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.

• Hassan Javed vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-06
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailcriminal breach of trustfurther inquirymala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Hassan Javed, who stands accused by his employer of committing a criminal breach of trust causing financial loss to the company by receiving customer payments into personal accounts. The core legal question concerns whether the allegations and available record disclose reasonable grounds for criminal breach of trust under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, warranting the petitioner's arrest, or if the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, admitting the petitioner to anticipatory bail. The court held that the prosecution failed to point out material or evidence establishing the documented transactions or confirming the alleged confession, and that commercial loss cannot be equated with criminal breach of trust. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case lacks foundational details and forensic verification of evidence, the matter falls within the remit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether commercial loss incurred by an employer can be equated with criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Does the absence of time, date, and forensic confirmation of evidence bring a case within the remit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the intended arrest is argued to be tainted with mala fide and the prosecution's case lacks foundational evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Farhan Minhas vs JS Global Capital (Pvt.) Ltd. and 2 others2020 CLD 744 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2020-01-31Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali vs MS United Bank Limited through Chief Executive2020 PLJ Tr.C. (NIRC) 45 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-03-25
  unfair labour practicedisciplinary proceedingsmaintainabilityjurisdictioncharge-sheetNational Industrial Relations Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition filed under Section 54(e) read with Section 57(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 2012, seeking to restrain the respondents from taking adverse employment actions against the petitioner on the basis of a charge-sheet and alleged unfair labour practice. The core legal question is whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has jurisdiction to interfere with domestic disciplinary proceedings initiated by an employer against an employee under the garb of unfair labour practice without establishing specific instances thereof. The Commission held that initiation of disciplinary proceedings is the legal right and prerogative of the employer, and the petitioner failed to establish any specific act of unfair labour practice, merely using the terminology to stall legitimate inquiries. The petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable, laying down the principle that the Commission's jurisdiction is strictly confined to proven cases of unfair labour practice and cannot be invoked to shield an employee from bona fide disciplinary action.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has jurisdiction to interfere with domestic disciplinary proceedings initiated by an employer?
  • Can a petition alleging unfair labour practice be maintained on the basis of bald and general assertions without specific instances?
  • Is the initiation of disciplinary action against an employee a legal right and prerogative of the employer?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali Raja vs The State, etc2020 IHC 50, 2020 PCRLJ 931, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 336 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-12
  pre-arrest bailproclaimed offenderabscondencefurther inquirycriminal breach of trustpropriety versus rightvoluntary surrender
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a dispute over a real estate transaction and non-transfer of a plot. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail could be granted to an accused who was previously declared a proclaimed offender and had absconded, where the case otherwise fell within the scope of further inquiry and outside the prohibitory clause. The Islamabad High Court held that where a case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused, bail must be granted as a matter of right, which prevails over the question of propriety regarding the accused's status as a proclaimed offender. The court laid down the principle that the right to bail in further inquiry cases outweighs abscondence or proclaimed offender status, and that an accused who voluntarily surrenders to the court should not be penalized.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of a proclaimed offender disentitle an accused to pre-arrest bail when the case otherwise falls within the scope of further inquiry?
  • Is a dispute arising from a real estate sale transaction and non-transfer of property primarily of a civil nature rather than a criminal breach of trust?
  • Does the right to bail in a case calling for further inquiry prevail over the question of propriety regarding an accused's abscondence?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted to an accused who has previously jumped bail and been declared a proclaimed offender upon voluntarily surrendering to the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ahmed vs Special Judge (Rent), Lahore etc2020 PLD Lahore 713, 2020 LHC 1425 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ahmed Khan Kanwar and others vs Adnan Hassan and others2020 CLC 1701 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-17Read full judgment →
• Hasnain Yaseen vs S.H.O. Police Station Sihala, Islamabad, etc2020 P Cr. L J 792, 2020 IHC 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-23
  quashment of FIRwrit petitiondisputed questions of factpremature acquittalfair trialinherent jurisdictionalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under Sections 506, 354, and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a property dispute between the parties. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional or inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR at the initial stage when a challan has been submitted and disputed questions of fact exist. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court will not ordinarily quash an FIR in the presence of disputed questions of facts and where an efficacious alternate remedy, such as an application for acquittal under Section 249-A or Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is available before the trial court. The court laid down the principle that criminal trials must be allowed to reach their logical conclusion to uphold the right to a fair trial, and the adequacy or inadequacy of evidence cannot be examined through a writ petition to strangulate a trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash an FIR under Article 199 of the Constitution or Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the case involves disputed questions of fact and is at the trial stage?
  • Whether an accused person can seek premature acquittal under Section 249-A or Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure after cognizance of the case has been taken by the trial court?
  • Does the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure extend to examining the adequacy or inadequacy of evidence before the framing of a charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashmat Medical and Dental College vs Pakistan Medical and Dental2020 CLC 84 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-21Read full judgment →
• Hashim Ali vs The State2021 MLD 1113, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1227, 2020 PHC 156 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-21Read full judgment →
• Haroon-Ur-Rashid and another vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 [M] C L R 52, 2020 PLD Islamabad 469 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-08-18Read full judgment →
• Haroon-Ur-Rashid and 3 others vs The State2020 KLR Criminal Cases 163, 2020 P Cr. L J 170 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-01
  criminal appealself-defenseocular evidenceforensic reportburden of proofreasonable doubtcapital sentence reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and capital sentence reference arose from the conviction of four appellants for the murder of a police constable during an investigative visit. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence, the validity of forensic reports following procedural delays, and the substantiation of a plea of self-defense. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of three appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, citing unreliable ocular testimony and unexplained delays in submitting crime empties for forensic analysis, which rendered the forensic report unreliable. Consequently, their convictions were set aside. Regarding the fourth appellant, Muhammad Asim, the Court upheld his conviction and death sentence, ruling that he failed to discharge the burden of proving self-defense, as the deceased was unarmed and the appellant had fired multiple fatal shots. The judgment reaffirms that while the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, an accused asserting self-defense bears the onus to substantiate that claim, and where such plea remains unsubstantiated, the conviction based on corroborated evidence must stand.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving self-defense shift to the accused when such a plea is explicitly taken?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution relies on ocular evidence that is deemed untrustworthy and lacks corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending crime empties to a forensic laboratory render the resulting report unreliable?
  • Is it permissible for the prosecution to withhold material witnesses without providing a valid explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Haris Malik vs The State2020 MLD 1724, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1207, 2020 PHC 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
• Haris Bin Hassan Jang vs Federation of Pakistan etc2021 CLC 413, 2020 LHC 3100 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-09Read full judgment →
• Hanifullah alias Pentar & 4 others vs The State etc2021 YLR 899, 2020 PHC 466 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-01Read full judgment →
• Hanif vs The State2020 SHC 1000 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-14
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsrecovery proceedingschemical report delayfurther inquiryindependent witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Hanif, who was charged with the possession of 3000 grams of charas under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail, primarily due to the absence of independent witnesses during the recovery proceedings in a populated area, a significant delay in sending the contraband for chemical analysis, and the fact that the investigation was complete with no risk of evidence tampering. Furthermore, the Court noted the applicant's lack of prior criminal record and his three-month period of incarceration without trial progress. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to associate private witnesses in a recovery proceeding and there is an unexplained delay in chemical analysis, the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses during a narcotics recovery proceeding constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an unexplained delay in sending contraband for chemical analysis justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the continuous detention of an accused without trial progress a valid consideration for granting bail in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Hanif Gohar vs Anjum Nisar2020 SHC 1202 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23
  constitutional petitiontrade organizationselection disputeexhaustion of remedieswrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretationFPCCI election
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the election results of the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FPCCI) for 2020, specifically contesting the Regulator’s orders that permitted a candidate to represent two different trade associations simultaneously. The petitioner argued that this dual representation, facilitated by the Regulator, was unlawful under the Trade Organizations Act 2013 and distorted the election outcome. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of a constitutional petition in the presence of an alternate statutory appellate remedy and the interpretation of Section 20 of the 2013 Act regarding membership restrictions. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, emphasizing that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution should not be invoked when an adequate statutory remedy exists under Section 21 of the 2013 Act. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 20 of the 2013 Act does not explicitly prohibit membership in multiple trade organizations. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the Federal Government to consider regulatory reforms to address potential electoral mischief arising from multiple memberships.

  Questions settled

  • Does the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 lie when an adequate statutory appellate remedy is available under the Trade Organizations Act 2013?
  • Does Section 20 of the Trade Organizations Act 2013 prohibit a person from being a member of or representing more than one trade organization?
  • Can a High Court interfere in an election matter under its constitutional jurisdiction where the petitioner has failed to exhaust the appellate hierarchy provided by the governing statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Hanfia Alamgir Jame Masjid Trust through Chairman of the Trust vs Mst.2020 MLD 46 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-28
  illegal dispossessioncriminal revisionproxy accusedcriminal liabilitylandlord and tenantarm-twisting
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed by the Applicant Trust to assail the dismissal of its application under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question revolved around whether criminal proceedings and an application for illegal dispossession could be maintained against a respondent mother through an attorney when the alleged physical act of dispossession was committed by her son, and whether such naming amounted to arm-twisting. The Sindh High Court held that a criminal case cannot be proceeded against a person through an attorney, and involving a household woman while the actual physical act was attributed to her son demonstrated an attempt to intensify pressure and arm-twist the respondent. The court dismissed the revision application with the observation that the applicant may file a proper application against the actual persons involved, laying down the principle that criminal liability and proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act cannot be deflected onto proxy parties or maintained through attorneys.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case under the Illegal Dispossession Act be proceeded against a person through an attorney?
  • Whether an application under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act can be maintained against a family member who did not commit the actual physical act of dispossession?
  • Does the nomination of a proxy party in a criminal complaint to intensify pressure on an opponent amount to arm-twisting?
  Read full judgment →
• Hammad Khan vs Government College University, Lahore, etc2020 [M] C L R 418 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-25Read full judgment →
• Hamid Shakeel Sabir and others vs Federation Of Pakistan, through Secretary, Establishment Division and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 800 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-17
  Police Service of Pakistanpromotion eligibilitylength of serviceEstacodeencadrementcivil servant promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by police officers originally appointed in the Provincial Police Balochistan and subsequently inducted into the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) in grade B-18, challenging the refusal of the Departmental Selection Board to consider them for promotion to grade B-19 on the ground of insufficient length of service. The core legal question is whether provincial police officers inducted into the PSP are entitled to count their past service from grade B-17 onwards toward the minimum length of service required for promotion to grade B-19 under Serial No. 157 of the Estacode. The Balochistan High Court held that encadrement in the PSP does not constitute initial appointment and that the petitioners, having completed over 12 years of service in grade B-17 and above, possess the requisite length of service for promotion consideration. The court laid down the principle that past government service in grade B-17 and above prior to PSP induction must be counted for computing eligibility regarding promotion length of service, distinguishing such promotion eligibility determinations from rules governing inter se seniority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether provincial police officers inducted into the Police Service of Pakistan can count their past service in grade B-17 and above for promotion eligibility?
  • Does the encadrement of a provincial police officer into the Police Service of Pakistan amount to initial appointment for the purpose of calculating length of service for promotion?
  • What is the minimum length of service required in grade B-17 and above for promotion to grade B-19 under Serial No. 157 of the Estacode?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Nasrullah Ranjha vs Chief Commissioner, ICT, etc2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 161 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-17
  deputationrepatriationabsorptioncivil servantscadreservice ruleswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges a notification issued by the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, repatriating the petitioner—an Assistant Director in the Labour Welfare Department, ICT—back to his parent department, NADRA. The core legal question revolves around whether a deputationist has a vested right to permanent absorption in a borrowing government department and whether the petitioner's transfer and deputation complied with relevant civil service rules. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that a deputationist has no vested right to permanent absorption, that the absorption of non-civil servants or persons outside their specialized service cadre into government departments is impermissible under the law, and that the competent authority possesses the absolute right to terminate a deputation period and repatriate an employee to their parent department. The key principles laid down are that deputation cannot be used as a backdoor entry to circumvent recruitment rules, horizontal movement across distinct service cadres is unlawful, and unauthorized absorptions are void ab initio.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to permanent absorption in a borrowing department?
  • Can a non-civil servant or an employee from an autonomous body be absorbed into a government service cadre contrary to prescribed rules?
  • Whether the competent authority has the power to terminate a deputation period and repatriate an official to their parent department at any time?
  • Is appointment by transfer or deputation permissible to positions outside an employee's original service cadre?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ashraf (Late) through his L.Rs., etc vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore2020 P C T L R 1296, 2020 P SC 1279, PTCL 2020 CL. 412, 2020 PTD 1157, 2020 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-05
  tax refunddelayed refund compensationdeemed assessmentIncome Tax Ordinance 2001refund orderstatutory interpretationtaxpayer rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the determination of the date from which a tax refund becomes "due" for the purpose of calculating compensation for delayed refunds under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether the refund becomes due upon the "deemed assessment" of a tax return under Section 120, or only upon the issuance of a formal refund order by the Commissioner under Section 170. The Supreme Court held that the refund becomes due only from the date the refund order is made, rejecting the taxpayer's contention that deemed assessment serves as a substitute for such an order. The Court affirmed that the statutory scheme requires a formal application and scrutiny by the Commissioner before a refund is triggered. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Explanation to Section 171(2), inserted by the Finance Act, 2013, serves as a retrospective clarification confirming that compensation for delayed refunds is strictly tied to the date of the refund order, thereby overriding any interpretation that deemed assessment automatically triggers the refund process.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deemed assessment under Section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 constitute a refund order for the purpose of claiming compensation for delayed refunds?
  • From what date does a tax refund become due for the purpose of calculating compensation under Section 171 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001?
  • Does the Explanation to Section 171(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, introduced by the Finance Act 2013, have retrospective effect regarding the determination of when a refund becomes due?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameedullah Khan and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others2021 MLD 658, 2020 SHC 750 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
• Hameeda vs The State2020 YLR 1345 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-06
  post-arrest bailmurderproviso to section 497evidentiary doubtpost-mortem reportwomen's bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who is accused of murdering her husband alongside her children. The core legal question was whether the applicant, a woman accused of a capital offense, was entitled to the concession of bail under the statutory proviso for women, particularly given the evidentiary status of the case. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on several factors: the co-accused (the children) had already been granted bail; the material prosecution witnesses had already been examined, negating the risk of evidence tampering; and, crucially, the post-mortem report indicated a significant delay between the infliction of injuries and the time of death, casting serious doubt on the prosecution's version of events. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the principle that under the proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, women are entitled to favorable consideration for bail, even in cases involving serious offenses, provided the circumstances warrant such relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is a woman accused of a non-bailable offense entitled to favorable consideration for bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a significant delay between the infliction of injuries and the time of death, as shown in a post-mortem report, constitute grounds for granting bail?
  • Can a trial court cancel bail without a reference to the High Court if the accused misuses the concession?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameed A. Haroon vs. Hussain A. Haroon & Others vs Yousuf A.Haroon &2020 PLD Sindh 507, 2020 SHC 154 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-17Read full judgment →
• Hamayoun Saeed vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 527, 2020 YLR 404 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-06
  abductionillicit intercoursebenefit of doubtcriminal appealappreciation of evidenceSection 365-B PPCacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Zhob, which convicted the appellant under Section 365(B) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction and illicit intercourse with a minor. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the elements of abduction and forced intercourse beyond reasonable doubt. Upon review, the High Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions. The alleged abductee’s testimony revealed she moved freely, did not raise an alarm despite residing in a populated building, and was taken to public areas without attempting escape. Furthermore, the medical evidence failed to link the appellant to the alleged intercourse. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of abduction, specifically the use of force or deceitful means. Emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused when reasonable doubt exists in a prudent mind, the Court set aside the conviction, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellant, citing the trial court’s failure to properly appreciate the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an alleged abductee to raise an alarm or attempt escape during a prolonged period of detention create reasonable doubt regarding the charge of abduction?
  • Is the benefit of doubt to an accused a matter of grace or a matter of right when reasonable doubt exists in a prudent mind?
  • What are the essential elements required to establish the offence of abduction under Section 365(B) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Haleema Bibi vs Azeem and 2 others2020 CLC 1691, 2022 PLJ AJ&K 47 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-04-29Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali vs The State2020 SHC 904 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-02Read full judgment →
• Hakeem Naseem Ahmed Qasmi vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1288 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
• Hajj Organizers Association of Pakistan (Sindh Zone) & others vs Federation2020 PLD Sindh 42, 2019 SHC 200 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-26
  Hajj Policy 2019Hajj Group Organizersjudicial reviewultra viresproportionality testWednesbury unreasonablenessexecutive discretionCabinet approval
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, were filed by the Hajj Organizers Association of Pakistan (HOAP) and its member Hajj Group Organizers (HGOs) challenging a condition imposed by the Ministry of Religious Affairs via letter dated 09.04.2019 requiring private HGOs to book 5% of their allocated quota at the Government Rate Package. The core legal questions were whether the Hajj Formulation Committee possessed the legal authority to alter or impose additional preconditions beyond the Cabinet-approved Hajj Policy-2019 under the guise of general compliance clauses, and whether such unilateral condition was arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of fundamental rights. The Sindh High Court allowed the petitions and set aside the impugned condition, holding that once the Federal Cabinet approves a Hajj Policy, the executive committee is strictly bound to execute it and cannot make unilateral additions or curtail quotas. The court established that executive discretion must satisfy the tests of reasonableness, proportionality, and non-arbitrariness under judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive policy formulation committee alter or impose new substantive conditions on a policy after it has been approved by the Federal Cabinet?
  • Does a general contractual clause requiring private operators to follow ministry instructions empower an authority to impose obligations that indirectly curtail their approved quota?
  • Can an administrative decision be struck down under Article 199 of the Constitution on the grounds of disproportionate burden and lack of rational connection to its stated objective?
  • Is a claim of unwritten 'tacit approval' legally sufficient to enforce a prejudicial condition against an association that actively disputes it on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Wajdad vs Provincial Government through Secretary Board of Revenue, Government of Balochistan, Quetta, etc2021 P SC 1132, 2020 SCMR 2046, 2020 SCP 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-02
  revisional jurisdictionsuo motu powersconcurrent findings of factpresumption of correctnessrevenue recordlimitation periodburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding a property dispute. The appellant claimed title and possession of land, which had been mutated in favour of the Provincial Government. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction and whether a time-barred revision petition could be entertained. The Supreme Court held that while revisional courts generally do not disturb concurrent findings of fact, they may do so when there is gross misreading or non-reading of evidence, or material irregularity. The Court found the appellant failed to prove continuous possession or rebut the presumption of correctness attached to the revenue record. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that even if a revision petition is filed beyond the limitation period, the High Court possesses suo motu power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to correct jurisdictional errors, treating the petition as information to trigger such oversight. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, even if the revision petition is filed beyond the period of limitation?
  • Does the presumption of correctness attached to revenue records under Section 52 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, require more than mere oral evidence to be rebutted?
  • Under what circumstances can a revisional court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and appellate courts?
  • Does a failure to prove continuous possession of disputed property preclude a party from challenging a mutation entry in the revenue record?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Turab vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 408, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1255, 2020 PHC 74 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-01
  post-arrest bailanti-terrorismproscribed organizationfund raisingfurther inquiryprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Sections 11-N and 11-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for allegedly collecting funds and soliciting support for a proscribed organization. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the charges and the evidence available. The court held that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court observed that, aside from the complainant's statement, there was no prima facie incriminating evidence to connect the petitioner to the offence, thereby warranting further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted bail, emphasizing that bail is not an acquittal but a change of custody, and that these findings were based on a tentative assessment for the purpose of the bail petition only, without prejudice to the trial court's independent appraisal of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of fund-raising for a proscribed organization under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the absence of incriminating evidence beyond the complainant's statement sufficient to warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the grant of bail constitute an acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Taqi vs Ahaliyan Braqchan through Representatives and 2 others2020 YLR 2353 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-10-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Sher Zaman vs Govt2020 CLD 1232, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 143, 2020 PHC 310 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-30Read full judgment →
• Haji Qasim Khan vs The State through D.A.G.2020 SCMR 1255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-05
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydouble jeopardyfraudulent CNICacquittalForeigners Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the order of the Peshawar High Court, which had refused bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 14 of the Foreigners Act 1946. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, an Afghan national, had fraudulently obtained Pakistani Computerized National Identity Cards. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. Upon review, the Court noted that the Deputy Attorney General confirmed the petitioner had already been acquitted of substantially the same offence in a separate trial. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry as contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that where a previous acquittal for the same offence is confirmed, the case warrants further inquiry under the bail provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a previous acquittal for the same offence entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Is the question of whether an accused can be prosecuted again for the same offence a matter to be determined by the trial court after evidence?
  • Does the case of an accused who has already been acquitted of the same offence fall within the ambit of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Pervez s/o Abdul Malik, r/o Mohallah Akhunzadgan, Ternab, Tehsil &2021 CLC 1114, 2020 PHC 482 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Nawaz vs The State2020 P SC (Crl.) 640, 2020 SCMR 687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-18
  Control of Narcotic Substances ActSection 9(c) CNSASection 342 Cr.P.C.Reappraisal of evidenceSafe custody of evidenceSafe transmission of samplesConscious possessionBenefit of doubtAcquittalContradictory evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where he was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for possessing ten kilograms of heroin. The Supreme Court granted leave to reappraise the evidence. The core legal questions revolved around the admissibility of evidence not put to the accused during his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., the prosecution's failure to establish safe custody and transmission of the recovered substance and samples, and the proof of conscious possession. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt. Key principles established include: evidence not put to an accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. cannot be used for conviction; absence of proof of safe custody or transmission of narcotics or samples precludes conviction; and conscious possession must be established, particularly when the accused is a passenger and the driver has absconded. Contradictions in the prosecution's narrative also undermined its credibility.

  Read full judgment →
• Haji Mukaram Khan vs Haji Badshah Khan & others2020 CLC 1286, 2020 PHC 22 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad vs State, and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 412 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-18
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyunexplained delaycriminal procedureabductionmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Haji Muhammad, in connection with F.I.R. No. 25/2018 registered at Police Station Saddar, Multan, for offenses under Sections 302, 365, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the status of his co-accused. The Court observed that the incident was reported with an unexplained delay of two days, and the petitioner was not initially nominated in the F.I.R., with his name appearing only in a subsequent statement. Furthermore, the Court noted that co-accused individuals had already been granted post-arrest bail. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court held that the petitioner's case was at par with those of his co-accused. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where co-accused persons have been granted bail, the rule of consistency dictates similar treatment for others similarly situated, provided no distinguishing factors exist.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused persons have already been granted post-arrest bail?
  • Can an unexplained delay in reporting an incident influence the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail if they were not initially nominated in the F.I.R.?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ashraf Qureshi vs Nanki Bai and 6 others2020 CLC 1599 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ameer vs Saleem Nawaz and 2 others2020 CLC 1687 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-05Read full judgment →
• Haji Mohammad Riaz & another vs Khalid Mehmood Abbasi & others2020 PHC 432 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Mohammad Ismail Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 2 others2020 PLD Sindh 85 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-10
  stock exchange regulationsdefaulters segmentofficial gazette publicationdirectory vs mandatory provisionssuspension of tradingwinding-up petitioninfructuous application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff company challenging notices issued by the Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) that placed the plaintiff on the 'Defaulters Segment' and suspended its trading. The core legal question was whether the PSX notices were void ab-initio due to the relevant regulations not being gazetted at the time of issuance, and whether the suspension of trading was legally justified given the pending winding-up proceedings against the plaintiff. The Court held that the application had become infructuous as the impugned notices had expired and subsequent notices had been issued. Furthermore, the Court determined that the notification in question, though gazetted later, was effective from an earlier date. The Court laid down the principle that statutory requirements for publication in the official gazette are generally directory rather than mandatory, and failure to strictly comply with publication requirements does not automatically invalidate actions taken under such instruments, particularly when legal certainty and the actions of public functionaries are involved.

  Questions settled

  • Are statutory requirements for the publication of regulations in the official gazette considered mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure to gazette a regulation at the time of its issuance automatically render actions taken under that regulation void?
  • Can a court grant injunctive relief against the suspension of trading when the impugned notices have already expired and fresh notices have been issued?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Khizer Hayat vs Abid Hussain2020 PLD Lahore 324, 2020 LHC 311 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghano Khan and 5 others vs Dr. Bhagwandas and 24 others2020 MLD 1127 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Bahadar Khan vs Habib Ahmad and others2021 CLC 114, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 47, 2020 PHC 494 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-21Read full judgment →
• Haji Ashraf and 2 others vs Khan Muhammad and 3 others2020 PLJ Quetta 59, 2021 KLR Criminal Cases 338, 2020 YLR 44 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Sattar vs Mst. Mehnaz and 7 Others2020 MLD 896 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Razzak (Deceased) through Legal Heirs vs Faysal Bank Limited2020 CLD 238 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-28
  special high court appealattachment before judgmentinterlocutory ordermaintainability of appealfinancial institutions recovery of financesbanking suitspecial law versus general law
  Summary & questions settled

  This Special High Court Appeal challenged an order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's applications under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and section 16 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 in a pending recovery suit. The core legal questions were whether an appeal lies against an interlocutory order under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and whether an application under section 16 of the said Ordinance is maintainable when filed by a borrower rather than a financial institution. The court held that the appeal against the interlocutory order of attachment before judgment and the dismissal of the application under section 16 was not maintainable, as section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 explicitly bars appeals against interlocutory orders that do not dispose of the entire case, and special banking laws prevail over general procedural laws. The court affirmed the impugned order, holding that interlocutory orders cannot be challenged in a Special High Court Appeal under the special banking legal framework.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Banking Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can a borrower maintain an application under section 16 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does the special law under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 exclude the application of general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding appeals against interlocutory orders?
  • What constitutes a final order for the purpose of filing an appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider Bin Masood vs Election Commission of Pakistan & 7 others2020 IHC 70, 2020 PLD Islamabad 236 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-30Read full judgment →
• Haidayat Ali vs The State2020 YLR 2176 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-02-10
  post-arrest bailexplosive substancesmens reafurther inquiryrecovery proceedingssearch and seizurecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, a driver charged under sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, following the recovery of explosive materials from his vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who claimed to be a mere carrier for a licensed third party, possessed the requisite mens rea for the alleged offense, and whether the police search complied with mandatory procedural requirements. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, reasoning that the prosecution failed to establish the petitioner's conscious knowledge of the contraband, thereby necessitating further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the Court observed that the police violated section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by failing to associate independent witnesses from the locality during the search, rendering the recovery doubtful. The judgment affirms that mens rea and conscious possession are essential elements for offenses under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and that procedural non-compliance in searches provides valid grounds for bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the lack of independent witnesses during a vehicle search under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the recovery doubtful for the purpose of bail?
  • Is 'mens rea' or conscious knowledge a necessary element for conviction under sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908?
  • Does the absence of proof regarding a driver's knowledge of contraband transported in their vehicle constitute grounds for 'further inquiry' under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafizullah s/o Hidayatullah Bangulani vs Muhammad Raheem s/o Zareen2020 SHC 1238 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionmurderdelayed FIRvicarious liabilitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Hafizullah, in a criminal case involving murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the applicant, whose name appeared in the FIR but who was not attributed any specific injury, was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, including a significant delay in the FIR's registration and the absence of incriminating recovery. The court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that where no specific role is attributed to an accused in the commission of injuries, and the prosecution case relies on mere presence at the scene, continued incarceration is not justified, particularly when the investigation is complete and trial proceedings have not commenced. The court further emphasized that the question of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is a matter to be determined during the trial after recording evidence, and an accused cannot be detained indefinitely without trial progress.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the FIR assigns no specific role in causing injuries and only alleges presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR without plausible explanation impact the grant of bail?
  • Can an accused be kept in custody indefinitely when the investigation is complete but the trial has not commenced?
  • Is the question of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a matter to be decided at the bail stage or during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Shahid Khan and another vs Sadia Rehman and 2 others2020 MLD 55 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-09Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Shahbaz and others vs The State and othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1651, 2020 P Cr. L J 584 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-04
  abduction for ransomcircumstantial evidencejoint identification paradedelay in recording witness statementbenefit of doubtchance witnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their convictions and life sentences under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Gujranwala. The prosecution alleged that the appellants abducted the complainant's son for ransom and held him at a rented house. The Lahore High Court evaluated the circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, test identification, and recovery. The Court noted that the last-seen witness was an interested chance witness whose statement was recorded with unexplained delay. Furthermore, the test identification parade was conducted jointly for multiple accused in a single row with multiple dummies, violating established guidelines. The recovery of the abductee from the co-appellant's house appeared suspicious, as the abductee was untied and free to move, and no call data records were produced to link the parties. Reaffirming the rule that in cases of circumstantial evidence every link in the chain must be proved beyond doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted all appellants.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of conducting a joint identification parade for multiple accused persons simultaneously?
  • Whether unexplained delay in recording a witness's statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. renders the testimony unreliable?
  • How must circumstantial evidence be evaluated by courts to sustain a conviction in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Saeed Ghani vs The State and another2020 MLD 1193 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-15
  explosive substanceschain of custodyforensic reportsafe custody of case propertypolice witnessescriminal appealacquittalanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected criminal appeals arising from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Bahawalpur, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, while being acquitted of charges under Section 4 of the said Act and Section 7(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and transmission of the case property and explosive substance samples to render the forensic report reliable. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the unbroken chain of custody of the recovered Improvised Explosive Device, as there was no evidence that the device or its extracted samples were sealed, and material contradictions existed regarding the transmission of samples to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that a conviction under the Explosive Substances Act cannot be sustained without an unbroken chain of custody proving the safe handling and transmission of explosive samples for forensic analysis, leading to the acquittal of the appellant and dismissal of the State's appeal for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure in establishing an unbroken chain of custody for explosive substance samples render the forensic report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove safe transmission of case property to the forensic laboratory?
  • Whether contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the handing over of samples for forensic analysis vitiate the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Saeed vs Mst. Gulzar Begum and another2020 PLJ Islamabad 68 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Hanif vs The State2020 SHC 1052 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Aman Ullah vs Muhammad Anees Javed2020 CLC 2078 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-05Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Mian Muhammad Nauman vs Director General NAB and others2020 P Cr. L J 289 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-18
  post-arrest bailNational Accountability Ordinanceconstitutional jurisdictionfundamental rightsmisuse of authoritytentative assessmentstatutory ouster of jurisdictioncorporate governance
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses three consolidated writ petitions seeking post-arrest bail under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in connection with a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) inquiry regarding alleged corruption, corrupt practices, and misuse of authority in the outsourcing of parking sites by the Lahore Parking Company Limited. The core legal questions involve whether the statutory ouster of bail under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 bars the High Court from granting bail in its constitutional jurisdiction, and whether the petitioners' acts warranted continued incarceration pending trial. The Lahore High Court held that the statutory ouster of jurisdiction under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 does not affect the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to grant bail for the protection of fundamental rights where a case calls for further inquiry and the prosecution fails to establish foundational elements of active criminality or exact quantifiable loss at the tentative assessment stage. The court laid down the principle that pre-trial incarceration must not be punitive, that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that High Courts have a constitutional duty to intervene under Article 199 to prevent arbitrary deprivations of liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory ouster of jurisdiction under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 prevent the High Court from granting post-arrest bail under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can pre-trial incarceration be used as a form of punishment in offences falling under accountability laws?
  • What is the extent of tentative assessment permitted by a High Court while adjudicating a bail petition in corruption matters?
  • Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution fails to substantiate exact pecuniary loss or active criminal intent at the inquiry stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Imran alias Abbas alias Hamza vs The State2020 MLD 850 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-22
  criminal appealidentification paradedishonest improvementadverse inferencecapital sentence referenceanti-terrorismabductionreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under Sections 365-A, 395, 342, and 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the reliability of ocular evidence and identification procedures. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case. The court found that the prosecution witnesses made dishonest improvements to their statements to fill evidentiary gaps, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the identification parade was flawed due to the potential exposure of the appellant to witnesses and the absence of the star witness. The court also noted that the prosecution withheld crucial evidence, including forensic fingerprint reports and CCTV footage, leading to an adverse inference. Emphasizing that a single dent in the prosecution's case warrants acquittal, the court set aside the conviction and answered the Capital Sentence Reference in the negative, acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the introduction of dishonest improvements by prosecution witnesses to fill evidentiary gaps render their testimony unreliable?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution withholding crucial evidence like forensic reports and CCTV footage?
  • Can an identification parade be considered valid if there is a possibility that the accused's identity was exposed to witnesses prior to the parade?
  • Is a single dent in the prosecution's case sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Abdul Salam vs Hassan Din2020 YLR 2297, 2020 PHC 214 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-12
  ex parte decreecourt auction saleauction purchasersetting aside saleOrder XXI CPCbona fide purchaserrestitutioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a long-standing property dispute involving a mortgage executed in 1961, an ex parte preliminary and final decree obtained by the mortgagees/decree-holders, and a subsequent court auction sale in 1971. The auction-purchasers later sold the suit property to a third party. Thereafter, the judgment-debtor successfully had the ex parte decree set aside, leading lower courts to invalidate the court auction sale and subsequent transfers on the premise that setting aside the underlying decree automatically nullified all execution proceedings. The Peshawar High Court examined whether an execution sale of immovable property, followed by confirmation and issuance of an auction sale certificate, becomes automatically invalid to the detriment of an auction-purchaser or bona fide transferee merely because the decree is subsequently set aside. The High Court held that the Code of Civil Procedure provides an exclusive mechanism (Order XXI, Rules 89–91) for setting aside execution sales. In the absence of an order under those provisions, an execution sale does not automatically collapse upon reversal of the decree. The revision was partially allowed, setting aside the lower courts' rulings to the extent of invalidating the auction sale, while reserving liberty for the judgment-debtor to file an application under Order XXI CPC.

  Questions settled

  • Does the setting aside of an ex parte decree automatically invalidate a court auction sale conducted in execution of that decree without resorting to Order XXI Rules 89 to 91 CPC?
  • Does the title of an auction-purchaser of immovable property relate back to the date of sale under Section 65 CPC once the sale becomes absolute?
  • Can a judgment-debtor recover property sold in execution to an innocent purchaser merely because the underlying decree was subsequently reversed on appeal or set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeezullah Khan vs Pakistan Olympic Association through its General2020 CLC 1349, 2021 PLJ Quetta 140, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 167 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Ullah and 3 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 753 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-24
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquiryextortionmala fidemedicolegal reportcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 626/19 registered under Sections 386, 447/511, 337-F(i), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners have made out a case for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, given disputed facts and allegations of extortion found doubtful during police investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the non-disclosure of true facts in the FIR, coupled with the doubtful nature of the extortion allegation and the failure of the injured parties to appear for medical re-examination at the relevant time, indicated mala fide on the part of the complainant party and called for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioners. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of fresh bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-disclosure of true facts in the FIR can be a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Does failure of the injured party to appear before a medical board for re-examination indicate mala fide?
  • When does a criminal case call for further inquiry under bail jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah and another vs Insp. Rasool Bux and another2020 YLR 313 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-19
  criminal revision applicationmarginal witnesssummoning court witnessprosecution discretionrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mirpurkhas, whereby an application filed by the applicant under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for summoning a given witness as a court witness was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the prosecution can be compelled to examine all marginal witnesses or whether the trial court was justified in refusing to summon the given witness after the prosecution gave him up. The Sindh High Court held that it is the prerogative of the prosecution to decide upon the number and order of witnesses to be produced, and cumulative evidence can be avoided if the prosecution is satisfied with producing one marginal witness. The court ruled that the prosecution cannot be forced to examine all witnesses on the calendar, and the impugned order declining the application did not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the criminal revision application was dismissed, upholding the discretion of the prosecution regarding witness production.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can be forced to examine all marginal witnesses listed in the calendar of witnesses?
  • Does the trial court have the discretion to decline an application for summoning a witness as a court witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the High Court interfere with an order declining to summon a witness in its revisional jurisdiction when the prosecution has given up a marginal witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib-Ur-Rehman vs The State2020 P Cr. L J.1688 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-23
  narcotics controlconscious knowledgesafe custody of samplesdelayed FSL reportvehicle searchcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to life imprisonment following the alleged recovery of 250 kgs of raw charas from a vehicle. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's conscious possession and control over the contraband, the effect of non-sealing of samples at the spot, and the consequences of a delayed dispatch of samples to the forensic laboratory. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant was the driver or in charge of the vehicle, or that he had conscious knowledge of the narcotics, especially given that the actual driver had escaped and the appellant was merely sitting on the cleaner seat. Furthermore, the court held that the failure to seal samples immediately at the spot and a 45-day delay in sending them to the Forensic Science Laboratory without explanation vitiated the evidentiary value of the chemical report. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere presence of a person as a passenger in a vehicle from which narcotics are recovered is sufficient to establish conscious knowledge and possession?
  • Does the failure to seal narcotic samples immediately at the spot of recovery destroy the evidentiary value of the chemical examiner's report?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in dispatching seized narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Can a person sitting on the cleaner seat of a vehicle be held responsible for contraband when the actual driver manages to escape?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Ur Rehman ( Khi To Hyd ) vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 130 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-06Read full judgment →
• Habib Ullah Jan and another vs The State through A.G. Kyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 SCMR 1278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-07
  murderous assaultpost-arrest bailleave to appealprohibitory clauseland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Habib Ullah Jan and another against the refusal of pre-trial bail by the High Court in a case involving a murderous assault arising from an outstanding land dispute, which resulted in multiple injuries to three victims as confirmed by medico-legal reports. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail despite prima facie evidence connecting them to a violent crime falling within the prohibitory clause. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined bail as there were reasonable grounds connecting the accused to the offence and no further inquiry was warranted under the statutory bar. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is prima facie connected to a violent crime supported by medical evidence and spot recoveries, and the case falls within the prohibitory clause, discretion exercised by the High Court to deny bail will not be interfered with.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted in a case of murderous assault where multiple injuries are supported by medical evidence?
  • Does the statutory bar under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impede the release of an accused facing a violent crime with reasonable grounds?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal of bail when the order is judicially structured?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Metropolitan Bank Ltd vs Nazir Rice Mills2020 CLD 796, 2020 LHC 377 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-09Read full judgment →
• Habib Ismail vs The Learned Addl Dist: Judge IX and Ors2020 SHC 1148 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-02Read full judgment →
• Habib Hafeez vs Umar Pervaiz and 5 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 293 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-11
  service tribunalseniorityacting charge promotionnon-joinder of necessary partyestoppel and acquiescencemotor vehicle examiner
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a judgment of the Service Tribunal dismissing two appeals concerning service matters, specifically inter se seniority of Motor Vehicle Examiners and an acting charge promotion order. The core legal questions pertained to the determination of inter se seniority for employees appointed on the same date, the application of the principles of estoppel and acquiescence due to the appellant's conduct, and the fatal defect of failing to array the competent authority as a respondent in an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the inter se seniority was rightly determined according to merit, that the appellant was estopped from challenging the seniority list having failed to challenge it directly while participating in proceedings, and that the non-joinder of the competent authority (the Government) in the appeal against the promotion order was a fatal flaw. The key principles laid down include that a challenge to an administrative order before the Service Tribunal fails if the competent authority is not arrayed as a respondent, and that acquiescence and estoppel bar a party from contesting a seniority position they failed to challenge directly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who fails to challenge a tentative or final seniority list directly is barred by estoppel and acquiescence from contesting it later?
  • Does the failure to array the competent authority as a respondent in an appeal before the Service Tribunal render the appeal liable to dismissal?
  • Whether inter se seniority of civil servants appointed on the same date is to be determined according to their merit position?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd vs Zawar Hussain Shah2020 PLJ Lahore 555 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-04Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Gul Muhammad2020 PLC 229 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-10-02
  misconductdismissal from servicegrievance noticelimitation periodbanking servicedomestic inquirybreach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed by a Single Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which set aside the dismissal of a bank employee and ordered his reinstatement. The core legal questions were whether the respondent's dismissal for misappropriation was lawful, whether the grievance petition was time-barred, and whether the mandatory grievance notice was served. The Commission found that the respondent had admitted to the charges of misconduct during a fair domestic inquiry and cross-examination. Furthermore, the Commission held that the grievance petition was hopelessly time-barred, as the respondent failed to approach the proper forum within the 90-day period prescribed by the Supreme Court following the abatement of his appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. Additionally, the respondent admitted to failing to serve the mandatory grievance notice. The Commission set aside the impugned order, holding that a bank employee whose integrity is compromised cannot be retained, and dismissed the grievance petition, emphasizing that strict adherence to procedural requirements and professional integrity is essential in banking services.

  Questions settled

  • Is a grievance petition maintainable if the mandatory grievance notice was not served upon the employer?
  • Does the failure to file a grievance petition within the 90-day period prescribed by the Supreme Court after the abatement of proceedings render the petition time-barred?
  • Can a bank employee be reinstated if they have admitted to charges of misappropriation and breach of trust during domestic inquiry proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmed vs The State2020 YLR 238 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-30
  retracted judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencebenefit of the doubtcapital punishmentmurderpointation and recoveryfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 365, 302, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence and imprisonment, alongside a reference for confirmation. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value and voluntariness of a retracted judicial confession, the legal significance of recoveries made on the appellant's pointation, the reliability of identification of a decomposed body without a DNA report, and whether the circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain linking the appellant to the crime. The Sindh High Court held that the retracted judicial confession suffered from material irregularities and lacked sufficient corroboration, recoveries of the body and murder weapon were legally flawed, the body's identity was unproven, and the circumstantial evidence failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, allowed the appeal, acquitted him of the charges, and answered the confirmation reference in the negative, establishing principles regarding the strict standard of proof in circumstantial evidence cases and the evaluation of retracted confessions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis of a conviction in a capital case without strong independent corroboration?
  • Whether material irregularities in recording a judicial confession vitiate its voluntariness and truthfulness?
  • Is a conviction based on circumstantial evidence sustainable if there are missing links in the chain of evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
  • Does the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to completely disregard the testimony of a witness found to be untruthful on material aspects?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Adm Limited through General Manager vs Executive Engineer Canal2020 CLC 1848 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-22Read full judgment →
• Gulzer vs The State2020 SHC 1140 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30
  right to fair trialright to counseldue processremandcriminal appealnatural justiceconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by an Additional Sessions Judge regarding the possession of 'mainpuri' sachets. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to provide him with a fair opportunity to engage legal counsel, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Deputy Prosecutor General for the State did not oppose the request for a remand. Upon review, the Court found that the trial court had indeed failed to ensure the appellant was afforded a fair chance to secure representation. The Court held that this omission constituted a violation of the constitutional mandate guaranteeing the right to a fair trial. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial, ensuring the appellant is given adequate opportunity to engage counsel. The Court further directed the appellant's release on bail pending the new trial proceedings, subject to the furnishing of fresh bail bonds, thereby upholding the fundamental right to due process and legal representation in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide an accused a fair chance to engage counsel violate the right to a fair trial under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a conviction and remand a case if the trial court denied the accused the right to legal representation?
  • Is a trial court required to ensure an accused has the opportunity to engage counsel before proceeding to judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Khan vs Mst. Rahima and 3 others2020 CLC 1340 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ali vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Board of Revenue2020 YLR 116 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-04Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ali and 3 others vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others2020 PLD Sindh 1 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-06Read full judgment →
• Gulzada Khan etc vs Tehsil Municipal Administration Jhelum through Administrator and another2020 PLJ Lahore 343 · Lahore High Court · 2011-08-17Read full judgment →
• Gulshan Ali Solangi and others vs The State through P.G. SindhPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 211, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 508, 2020 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-05
  anticipatory bailpre-arrest bailmisappropriationpublic exchequerFood Departmentabuse of processequitycriminal scam
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple petitions for leave to appeal against the High Court of Sindh's refusal to grant anticipatory bail to several government officials and private individuals. The petitioners were implicated in a large-scale scam in Dadu District involving the misappropriation of thousands of bags of wheat from the Food Department, causing significant loss to the public exchequer. The petitioners contended that the wheat was merely shifted to prevent damage due to poor storage and alleged the charges were mala fide. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners held positions where the stock vanished and were subsequently found at private outlets, rendering their explanations preposterous. The Court reaffirmed that pre-arrest bail is an equitable remedy intended solely to protect the innocent from the abuse of process and cannot be granted in routine criminal cases where prima facie evidence warrants custody. Finding no grounds for interference with the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court refused leave and dismissed the petitions.

  Read full judgment →
• Gulbaz vs The state and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1422, 2020 PHC 286 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-20Read full judgment →
• Gulab Khan vs Chairman NAB and another2020 P SC 952, 2020 SCMR 285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-18
  post-arrest bailrule of parityNAB referenceco-accusedaggravated rolehousing society scam
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the Secretary of a housing society accused in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference of illegally allocating plots and interpolating meeting minutes, causing billions in losses. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be denied bail on grounds of aggravated role when all co-accused had been released on bail following land retrieval, and no evidence supported the allegation that he diverted funds to his own chest. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where the land was retrieved, co-accused were admitted to bail, and the prosecution failed to show evidence of an aggravated role or diversion of funds, the petitioner could not be treated differently under the rule of parity. Granting the appeal, the Supreme Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds, laying down the principle that similarly placed co-accused in a crime must be extended equal treatment regarding bail absent evidence of an aggravated role.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be denied post-arrest bail on the ground of an aggravated role when no evidence exists on record to substantiate such distinction vis-a-vis co-accused?
  • Whether the rule of parity applies in granting post-arrest bail to a co-accused in a NAB reference when similarly placed co-accused have already been released on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Gula Jan vs Jan Wali2020 PLD Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-19Read full judgment →
• Gul Zameen vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2021 PLD Peshawar 68, 2020 PHC 234 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-07Read full judgment →
• Gul Taiz Khan Marwat vs The Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar & others2021 PLD Supreme Court 391, 2021 P SC 71, 2020 SCP 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-16
  constitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionadministrative orderssuperior judiciaryjudicial comitypersona designataservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter addresses whether the executive, administrative, or consultative actions of the Chief Justices or Judges of a High Court or the Federal Shariat Court are amenable to the constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question involves interpreting the scope of the exclusion of superior courts from the definition of a 'person' under Article 199(5) and whether a distinction exists between the judicial and non-judicial functions of a judge. The Supreme Court held that no such bifurcation exists; administrative, executive, and consultative acts of superior court judges form an integral part of court functioning and enjoy absolute immunity from writ proceedings under Article 199(5) by virtue of a harmonious construction of the constitutional provisions and the application of the 'but for' test. Consequently, the previous precedent in Ch. Muhammad Akram's case was overruled, establishing that writ petitions are not maintainable against the administrative orders of superior courts or their respective establishments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the executive, administrative or consultative actions of the Chief Justices or Judges of a High Court are amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan provide immunity to administrative, executive, and consultative orders of the Supreme Court and High Courts?
  • Whether the Chief Justices or Judges of a High Court exercising executive or administrative functions act as persona designata and therefore remain subject to writ jurisdiction?
  • Are the administrative orders and service decisions of the Federal Shariat Court amenable to the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Rehman vs Government & others2021 MLD 154, 2020 PHC 362 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Rehman & three others vs Federation2020 PLC (C.S) 1529, 2020 PHC 180 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-04
  regularization of servicescontract employeesNational Bank of Pakistanright to livelihoodforced labourdiscriminationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple writ petitions filed by contract employees of the National Bank of Pakistan seeking regularization of their services on the analogy of similarly placed employees whose services had already been regularized by the bank. The core legal question is whether the respondent bank can deny regularization to contract or outsourced employees performing permanent nature jobs, keeping them indefinitely on meager payments, and whether such practice constitutes forced labor and discrimination. The Peshawar High Court held that keeping employees on temporary contracts for indefinite periods for permanent work is a form of forced labor and violates constitutional rights. The court ruled that the petitioners are entitled to regularization from the date of filing their respective writ petitions, with pensionary and long-term benefits calculated from their initial appointments. The key principle laid down is that public institutions cannot exploit workers through artificial contractual arrangements to deny them permanence, livelihood, and equal treatment under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employees performing permanent nature jobs in a public institution are entitled to regularization of their services?
  • Does keeping employees on temporary contracts for indefinite periods constitute forced labor and a violation of constitutional rights?
  • From which date are successfully regularized employees entitled to their pensionary and other long-term benefits?
  • Can a public bank deny regularization to its low-paid workers under the pretext of employing them through contractors?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Mullah vs The Major Muhammad Imran, Anti-Smuggling Officer, F.C. (HQR.), Peshawar and another2020 PTD (Trib.) 324 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-04-30Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 537, 2020 P Cr. L J 59 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-01
  child witnessmurder referenceQatl-i-amdconfessional statementcriminal appealevidentiary valuecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns consolidated jail appeals and a murder reference arising from the conviction of Gul Muhammad and Mst. Eid Un Nisa for the murder of Saeed ur Rehman. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the testimony of a child witness and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction for murder. The Islamabad High Court upheld the convictions and sentences, confirming the death sentence of the primary accused. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt through consistent and reliable evidence, including the testimony of the deceased's daughter. Regarding the legal principles, the Court affirmed that a child witness is competent to testify provided they can understand questions and provide rational answers. While the testimony of a child witness requires careful scrutiny and, as a rule of prudence, corroboration to ensure the absence of tutoring, there is no universal rule requiring rejection of such evidence. The Court found the child witness's deposition consistent, corroborated by forensic evidence, and free from external influence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a child witness admissible in a criminal trial without corroboration?
  • What are the criteria for determining the competency of a child witness to testify?
  • Does the rule of prudence regarding child witness testimony require absolute corroboration in every case?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs State through Superintendent District Jail Timergara2020 P Cr. L J 784, 2021 YLR 1302, 2020 PHC 384 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-16
  constitutional petitionconcurrent sentencessection 382-B CrPCmitigating circumstancesremissionjail manualprobation release
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Peshawar High Court through a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by an octogenarian prisoner seeking the concurrent running of his sentences, the grant of the benefit under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and remission of his remaining imprisonment due to old age and infirmity. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court in its constitutional or inherent jurisdiction could order sentences passed in separate trials to run concurrently where previous appellate orders omitted such directions, and how executive remission and probation laws apply to aged, bedridden convicts. The Court held that in the absence of aggravating circumstances and in light of mitigating factors, sentences from different trials can be ordered to run concurrently to prevent miscarriage of justice, and extended the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. The key principle laid down is that courts take a charitable view in matters affecting life and liberty, and technicalities should not bar substantial justice in extreme hardship cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can order sentences in two different trials to run concurrently in exercise of its constitutional or inherent jurisdiction when the appellate court omitted to do so?
  • Can the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be extended to a convict retrospectively to prevent hardship?
  • What is the scope of executive authorities under the Jail Manual and relevant statutes to consider the release of old, infirm, and bedridden prisoners who have completed substantial terms of imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad & another vs The State2020 SHC 1254 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeFIR delayprohibitory clausefurther inquirymala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were accused of dishonestly issuing a cheque that subsequently bounced, leading to the registration of a criminal case. The applicants, having been denied pre-arrest bail by the trial court, approached the High Court under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically regarding the delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the alleged offence. The High Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of over two months and that the underlying dispute appeared to be civil in nature, concerning the sale and purchase of land. Furthermore, the court noted that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry and mala fide, confirming the interim bail previously granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted on the grounds of further inquiry and mala fide in a case involving a dishonoured cheque?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Mast Khan & others vs Israr & others2021 CLC 776, 2020 PHC 450 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan vs The State2020 YLR 1919 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-29
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirycriminal procedurebail applicationrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Gul Hassan, who is accused in FIR No. 61 of 2019 for offenses under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The applicant sought bail after his initial application was rejected by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail under the principle of 'further inquiry' as per Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given the allegations of murder and the evidence presented. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, noting that the FIR was lodged with promptitude, the applicant was specifically nominated, a weapon was recovered at his pointation, and eyewitnesses and medical evidence supported the prosecution's case. The Court affirmed the principle that the mere possibility of further inquiry, which exists in almost every criminal case, does not automatically entitle an accused to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly when prima facie evidence links the accused to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possibility of further inquiry in a criminal case automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail where there is prompt FIR registration, specific nomination, and supporting medical and eyewitness evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 698 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-19Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan and another vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1558 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-01
  post-arrest bailhardship bailtrial delayunlawful assemblyexpeditious trialcommon object
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from a case registered against the applicants for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly and assaulting the complainant and a prosecution witness with the intent to commit murder, alongside acts of humiliation. The applicants sought post-arrest bail from the High Court after their previous application was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail on the grounds of hardship due to the trial court's failure to conclude the proceedings within the three-month timeframe previously directed by the High Court. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the delay in trial was attributable to the applicants' own requests for adjournments to pursue a compromise. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a failure to conclude a trial within a specified period does not automatically entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that non-compliance with directions for expeditious trial disposal does not constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail, particularly when the delay is not solely attributable to the prosecution or the court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to conclude a trial within a time-bound direction from the High Court automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can an accused claim bail on the ground of hardship when the delay in trial is caused by their own requests for adjournments?
  • Is non-compliance with a High Court direction to conclude a trial within a specified time a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Baz Khan vs Muhammad Kamran2021 CLC 538, 2020 LHC 1696 · Lahore High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
• Gul Asif vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 1358 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-06
  criminal revisionframing of chargedeletion of offencespolice reporttrial court jurisdictionprosecution agency powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Talagang, which deleted specific offences (sections 367-A, 377, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860) from a case and transferred the remaining matter to a Judicial Magistrate. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction by unilaterally deleting these offences during the pre-charge stage, despite the police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 including them based on witness statements. The High Court held that the trial court erred by ignoring the material available on record, specifically the FIR and statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which established a prima facie case for the deleted offences. The Court emphasized that under section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the trial court must frame charges based on the police report and prosecution documents, not by arbitrarily deleting offences. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the power to add or delete offences lies with the Prosecution Agency under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act 2006, not the trial court at that stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the authority to unilaterally delete offences from a police report before framing a charge?
  • What material must a trial court consider when determining whether to frame a charge under section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Which authority possesses the power to add or delete offences from a case before the submission of the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Greesh Kumar and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and others2020 YLR 1053 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Secretary Special Education2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-04-09
  service mattersubstitute appointmentmerit listpublic service commissionconstitutional petitionexecutive discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against an order of the Lahore High Court whereby a constitutional petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the appellants were directed to issue an appointment letter to him as Junior Special Educator. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of Regulations 59 and 62 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016, specifically whether a candidate lower on the merit list acquires an automatic right to appointment as a substitute when selected candidates fail to join, in the absence of a requisition from the department. The Supreme Court held that the obligation to recommend a substitute candidate under the Regulations is strictly conditional upon a request being made by the concerned department. Since no such request was made, no vested right accrued to the respondent. Furthermore, the High Court erred in interfering with executive functions in the absence of mala fides and without considering settled legal principles. The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate on the merit list acquires an automatic right to appointment as a substitute when a selected candidate fails to join?
  • Is the recommendation of a substitute candidate by the Public Service Commission conditional upon a request from the concerned department under the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016?
  • Can the High Court interfere with the executive functions of a hiring department regarding the decision to re-advertise posts instead of requesting a substitute in the absence of mala fides?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Secretary Special Education2020 SCP 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-04-09
  service lawpublic service commissionmerit listsubstitute appointmentjudicial reviewexecutive discretionrecruitment process
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the appointment of a candidate to the post of Junior Special Educator. The respondent, who was not initially recommended for appointment based on his merit position, sought appointment after two higher-ranked candidates failed to join. The Lahore High Court allowed his petition, directing the appellants to issue an appointment letter, relying on Regulations 59 and 62 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order. The Court held that Regulation 59 explicitly conditions the provision of a substitute candidate on a request being made by the concerned department. As no such request was made, no right to appointment vested in the respondent. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the High Court erred in interfering with executive functions without evidence of mala fides, particularly when the department had initiated a fresh recruitment process. The judgment reaffirms the principle that courts should not override administrative discretion in recruitment matters absent clear legal entitlement or proof of illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate on a merit list have an automatic right to be appointed as a substitute if a selected candidate fails to join?
  • Is the provision of a substitute candidate under Regulation 59 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations 2016 conditional upon a request from the hiring department?
  • Can a High Court interfere with the executive function of recruitment in the absence of demonstrated mala fides?
  Read full judgment →
• Government Of The Punjab through Secretary Special Education2020 PLC (C. S. ) 753, 2021 PLJ SC 136, 2020 P SC 1127, 2020 SCP 82, 2020 SCMR 976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-04-09
  service lawrecruitment processmerit listsubstitute appointmentjudicial reviewexecutive discretionpublic service commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Lahore High Court order directing the appointment of the respondent as a Junior Special Educator. The core legal question was whether the respondent, who was not initially recommended for appointment, acquired a vested right to be appointed as a substitute when two selected candidates failed to join, based on the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the Regulations. The Court clarified that under Regulation 59, the provision of a substitute from the merit list is conditional upon a formal request from the concerned department, which was absent in this case. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the High Court improperly interfered with executive functions without evidence of mala fides, and failed to consider established precedents regarding recruitment processes. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the respondent's writ petition, affirming that no automatic right to appointment arises in the absence of a departmental request for a substitute.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate on a merit list acquire an automatic vested right to appointment if a selected candidate fails to join?
  • Is the recommendation of a substitute candidate under the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations 2016 conditional upon a request from the hiring department?
  • Can a High Court interfere with the executive function of recruitment in the absence of demonstrated mala fides?
  Read full judgment →