenceaccountability of judgestax proceedingsdue processconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional challenge to a Presidential Reference filed against a judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question addressed was the validity of the Reference and the subsequent proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council. The Court, by a majority, allowed the petitions and declared the Presidential Reference to be of no legal effect, thereby quashing it and abating the proceedings, including the show-cause notice issued to the Petitioner. While quashing the Reference, the Court directed the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to initiate fresh, independent proceedings under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, against the spouse and children of the Petitioner regarding the acquisition of specific foreign properties. The Court established a strict timeline for these tax proceedings and mandated that the Federal Board of Revenue submit a report to the Supreme Judicial Council, which may then exercise its suo moto jurisdiction under Article 209 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The judgment emphasizes the dual principles of judicial independence and the accountability of judges under the law, affirming that while judges are subject to the Constitution, they are also entitled to due process.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Judicial Council exercise suo moto jurisdiction based on a report from the Federal Board of Revenue regarding a judge's family assets?
  • Does the quashing of a Presidential Reference against a judge result in the abatement of pending proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council?
  • Are proceedings under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, against a judge's family members distinct from proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council?
  • Is a judge of a Constitutional Court entitled to the same inalienable right to be treated in accordance with law as any other citizen?
  Read full judgment →
• Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others vs The President of Pakistan and others2020 P SC 1159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-19
  judicial independencePresidential ReferenceSupreme Judicial Councildue processtax proceedingsconstitutional petitionaccountability of judges
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the validity of a Presidential Reference filed against a sitting Supreme Court judge before the Supreme Judicial Council. The core legal question addressed was whether the Reference and the subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioner were legally sustainable under the Constitution. The Court, by a majority, held that the Reference was of no legal effect and ordered it to be quashed, resulting in the abatement of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Judicial Council. While quashing the Reference, the Court directed the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to initiate fresh, independent proceedings under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, against the judge's spouse and children regarding the acquisition of specific foreign properties. The Court established that while the independence of the judiciary is a pivotal constitutional value, no institution or individual is above the law. It affirmed that judges, like all citizens, possess the inalienable right to be treated in accordance with the law, balancing judicial accountability with the protection of fundamental rights and due process within the constitutional framework.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Presidential Reference filed against a judge be quashed if it lacks legal effect?
  • Does the Supreme Judicial Council have the authority to exercise suo moto jurisdiction regarding a judge's conduct based on tax reports?
  • Are proceedings initiated under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, against a judge's family members distinct from proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council?
  • Is a judge entitled to the same inalienable right to be treated in accordance with the law as any other citizen?
  Read full judgment →
• Kausar Ali Shah vs Rpo etc2020 PHC 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-21Read full judgment →
• Justice (R) Syed Manzoor Hussain Gillani, Chairman, Muzaffarabad and 29 others vs Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Establishment Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others2021 [M] C L R 922, 2020 YLR 771 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-11-15Read full judgment →
• Jurists Foundation through Chairman vs Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others2020 PLD Supreme Court 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-26
  public interest litigationfundamental rightsChief of the Army Staffextension of serviceconstitutional petitionCabinet approvalappointment authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenging the extension or re-appointment of the Chief of the Army Staff. Although the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition, the Court declined the request, noting the matter involves public importance and the enforcement of fundamental rights, rendering the petitioner's individual standing secondary. The Court examined the legal basis for the extension of the Chief of the Army Staff's tenure. Upon review, the Court observed significant procedural flaws, including the absence of any express statutory provision in the Pakistan Army laws governing the re-appointment or extension of the Chief of the Army Staff. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Cabinet approval process appeared deficient, as a majority of members had not consented. The Court held that the vague justification of 'regional security' was insufficient to support such an appointment. Consequently, the Court impleaded the Chief of the Army Staff as a respondent and suspended the operation of the impugned notification regarding his extension or re-appointment pending further detailed examination of the legal validity of the process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to continue a public interest petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution if the petitioner seeks to withdraw it?
  • Is there an express provision in the Pakistan Army laws for the re-appointment or extension of the Chief of the Army Staff?
  • Can the federal government extend the tenure of the Chief of the Army Staff based solely on the ground of regional security?
  • Does Regulation No. 255 of the Army Regulations (Rules) authorize the extension of the Chief of the Army Staff's service prior to his retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid-ur-Rehman S/O Anees-ur- Rehman vs The State2020 SHC 316 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-22
  police encounterretracted judicial confessionidentification paradeanti-terrorismocular evidenceforensic science laboratory reportpolice witness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences handed down by an Anti-Terrorism Court regarding two separate police encounters resulting in the death of a police constable and injury to a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the reliability of police witnesses, the validity of a retracted judicial confession, and the integrity of an identification parade. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the prosecution provided consistent, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring evidence, corroborated by medical reports, forensic science laboratory (FSL) findings, and the recovery of weapons at the scene. The Court established that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony is not inherently unreliable, and that a retracted judicial confession remains legally admissible if the Court is satisfied it was made voluntarily. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that positive FSL reports and the arrest of the accused during active encounters sufficiently establish guilt, justifying the maintenance of the original sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of police officials alone?
  • Is a retracted judicial confession legally admissible as evidence against an accused?
  • Does the lack of enmity against police witnesses enhance the reliability of their testimony in a criminal trial?
  • Can positive forensic science laboratory reports regarding recovered weapons corroborate ocular evidence in a police encounter case?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Rehman Ansari and others vs The State and others2020 PLD Sindh 158 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
• Junaid Hayee vs Chief Secretary Punjab and 3 others2020 PLJ Lahore 414 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-19Read full judgment →
• Junaid Akram vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir2020 PLC (C.S.) 1431 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-01-13
  Service Tribunal jurisdictioncivil servant statusappointment challengewrit jurisdictionselection process transparencyservice appealnecessary party
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellant's service appeal regarding the cancellation of his appointment as a Shop Attendant and the subsequent appointment of a private respondent. The core legal question was whether a service appeal before the Tribunal is the competent forum to challenge the legality of an appointment order or the selection process of another candidate, and whether the appellant had the status of a civil servant to invoke such jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the challenge to an appointment order or the selection process does not constitute a grievance regarding the terms and conditions of a civil servant. The court set aside the appointment of the private respondent due to procedural irregularities but refused to restore the appellant's appointment, finding it equally flawed. The court affirmed that the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to matters concerning the terms and conditions of civil servants; challenges to appointment processes must be brought via writ petition before the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal competent to challenge the legality of an appointment order?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the selection process of a candidate who is not yet a civil servant?
  • Is the High Court the appropriate forum for challenging an appointment order that does not relate to the terms and conditions of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Ahmed vs Province of Sindh and 03 others2020 SHC 36 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-14Read full judgment →
• Junaid Ahmed Siddiqui vs M. Yaqoob Khan Niazi2020 MLD 1693, 2020 SHC 358 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-18Read full judgment →
• Jumo and 4 others vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 216 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-22
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular testimonydelayed FIRmurderhudood ordinanceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various provisions of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and the Pakistan Penal Code for murder, attempted murder, and related offenses. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the ocular testimony, the effect of unexplained delays in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal Shariat Court held that the testimony of the uninjured eye-witnesses was unnatural and improbable, that material contradictions and unexplained delays undermined the prosecution case, and that the medical and motive evidence could not independently establish the appellants' guilt. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies aside, a single reasonable doubt arising from unnatural human conduct of witnesses, delayed statements, and lack of corroborative evidence entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in recording statements of eye-witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 diminish the evidentiary value of their testimony?
  • Can medical evidence alone serve as a substitute for substantive corroborative evidence to connect an accused with the crime?
  • Whether the unnatural conduct of uninjured eye-witnesses remaining unharmed during an attack makes their presence at the crime scene doubtful?
  • Is proof of motive alone sufficient to sustain a conviction when the primary ocular and corroborative evidence fails?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan & Another vs The State2020 SHC 566 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10
  pre-arrest baildismissal for non-prosecutionad-interim bailbail applicationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application came up for hearing before the Sindh High Court, but no one appeared on behalf of the applicants nor was any intimation received. The court noted that although the applicants were previously extended the extraordinary relief of ad-interim pre-arrest bail, they failed to diligently pursue the matter, indicating a loss of interest. Consequently, the court dismissed the criminal bail application for non-prosecution and recalled the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The office was directed to send a copy of the order to the concerned SHO and the trial court for information and compliance. The core legal question involved the consequence of non-prosecution of a pre-arrest bail application. The court held that where applicants fail to diligently pursue their bail petition, the application is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution resulting in the recall of interim relief. The key principle laid down is that the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail demands active and diligent prosecution by the applicant.

  Questions settled

  • What is the consequence of non-appearance and lack of diligent prosecution in a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Does the dismissal of a bail application for non-prosecution result in the recall of an interim pre-arrest bail already granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Gul vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1350 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-05
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtinterested witnessocular evidenceforensic analysiscapital punishmentacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite significant contradictions in the ocular evidence and the absence of independent corroboration. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting material discrepancies between the ocular testimony, the site plan, and the medical evidence. Specifically, the court observed that the witnesses were interested and inimical, the medical report contradicted the claim of close-range firing, and the failure to send the alleged crime weapon for forensic analysis rendered the recovery inconsequential. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution, and any doubt arising from the evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to send a recovered crime weapon to a forensic laboratory render the recovery inconsequential?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the ocular evidence is contradicted by the medical evidence and the site plan?
  • Must the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses be supported by independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  • Does the benefit of doubt in criminal cases constitute a right of the accused or a discretionary grace?
  Read full judgment →
• Judicial Activism Panel vs Government of the Punjab and others2020 MLD 178 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Jubilee General Insurance Company Ltd & another vs Federation of Pakistan2020 SHC 236 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jubilee General Insurance Co. Ltd, Karachi vs Ravi Steel Company, Lahore2020 PLD Supreme Court 324, 2020 P SC 1022, KLR 2020 Supreme Court · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-09
  Section 12(2) CPCconstructive res judicatadoctrine of election of remedyinsurance claimlimitationcollateral challengeequitable estoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner, an insurance company, sought to challenge an adverse judgment of the Insurance Tribunal on the ground of limitation, despite having previously exhausted all appellate remedies up to the Supreme Court and having failed in an objection petition. The core legal question was whether a litigant, after exhausting available appellate channels, can collaterally challenge a judgment by invoking Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to raise a defense (limitation) that was available but not pleaded during the original trial. The Supreme Court held that the petition was not maintainable. The Court affirmed that a litigant must elect their remedy; once a remedy is exhausted, the doctrine of constructive res judicata and the doctrine of election of remedy bar the party from shopping for further remedies or raising defenses that should have been asserted at the first opportunity. The principle established is that failure to plead a defense at trial precludes its subsequent assertion in collateral proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party, after exhausting appellate remedies, invoke Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to raise a defense that was available but not pleaded at trial?
  • Does the doctrine of election of remedy bar a litigant from pursuing successive, alternative legal channels after one has been exhausted?
  • Is an insurer equitably estopped from raising a limitation defense if they engaged in misleading conduct that induced the insured to delay filing the claim?
  • Does the failure to raise a plea of limitation in the written statement at the trial stage preclude its assertion in subsequent collateral proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Johnson and Johnson Pakistan (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan2021 PLD Lahore 314, 2020 LHC 3075 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-22Read full judgment →
• Jilani @ Javed s/o Duwa Khan vs The State2020 SHC 344 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-07
  dacoitycriminal appealanti-terrorismillegal arms possessionpolice encounterfalse implicationappreciation of evidencedeterrent sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by an Anti-Terrorism Court for dacoity, illegal possession of arms, and explosives. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated by the police following an alleged illegal detention and that no encounter occurred. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt or if the defense of false implication was credible. The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions and sentences. The court held that the prosecution provided reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring evidence, including the testimony of the private complainant who had no enmity toward the appellants. The court emphasized that in cases involving heinous crimes like dacoity, courts must adopt a dynamic and pragmatic approach to evidence. It further ruled that a defense of false implication requires substantiation, such as prior complaints of illegal detention, which was absent here. Consequently, the court affirmed that deterrent sentences are appropriate for such offenses, particularly when the accused are apprehended at the scene with stolen property.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to file a complaint regarding alleged illegal detention undermine a defense of false implication?
  • Can a conviction for dacoity be sustained solely on the testimony of a private complainant and police witnesses if no material contradictions exist?
  • Should courts adopt a dynamic and pragmatic approach in appreciating evidence in cases involving heinous crimes like dacoity?
  Read full judgment →
• Jhando Khan vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Revenue & others2020 SHC 634 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-12Read full judgment →
• Jehanzeb Khan vs The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2021 P SC (Crl.) 507, 2020 SCMR 1268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-09
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequesbail cancellationjudicial discretionprivate financial settlements
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being implicated in a case involving dishonoured bank cheques. Initially granted bail by a Magistrate based on a negotiated settlement, the bail was subsequently cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge due to a dispute over the genuineness of the arrangement, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent bail petition. The core legal question concerned whether criminal courts can condition bail on private financial settlements or revoke bail based on the failure of such arrangements. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed bail, holding that judicial discretion in bail matters must remain neutral and cannot be used as an enforcement mechanism for private financial recovery or subjected to conditions outside statutory principles. The Court laid down the principle that criminal courts must maintain independence and neutrality, and cannot abandon judicial authority to facilitate swift settlements or corporal coercion for debt retrieval through criminal prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Can the grant of post-arrest bail be subjected to riders and conditions based on private financial arrangements between the parties?
  • Whether a criminal court can act as an instrument for financial recovery or debt retrieval through criminal prosecution?
  • Does an offence punishable with a term of imprisonment not attracting the prohibitory clause warrant continuous detention after the conclusion of investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehangir vs The State etc2020 PHC 460 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-12Read full judgment →
• Jehangir Khan through Attorney vs Mst. Saeeda Begum and 2 others2020 YLR 2350 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
• Jazaa Foods (Pvt.) Ltd. & another vs Junaid Jamshed (Pvt.) Ltd. & others2021 CLD 362, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 121, 2021 P C T L R 527, 2020 SHC 274 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-07Read full judgment →
• Jawaid Ali vs The State2020 SHC 616 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
• Jawahir Lal vs Muhammad Zahid2021 PLJ Quetta 57, 2020 CLC 717 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-27Read full judgment →
• Javed Qazi vs The State2020 SHC 186 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-25
  statement of accusedSection 342 CrPCvitiated trialmiscarriage of justiceincriminating evidenceremandmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to the death penalty for murder. The core legal question concerns whether the failure of the trial court to put incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, along with procedural violations under Section 364 of the same Code, vitiates the trial and causes a miscarriage of justice. The Sindh High Court held that omitting to put material evidence to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. causes severe prejudice, cannot be cured under Section 537 Cr.P.C., and vitiates the conviction and sentence. The court laid down the principle that every material piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution must be explicitly put to the accused during Section 342 examination to afford a fair opportunity of explanation, and failure to do so renders the trial illegal, warranting a remand for retrial from the stage of recording the accused's statement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to put incriminating pieces of evidence to an accused during examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • Can the omission of a trial court to question an accused regarding material evidence be cured under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal effect when a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is recorded in violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 364 of the same Code?
  • From what stage should a criminal trial be recommenced when an appellate court sets aside a judgment due to defective recording of the accused's statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Ishfaq vs The State2021 P SC (Crl.) 512, 2020 SCMR 1414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-06
  homicidecriminal appealocular evidencemedical evidenceindivisibility of evidencegunshot woundblackeningsite plan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction for homicide. The petitioner, Javed Ishfaq, was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to death, which the High Court subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. The incident involved a clash between two groups over the shifting of an electric transformer, resulting in the death of one individual due to a gunshot wound. The petitioner challenged his conviction, arguing that the acquittal of his co-accused necessitated his own acquittal under the principle of indivisibility of evidence, and that a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the distance of the shot (indicated by blackening around the wound) undermined the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, holding that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically absolve the petitioner when his individual criminal act is established. The Court further clarified that the presence of blackening is not a conclusive indicator of distance and that site plans are not substantive evidence. Consequently, the Court found no legal or factual grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and declined leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused in a criminal case automatically entitle the remaining accused to acquittal based on the principle of indivisibility of evidence?
  • Is the presence of blackening around a gunshot wound a conclusive indicator of the distance between the assailant and the victim?
  • Can a site plan be considered a substantive piece of evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure of the police to register a counter-version of an incident invalidate the prosecution's case against an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs The State through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 PLD Peshawar 7 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-19Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1622 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-16
  narcotic substancesforensic reportbenefit of doubtevidentiary valuestandard of proofcriminal appealconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1070 grams of Charas. The core legal question before the Court was whether a forensic report issued by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, which failed to specify the full protocols and detailed tests applied during the analysis of the narcotic sample, could sustain a criminal conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Relying on established precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Khair-ul-Bashar v. The State, the Court determined that a forensic report lacking detailed protocols and test descriptions is inconclusive, unreliable, and fails to meet the evidentiary presumption attached to a Government Analyst's report under Section 36(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release, emphasizing that any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a forensic report that fails to detail the full protocols and tests applied meet the evidentiary requirements of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is a forensic report lacking detailed testing protocols sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, mandate the inclusion of full protocols in a forensic analysis report?
  • Can an accused be acquitted solely on the ground that the forensic report provided by the prosecution lacks detailed testing protocols?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Government of the Punjab through its Secretary Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries, Punjab Lahore and 5 others2020 LHC 3114 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-03
  retired civil servantspensionary benefitsgroup insurancejurisdiction of service tribunalconstitutional barterms and conditions of servicewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two writ petitions filed by retired civil servants seeking the release of outstanding pensionary benefits and group insurance amounts. The core legal question is whether the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, restricting the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants, applies to retired civil servants. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions in limine, holding that the bar under Article 212 remains fully applicable to retired civil servants. The court reasoned that while the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 defines a civil servant narrowly, the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 explicitly includes persons who 'have been' in service within the definition of a civil servant. The key principle laid down is that retired civil servants cannot bypass the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for service-related claims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, is restricted only to employees currently in service or if it also covers retired civil servants?
  • Does a person cease to be a civil servant upon retirement for the purpose of invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters?
  • Does the definition of 'civil servant' under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 include persons who have been members of a civil service or held a civil post?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Baig vs The Director General Military Lands and Cantonment2020 SHC 706 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-20Read full judgment →
• Javed alias Jaidee vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1703 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-17
  murdercapital punishmentmitigating circumstancesocular accountmedical evidencemotivesubstitutionimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the murder of the deceased, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony, the corroborative value of medical evidence, and whether mitigating circumstances warranted the commutation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life in the absence of a proven motive and weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses remained consistent and credible despite being related to the deceased, and their testimony was fully supported by medical evidence. However, because the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and the recovery of the weapon was inconclusive, mitigating circumstances existed. The court concluded that while the conviction must be sustained, the capital punishment was unwarranted. The Lahore High Court laid down the principle that unproven motive and inconclusive weapon recovery can serve as mitigating circumstances justifying the conversion of a death sentence into imprisonment for life, even when ocular and medical evidence satisfactorily establish guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Can related eyewitness testimony be relied upon to maintain a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Whether failure to prove the alleged motive can serve as a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Does an inconclusive recovery of the crime weapon vitiate an otherwise consistent ocular and medical account in a murder trial?
  • Can the death sentence be altered to imprisonment for life when mitigating circumstances are present despite a maintained conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Ali vs The State2020 SHC 534 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07
  pre-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clausecriminal procedurebail confirmationfirst offendertentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Javed Ali, who was booked in an FIR involving the recovery of betel nuts and mainpuries (tobacco) from a truck. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of bail given the nature of the allegations and the statutory provisions involved. The Court observed that the investigation was complete, the case had been challaned, and the applicant was no longer required for further investigation. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of a chemical report to verify the hazardous nature of the recovered material and highlighted that the offence charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that bail is the rule and refusal the exception in non-prohibitory offences, the Court confirmed the interim bail, emphasizing that the applicant was a first-time offender and the prosecution failed to establish exceptional grounds for withholding bail. The Court affirmed that the applicant must face trial, with observations being tentative.

  Questions settled

  • Is bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of a chemical report regarding recovered substances constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can bail be confirmed when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Akhtar vs The StatePLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 12, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 1021, 2020 SCP 108, PLD 2020 Supreme · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-04
  qatl-i-amdocular evidenceforensic reportsudden provocationpremeditationshotguncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a conviction for qatl-i-amd and attempted murder. The petitioner, convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death (later reduced to life imprisonment by the High Court), challenged the conviction, arguing contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, specifically regarding gunshot distance and forensic reports. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt despite alleged forensic inconsistencies and whether the petitioner qualified for a reduced sentence under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 due to sudden provocation or lack of premeditation. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony of injured witnesses consistent and credible. The Court held that the petitioner's actions—reloading and firing multiple times—demonstrated cruelty and negated claims of sudden provocation or lack of premeditation. The Court affirmed that section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is not applicable where the offender acts with cruelty or takes undue advantage, and that medical doctors are not qualified to determine firing distance, which requires forensic expertise.

  Questions settled

  • Can a medical doctor provide expert testimony on the distance from which a firearm was discharged?
  • Does the failure to prove motive automatically entitle a convict to a reduced sentence under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the act of reloading a firearm and firing multiple times negate the defense of sudden provocation or heat of passion?
  • Is the absence of independent witnesses sufficient to discard the prosecution's case regarding motive in a domestic dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed & Another vs The State2020 SHC 512 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
• Javaid vs The State and others2020 MLD 136 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-18
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusante-timed FIRocular accountmotiveacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused, committed the murder of the deceased due to a land dispute. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem, and the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to numerous inconsistencies, material contradictions among eyewitnesses, ante-timing of the FIR, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, laying down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ante-timed FIR riddled with unexplained delays creates a fatal dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Can the testimony of eyewitnesses be completely relied upon when material contradictions exist regarding the manner of occurrence and shifting of the injured?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence warrant the extension of the benefit of doubt to the remaining appellant?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Javaid Khan and 2 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 905 · Lahore High Court · 2020-04-14
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytentative assessmentconflicting versionscriminal procedurebail concession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail for three petitioners accused in a case involving multiple murders and injuries, registered under Sections 302, 324, 109, 148, and 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail given the allegations and the findings of the investigation. During the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioners withdrew the bail plea for two petitioners, Javaid Khan and Sabir Khan, leading to the dismissal of their petition as not pressed. Regarding the third petitioner, Pervaiz alias Zubair, the court noted conflicting versions: the FIR alleged he caused a firearm injury, while the investigation suggested he arrived at the scene empty-handed after the occurrence. The court held that at the stage of tentative assessment, these conflicting versions necessitated further inquiry into his guilt. Consequently, the court granted bail to Pervaiz alias Zubair under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, citing the lack of trial progress and the fact that he was no longer required for investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case involving conflicting versions between the FIR and the police investigation warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when the petitioner is no longer required for investigation and the trial has not made tangible progress?
  Read full judgment →
• Jatoi and 6 others vs The State2020 MLD 1455 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-04
  pre-arrest bailcommon intentionprohibitory clauseabductionmurdermala fidetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from a pre-arrest bail petition filed by the applicants seeking relief in a case registered for offenses including murder, abduction, and hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail where they were specifically nominated in the FIR with active roles, shared a common intention in a heinous crime involving a death and multiple injuries arising from a motive of revenge, and failed to establish mala fide on the part of the complainant or investigating agency. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy unavailable to accused persons prima facie connected to heinous offenses falling within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly where a common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attracts collective culpability regardless of individual minor roles, and where no mala fide or false implication is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when specifically nominated in an FIR for a heinous offense involving murder and abduction?
  • Does the application of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude the grant of bail based on lesser individual roles during a collective criminal assault?
  • What is the standard required for establishing mala fide to warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail in serious criminal cases?
  • Can a tentative assessment of medical evidence and victim statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the dismissal of a pre-arrest bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs The State2020 SHC 1364 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsfurther inquirycriminal procedurebail applicationchemical examination delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after being charged with the possession of 1250 grams of charas, following the refusal of bail by the Special Court for Narcotics. The applicant contended innocence, alleging false implication by the police, a lack of independent witnesses, and a significant delay in the chemical examination of the case property. The State opposed the application, arguing the offence negatively impacts society at large. Upon review, the Court observed that the investigation was complete, the applicant had been in custody for over two months without effective trial progress, and there was no risk of evidence tampering. Consequently, the Court held that a case for further inquiry was established. The applicant was admitted to bail subject to furnishing a surety bond. The judgment reinforces the principle that where investigation is complete and trial progress is stagnant, the absence of independent witnesses and lack of risk regarding evidence tampering justify the grant of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a narcotics case justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the completion of investigation and lack of trial progress a valid ground for granting bail?
  • Can bail be granted where there is no apprehension of evidence tampering by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad and another vs The State2020 YLR 1648 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-09-27
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseabscondencerecovery of weaponcriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail was filed by the petitioners, who were booked under sections 324, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the refusal of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioners contended that the case was false, based on guesswork, and involved a night occurrence where identification was impossible, arguing that the case warranted further inquiry. The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioners were directly charged in the FIR with specific roles in causing injuries, recoveries were effected, and the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that because the petitioners were directly charged, recoveries were made, co-accused had been refused bail, and the petitioners had remained absconders, no case for bail was made out. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed. The Court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within two months, granting the petitioners liberty to file a fresh application if the trial was not concluded within that timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted to an accused who has remained an absconder for a significant period?
  • Is a trial court required to conclude proceedings within a specific timeframe when a bail petition is dismissed on the grounds of abscondence and direct involvement?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Alam vs Talib Shah and others2020 CLC 1529 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-09-26Read full judgment →
• Jan Alam vs Ghulam Mohammad2020 CLC 1907 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-09-30Read full judgment →
• Jamshed vs Noor Hayat2021 CLC 637, 2020 PHC 414 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-22Read full judgment →
• Jamil Sweets vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 PTD 752, 2020 LHC 617 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
• Jamil Sundrani vs The State2020 SHC 1232 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquiryaffidavit of exonerationidentification of accusedcriminal procedureabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Jamil Sundrani, in connection with F.I.R. No. 26 of 2020 registered for offences under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant's previous request for pre-arrest bail was declined by the Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given that the complainant and prosecution witnesses had filed affidavits exonerating him, and the alleged abductee had failed to identify the applicant during cross-examination. The Court held that the case against the applicant fell within the ambit of further inquiry as envisaged under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that where the complainant and material prosecution witnesses exonerate an accused through affidavits and the victim fails to identify the accused, the case warrants further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of affidavits by the complainant and prosecution witnesses exonerating an accused constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the alleged victim fails to identify the accused in court?
  • Is a case considered one of further inquiry when the prosecution does not oppose the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmed Dashti vs Abdul Rasheed and 13 others2021 PLJ Quetta 68, 2020 MLD 120 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-05-22Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmad Zahid vs Rasheeda Begum, etc2020 [M] C L R 260 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-06Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmad vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore and 3 others2020 PLC 15 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-26
  constitutional petitionlabor disputedismissal from servicecompulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingshabitual absencemaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's grievance petition against his dismissal from service. The petitioner, a regular Lab Attendant with twenty years of unblemished service, was dismissed following allegations of habitual absence without a proper charge-sheet or adequate opportunity to defend himself. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings and the consequent dismissal were sustainable in the absence of precise charges, a fair inquiry, and due consideration of past service. The Lahore High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in undue haste, lacked precision regarding the allegations, and imposed a disproportionate penalty without affording a proper opportunity of defense. The Court modified the penalty of dismissal into compulsory retirement, establishing that service longevity must be considered and that allegations in disciplinary proceedings must be precise.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal are sustainable when the allegations lack precision and the employee is denied an opportunity to defend?
  • Can the penalty of dismissal from service be modified to compulsory retirement keeping in view the long-standing service of an employee?
  • Whether an inquiry committee report can form the basis of a valid dismissal order when it fails to advert to the precise allegations or period of absence?
  Read full judgment →
• Jaman alias Janak vs The State2020 MLD 1040 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-11
  murder convictionocular testimonyappreciation of evidencemotive in criminal lawsentencing discretionlife imprisonmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arise from a conviction for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the charge of murder through ocular and medical evidence, and whether the trial court's sentencing discretion was exercised correctly. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent, independent, and credible ocular testimony from two eyewitnesses, which was corroborated by medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries. The Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the absence of a proven motive does not negate the charge when direct evidence is sufficient. Regarding the revision petition, the Court upheld the trial court's discretion in awarding life imprisonment rather than the death penalty, finding no grounds to interfere with the sentencing. The judgment reaffirms the principle that motive is not a necessary component of a crime and is immaterial when strong ocular evidence exists.

  Questions settled

  • Is the absence of a proven motive a sufficient ground for acquittal when strong ocular and medical evidence is present?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony if the recovery of the weapon is found to be defective?
  • Does an appellate court have the authority to interfere with the sentencing discretion of a trial court where the sentence awarded is within the legal parameters?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamal Nasir vs Government of Sindh and 04 others2020 SHC 8 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-10Read full judgment →
• Jamal Khan vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1589 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-30
  criminal jail appealmurderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtcontradictory evidencechance witnesseswithholding of material witnessesacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal assails the conviction and death sentence of the appellant handed down by the trial court for the murder of his wife under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant attacked the deceased with a hatchet at night in the presence of eye-witnesses, driven by a domestic dispute. Upon hearing the appeal, the Sindh High Court examined the record and noted severe contradictions among the statements of key prosecution witnesses, discrepancies regarding the alleged motive, an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the deliberate withholding of the major children of the deceased who were present at the scene. The court held that multiple circumstances created deep dents and reasonable doubt in the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the High Court laid down the principle that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions among eye-witnesses are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution failing to examine natural and primary witnesses present at the scene of the crime?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does the failure to establish the alleged motive weaken the prosecution case in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamal Khan vs Province Of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 484 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-05Read full judgment →
• Jam Saifullah Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan (`Ecp') through secretary and 17 others2020 YLR 132 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-24Read full judgment →
• Jalil Ahmed @ Abdul Jalil vs Gul Muhammad & Others2020 SHC 1136 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
• Jalaluddin Bangulani vs The State2020 SHC 832 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed FIRmedical contradictionattempt to murderunlawful assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Jalaluddin Bangulani seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered regarding an unlawful assembly, attempt to commit murder, and causing injuries with a hatchet, after his bail plea was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail in light of the delayed FIR, medical discrepancy regarding the weapon used, lack of injury repetition, absence of recovery, and previous bail granted to co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that the guilt of the applicant called for further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the weapon, absence of injury repetition, and consistency of treatment with co-accused already on bail constitute grounds for making a case one of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR makes a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the weapon used justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused have already been admitted to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalal @ Babu vs The State2020 SHC 652 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-17
  post-arrest bailunlicensed weaponSindh Arms Actfurther inquirypersonal libertycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Jalal alias Babu, who was charged under Section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, following an alleged recovery of an unlicensed weapon during his arrest in a separate criminal case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that the investigation was complete, he was no longer required for further interrogation, and he had already been granted bail in the primary case from which the current charge originated. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, observing that the liberty of an individual should not be curtailed without sufficient legal justification, particularly when the investigation is finalized and there is no risk of evidence tampering. The Court emphasized that in bail proceedings, the focus should not be on the maximum statutory sentence, but rather on the sentence likely to be imposed based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to the applicant furnishing solvent surety.

  Questions settled

  • Should a court consider the maximum statutory sentence or the likely sentence when deciding a bail application?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail in an offshoot case when they have already been granted bail in the main case?
  • Does the completion of an investigation and the lack of necessity for further interrogation constitute valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahanzaib Khan vs Qamar Zaman & Others2020 SHC 104 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
• Jahangir vs Waheeda Kousar and another2020 YLR 261 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• Jaffar Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1454 · Lahore High Court · 2020-07-28
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesfurther inquirycriminal liabilityforensic reportcultivation of bhang
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Jaffar Khan, who was arrested in connection with an FIR registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged cultivation of 'Bhang'. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, found at the scene of the alleged recovery on land owned by a co-accused, could be held criminally liable and denied bail despite the lack of evidence connecting him to the land or the illicit activity. The Court held that mere presence at the scene of recovery is insufficient to establish criminal liability, especially when the primary accused had already been granted pre-arrest bail. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of a forensic report confirming the nature of the substance. The Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution fails to provide incriminating material connecting an accused to the alleged offence, and where the case requires further inquiry, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right rather than grace.

  Questions settled

  • Is the mere presence of an accused at the site of a narcotic recovery sufficient to establish criminal liability?
  • Does the absence of a forensic report regarding the nature of the recovered substance entitle an accused to further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right when the case against them requires further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Jaffar Ali vs VIII th. Addl. D.J Hyd. and others2020 SHC 40 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-15Read full judgment →
• Jabir Ali Shah son of Amjad Ali Shah, r/o Panj Pir District Swabi vs The State2020 PHC 398 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-02Read full judgment →
• Jaag Broadcasting Systems (Private) Limited, through Duly Authorized2020 CLC 1081 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-01Read full judgment →
• Jaag Broadcasting Systems (Private) Limited through Duly Authorized2020 YLR 2113 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-30Read full judgment →
• Israr Hussain Shah vs The State & 2 others2020 P Cr. L J 1164, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1042, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 748, · Lahore High Court · 2020-04-06
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauserash and negligent drivingDiyatnon-bailable offencespre-trial incarcerationCode of Criminal Procedure 1898
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a traffic accident case involving charges under Sections 320, 322, 279, 337-G, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the offence under Section 322 PPC, which is punishable by Diyat rather than imprisonment, falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby restricting the grant of bail. The Court held that Section 322 PPC does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. because it does not carry a sentence of imprisonment. Consequently, the Court affirmed that in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception, applicable only in extraordinary circumstances such as risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or previous convictions. Finding no such exceptional circumstances and noting the principle of consistency regarding a co-accused, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that pre-trial detention should not function as punishment before conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the exceptional circumstances that justify the refusal of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a penal provision be interpreted in favor of the accused when there is ambiguity regarding its application?
  Read full judgment →
• Israr Ahmed vs Farooq Khan and others2020 PLC 245 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-03-25
  Industrial RelationsTrade UnionLocus StandiRight of AppealNatural JusticeRemandRegistrar of Trade Unions
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 12 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, challenging an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions (RTU). The appellant, an office bearer of a registered trade union, contended that the RTU passed the impugned order without providing a proper hearing, thereby violating the principle of natural justice, and failed to adjudicate upon the specific allegations raised in the complaint. The respondent challenged the maintainability of the appeal, arguing the appellant lacked locus standi. The Commission addressed the maintainability issue, holding that Section 12 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, explicitly grants a right of appeal to a trade union, its members, or an officer against an order of the Registrar. Finding the appellant was an officer of a registered union, the Commission affirmed the appeal's maintainability. On merits, the Commission observed that the RTU failed to provide a decisive finding on the allegations or ensure a fair hearing. Consequently, the Commission set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the RTU for a fresh decision after affording both parties an adequate opportunity of hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Does an officer of a registered trade union have the locus standi to file an appeal under Section 12 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Is an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions without hearing the complainant's counsel sustainable in law?
  • Does the Commission have the authority to remand a matter to the Registrar of Trade Unions for a fresh decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Israr Ahmad and another vs Chancellor Kiu_President Of Pakistan through Principal Secretary and 4 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 782 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-11-21
  contractual employeesregularization of serviceswrit jurisdictiondiscriminationpublic employmentKarakoram International Universityservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by two contractual Office Assistants seeking the regularization of their services at Karakoram International University. The petitioners, appointed on contract in 2014, contended that they had performed their duties to the satisfaction of their superiors and that their continued contractual status, despite the regularization of numerous other contractual employees by the university, amounted to discriminatory treatment. The respondents argued that the petitioners should compete through the standard recruitment committee process. The Court observed that the petitioners had gained significant experience and that their performance was well-regarded by senior officers. Furthermore, the Court noted that the university had previously regularized over one hundred other contractual employees, establishing a precedent. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to be regularized. The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to regularize the contractual services of the petitioners within two months. The Court affirmed that consistent administrative practice and the principle of non-discrimination require that similarly situated employees be treated equally regarding the regularization of their employment status.

  Questions settled

  • Are contractual employees entitled to regularization if they have performed their duties satisfactorily?
  • Does the regularization of other similarly situated contractual employees create a right for others to be regularized?
  • Can a university be compelled to regularize contractual employees through a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail Waliullah and 2 others vs The State2020 MLD 78 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-25
  post-arrest bailfake passportsforeigners actfurther inquirydocumentary evidenceprohibitory clausecomplainant as investigator
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an application for post-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were charged under sections 3(2), 13/14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and sections 420, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for attempting to travel from Pakistan to Canada on alleged fake passports and visas. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail when the case rested entirely on documentary evidence awaiting foreign verification and where the offences fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the case fell within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as verification reports from foreign authorities were awaited and the evidentiary value of the documents was subject to trial. Furthermore, the court noted that the complainant and the investigator being the same person violated the norms of a fair criminal justice system. The court confirmed the grant of post-arrest bail, establishing that where documentary evidence requires verification and offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution case depends entirely on documentary evidence awaiting verification from foreign authorities?
  • Does a case where the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant the grant of bail for further inquiry?
  • Is it permissible under the norms of the criminal justice system for the author of the First Information Report to also act as the investigating officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail son of Muhammad Khitab, r/o Afghanistan, presently Ghafoor Abad2020 PHC 356 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-29Read full judgment →
• Ismail Khan and 08 others vs Mst. Shahnaz Begum and 07 others2021 YLR 703, 2020 PHC 446 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-30Read full judgment →
• Islamullah and others vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 581 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-05-24
  post-arrest bailabduction for ransomvicarious liabilityprohibitory clausedelay in FIRcriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application was filed by the petitioners seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 365, 365-A, and 368/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged abduction of a minor for ransom. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, the FIR was delayed, and they were not the principal accused. Conversely, the prosecution argued that the abductee was recovered from the petitioners' possession, the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the trial had already commenced. The Court held that in abduction cases, every member of the gang involved is vicariously liable, rendering specific roles immaterial. Furthermore, the Court observed that delays in lodging FIRs in abduction cases are a natural phenomenon due to the families' fear for the victim's life. Finding prima facie evidence connecting the petitioners to the offence and noting the gravity of the charges, the Court dismissed the bail petition and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Is specific role a prime consideration for granting bail in cases of abduction?
  • Does the offence of abduction for ransom fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR in abduction cases sufficient ground to grant bail?
  • Are all members of a gang involved in an abduction vicariously liable regardless of their specific actions?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Wildlife Management Board through its Chairman vs Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad through its Mayor & 4 others2021 [M] C L R 430, 2020 IHC 92, 2021 PLD Islamabad 6 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-21Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Marquees, Catering and Banquet Hall Association vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 IHC 162 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Club, Islamabad through its Secretary vs Appellate Tribunal2020 PLJ Islamabad 1, 2019 IHC 124, PTCL 2022 CL. 616 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-04-25Read full judgment →
• Islam-ud-Din & others vs Mst Haji Begum & others2020 PHC 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Islam Sharif vs The StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 166, 2020 P SC (Crl.) 820, 2020 SCMR 690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-03
  Qatl-i-amdocular evidenceabsconsionidentification of accusedcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner, Islam Sharif, for the Qatl-i-amd of Dr. Sahib Jan, an offence committed in 1991. The petitioner was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment, a decision upheld by the Peshawar High Court. The petitioner challenged the conviction, citing the improbability of witness presence, identification issues due to darkness, and the prosecution's failure to recover the murder weapon. The Supreme Court examined the ocular evidence provided by the deceased's sons, noting their long-standing acquaintance with the petitioner and the context of a rural neighbourhood where Fajr prayers occur at dawn. The Court held that the witnesses' identification was reliable given the proximity and familiarity, and the petitioner's absconsion for nearly two decades strongly indicated culpability. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined, affirming the conviction based on consistent ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence of absconsion.

  Questions settled

  • Can the identification of an accused by witnesses be considered reliable if the occurrence took place near dawn?
  • Does the long-standing absconsion of an accused serve as a relevant factor in determining culpability?
  • Is the failure to recover a murder weapon fatal to a prosecution case when other evidence is consistent and confidence-inspiring?
  Read full judgment →
• Islam Sharif vs StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-03
  Qatl-i-Amdocular accountabsconsionidentificationFajr prayercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from the conviction of the petitioner for committing Qatl-i-Amd under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was upheld by the Peshawar High Court. The petitioner challenged his conviction on grounds of the improbability of the witnesses' presence, identification issues due to darkness, and the prosecution's failure to recover the weapon. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the ocular account provided by the deceased's sons, who were walking with him to a mosque for Fajr prayers. The Court held that the identification of the culprit by the witnesses was highly reliable due to their close proximity and long-standing acquaintance with the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner's absconsion for nearly two decades explained the non-recovery of the weapon and strongly supported his culpability. Finding the ocular evidence consistent, straightforward, and confidence-inspiring, the Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can the identification of an accused in a rural area shortly before dawn be considered reliable if the witnesses had a long-standing acquaintance with him?
  • Does the prosecution's failure to recover the weapon of offense fatal to the case when the accused has absconded for nearly two decades?
  • Whether the testimony of close relatives of the deceased can be accepted as confidence-inspiring despite a long lapse of time before the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ishaq Khan Khakwani and another vs Railway Board through its Chairman2020 PLJ SC 97, 2019 KLR Supreme Court 456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  public interest litigationjudicial reviewgovernment contractspublic propertytransparency in biddinglease agreementconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a Constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the leasing of prime railway land in Lahore for the Railways Golf Club (later renamed Royal Palm Golf and Country Club) to a private consortium through a process alleged to be non-transparent, manipulated, and tainted with mala fides. The core legal question revolved around the scope of judicial review over government contracts involving public assets and whether material deviations from advertised terms vitiate the bidding process. The Court held that public functionaries must deal with public property transparently and fairly, and any substantial departure from advertised conditions to benefit a specific bidder renders the contract void ab initio. The ratio laid down is that superior courts can judicially review public contracts under constitutional jurisdiction where transparency is compromised or public property is squandered, and such proceedings can run independently alongside criminal accountability trials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether superior courts can exercise judicial review under Article 184(3) of the Constitution over government contracts involving public assets?
  • Does a material departure from the terms and conditions advertised in a public bidding process vitiate the resulting contract?
  • Can civil proceedings regarding the cancellation of a public contract proceed simultaneously and independently with criminal accountability references before a court?
  • What is the effect of altering essential terms such as lease duration and land area after the closing date for bids without issuing a fresh public advertisement?
  Read full judgment →
• Isam Jan (widow) and 7 others vs Aftab Ahmed and 60 others2020 YLR 2069 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-02-21Read full judgment →
• Irtaza Mehmood vs Ccpo Lahore & 4 others2020 P Cr. L J 1144, 2020 LHC 1378 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-07
  supardariconstitutional petitionpolice excesscontempt of courtrecovery of vehiclejudicial orders enforcementcompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner approached the Lahore High Court through a constitutional petition seeking the release of his Toyota Corolla car, which was being unlawfully withheld by the police despite having secured successful Supardari orders from the Area Magistrate, which were subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court itself. The core legal question concerned the accountability of police officials who deliberately flout judicial orders and fail to execute Supardari warrants. The Court held that police officials are constitutionally and legally obliged to enforce judicial orders and cannot act in defiance of the courts, making them personally and administratively liable for such misconduct. The holding established that where police officers deliberately frustrate court orders and violate individual rights, the courts will intervene firmly by awarding compensation to the aggrieved citizen and imposing departmental restrictions, thereby reinforcing the rule of law and ensuring accountability within the law enforcement machinery.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can direct police officials to pay compensation for unlawfully withholding a vehicle despite successive Supardari orders?
  • What remedies are available to a citizen when police authorities refuse to execute judicial orders for the release of property?
  • Can police officials be held personally liable for failing to implement court-ordered Supardari?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Rafique vs SHO Hali Road Hyd & others2020 SHC 1252 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Irshad Khan son of Enayat Ullah Khan r/o Mohallah Gul Bacha Wadpaga,2020 PLD Peshawar 154, 2020 PHC 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02
  juvenile justicecriminal trialspecial courtchild protectionjurisdictionjuvenile offenderchild at risk
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged an order refusing to transfer the trial of a juvenile accused from a Special Court constituted under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection & Welfare Act, 2010, to a Juvenile Court established under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The core legal question was whether a juvenile accused of committing an offense against an adult falls under the jurisdiction of the 2010 Act or the 2018 Act. The Court held that the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 governs the criminal justice system for juveniles accused of offenses, whereas the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection & Welfare Act, 2010 is designed for the protection and welfare of 'children at risk' (victims). Consequently, the Court ruled that offenses committed by a juvenile against an adult are triable by a Juvenile Court under the 2018 Act, not the 2010 Act. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was ordered to be transferred to the appropriate Juvenile Court for further proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a juvenile accused of an offense against an adult is triable by a Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018?
  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection & Welfare Act, 2010 apply to the trial of a juvenile accused of an offense against an adult?
  • What is the distinction between a 'juvenile' under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 and a 'child at risk' under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection & Welfare Act, 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Hussain vs Province of Sindh & Others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1411, 2020 SHC 276 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-07
  constitutional petitioninter-cadre absorptionrepatriationvoid ab initiocivil servantcontempt of courtrecovery of salary differential
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the absorption and appointment of respondent No.7 from a Junior School Teacher (BPS-9) in the Education Department to a Senior Translator (BPS-16) in the Provincial Assembly of Sindh. The core legal questions concerned whether such inter-cadre absorption violated judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and whether a fact-finding committee could lawfully recall a repatriation order issued in compliance therewith. The Sindh High Court held that the absorption was void ab initio, being contrary to settled law against inter-cadre absorption and made without complying with mandatory recruitment rules. The Court laid down that subordinate authorities possess no jurisdiction to entertain appeals against or recall repatriations ordered pursuant to Supreme Court directives, and that illegal absorption cannot be regularized under the guise of administrative mistakes or newly created posts, mandating the recovery of pay scale differentials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee can be absorbed across different cadres from a lower pay scale to a higher pay scale in violation of established Supreme Court precedents?
  • Does a subordinate department or fact-finding committee have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against and recall a repatriation order issued in compliance with Supreme Court orders?
  • Whether initial appointments to posts in grades 5 to 16 in the Provincial Assembly Secretariat require mandatory advertisement in newspapers under the relevant service rules?
  • Are civil servants who obtained illegal absorption liable to refund the differential amount received in higher pay scales upon being repatriated to their parent departments?
  Read full judgment →