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.

• Fida Hussain vs Sana Ullah Abbasi and 7 others2020 YLR 1413 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-08-06Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain vs Director Nadra, Islamabad and 2 others2020 YLR 2266 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-03-02Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Multan etc2020 PLJ Lahore 238 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
• Feroze Sajan and 3 others vs Farzana Sajan2021 PLD Sindh 88, 2020 SHC 300 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-20Read full judgment →
• Feroz Shah vs The Secretary Education Department, Government of Balochistan Civil Secretariat Quetta and others2021 PLJ Quetta 130, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 109 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-23
  public appointmentrecruitment processadvertised vacancywrit jurisdictionfundamental rightsservice mattermerit list
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the non-appointment of the petitioner to a Class-IV post in the Education Department, Balochistan, despite his inclusion in an initial merit list. The petitioner contended that his exclusion from subsequent lists was based on political influence and nepotism, asserting a legal right to appointment based on his performance in the recruitment process. The core legal question was whether a candidate can claim a right to appointment for a post that was never advertised or sanctioned. The court observed that the advertisement published by the department did not include the post of 'Watchman' for which the petitioner had applied. Relying on the principle established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Director, Social Welfare, N.W.F.P. v. Sadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 1349), the court held that public appointments must be made against advertised, sanctioned vacancies to ensure transparency and compliance with fundamental rights. Since the post in question was not advertised, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that no direction for appointment could be issued in the absence of a properly advertised vacancy.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate claim a right to appointment for a post that was not included in the official recruitment advertisement?
  • Is it permissible for public authorities to make appointments to posts without publicly and properly advertising the vacancies?
  • Does the court have the authority to direct the appointment of a candidate to a position that lacks a clear sanctioned vacancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Feroz Ali Gaba vs Karachi Fisheries Harbour Authority and 2 others2020 YLR 1993 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-08Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice2020 PLC (C.S.) 915, 2020 P SC 1362, 2020 SCMR 1154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-05-11
  probationertermination of serviceunauthorized absenceFederal Service Tribunalextra ordinary leavedepartmental inquirytermination simpliciter
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had reinstated a probationer whose services were terminated due to unauthorized absence. The core legal questions were whether the treatment of an employee's absence as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) precludes termination of a probationer, and whether a regular departmental inquiry is mandatory when the fact of absence is admitted. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's decision was legally infirm and set it aside, restoring the termination order. The Court observed that the respondent had engaged in deceptive conduct by submitting a fake courier receipt regarding his departmental appeal. Regarding the legal principles, the Court clarified that treating an absence period as EOL does not immunize an employee from termination. Furthermore, the Court established that a regular departmental inquiry is unnecessary when the underlying facts—in this case, the unauthorized absence of a probationer—are admitted and undisputed. Consequently, the termination of the probationer was upheld as a termination simpliciter.

  Questions settled

  • Does the treatment of an employee's period of absence as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) prevent the employer from terminating the employee's services?
  • Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory when the fact of an employee's absence is admitted and undisputed?
  • Can a probationer be terminated without a regular inquiry if the grounds for termination are admitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Energy (Power Division), Islamabad and others vs Shafiq Ul Hassan and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 292, 2020 SCMR 2119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-02
  interim reliefwrit jurisdictionmaintainabilitynon-statutory service rulesCompanies Acttransfer policytemporary appointee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court, which suspended the transfer of a temporary Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of FESCO. The core legal questions were whether a writ petition is maintainable by an employee of a company governed by non-statutory service rules, and whether the Federal Government possesses the authority to remove a temporary appointee under the Companies Act, 2017. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's interim order, which effectively granted permanent relief without hearing the Federal Government or concerned authorities, violated established judicial principles regarding the grant of interim relief. The Court held that while it generally avoids interfering with interim orders, such intervention is warranted in cases of serious legal violations or wrongful exercise of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that granting interim relief with the effect of permanence without hearing the opposing party is contrary to settled law. Consequently, the Court directed the High Court to expedite the final decision of the pending writ petition, ensuring the matter is heard by the appropriate bench.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable by an employee of a company where the service rules are non-statutory in character?
  • Does the Federal Government have the power to remove a temporary Chief Executive Officer of a company under the Companies Act, 2017?
  • Is it permissible for a court to grant interim relief that has the effect of permanence without hearing the opposing party?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through Chairman FBR and others vs Saleem2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 350, 2020 P C T L R 1096, 2020 P SC 1014, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-02-04
  fiscal statutepresumption of constitutionalityjudicial deferencecustoms dutydiscriminationclassification of goodsused goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that declared an amendment to the proviso of Section 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, unconstitutional on the grounds of discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution. The amendment had restricted the option for pre-declaration examination of imported goods to importers of 'used goods' only, requiring permission from an Additional Collector of Customs. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its application of the doctrine of discrimination. The Court emphasized the principle of presumption of constitutionality, particularly regarding fiscal statutes, and the doctrine of judicial deference to economic policy. It determined that the classification between 'used goods' and other goods was reasonable, as used goods often arrive in lots with uncertain specifications, making accurate declaration difficult. The Court ruled that the legislature had a valid objective in providing this safeguard to importers of used goods to facilitate accurate duty assessment. Consequently, the High Court's decision was set aside, affirming that the amendment was not discriminatory and served a rational purpose within the Act's framework.

  Questions settled

  • Is a fiscal statute subject to the presumption of constitutionality?
  • Does the classification of 'used goods' versus other goods in the Customs Act, 1969 violate the principle of non-discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can a court strike down a fiscal amendment solely because the Budget Instructions failed to provide specific reasons for the change?
  Read full judgment →
• Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation vs Javaid Iqbal and others2020 YLR 2306 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
• Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad2020 PLC (C.S.) 386, 2020 PSC 544, 2020 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-20
  date of birth correctioneducational certificateconcurrent findingsNADRA recordcivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arose from concurrent findings of three courts below which decreed the respondent student's suit for declaration seeking correction of her date of birth in her Intermediate Secondary Education Certificate from 17.08.1992 to 17.08.1994. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings allowing the correction of date of birth based on unimpeachable documentary evidence such as NADRA records, CNIC, and birth certificates warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while changes in date of birth are generally discouraged to prevent undue advantage in service or admissions, the correction was justified in this exceptional case to align with official family records, prevent anomalies where an elder brother would appear to be born four months after the respondent, and avoid future inheritance disputes. The key principle laid down is that courts may permit the correction of a date of birth in educational certificates in exceptional circumstances supported by unrebutted public documentary evidence where no third-party prejudice or undue professional advantage is involved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of three courts below regarding the correction of a date of birth?
  • Can a date of birth in an educational certificate be corrected on the basis of NADRA records and birth certificates?
  • Does the correction of a date of birth permissible when no public employment advantage or third-party prejudice is involved?
  Read full judgment →
• FBR through Chairman, Islamabad etc vs M/s Wazir Ali and Company etc2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 359, 2020 P C T L R 1410, 2021 PLJ SC 1, 2020 P · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-09
  Income TaxSurchargeTax YearAdvance TaxProportionate LiabilitySplitting of Tax YearFBR CircularStatutory Interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeal by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) challenging the Sindh High Court's judgment, which declared FBR Circular No. 11 of 2011 unlawful. The dispute centered on whether surcharge under Section 4A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 (inserted on 16.03.2011) should be computed on a proportionate allocation of the whole tax year 2011's tax liability, or calculated separately by splitting the tax year and computing tax liability exclusively on the income earned during the 3.5-month period (16.03.2011 to 30.06.2011). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the statutory scheme does not permit the splitting of a twelve-month tax year into distinct accounting periods to compute separate tax liabilities. Surcharge under Section 4A, as modified by Federal Government Notification SRO 977(I)/2011 under Section 53(2), must be computed on the proportionate income tax liability of the whole tax year. The Court ruled that the rule of beneficial interpretation cannot be used to create divergent interpretations for different taxpayers subject to the same statutory charging provision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 permits the splitting of a single tax year into separate accounting periods to determine independent taxable incomes and tax liabilities?
  • Whether the surcharge levied under Section 4A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 for a 3.5-month period must be computed on a proportionate allocation of the entire tax year's income tax liability or solely on the actual income derived during that 3.5-month period?
  • Can the rule of beneficial interpretation be applied to assign different interpretations to a single taxing provision depending on which interpretation benefits a particular class of taxpayers?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ur Rehman vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Home2020 YLR 2232 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-19Read full judgment →
• Fazal Rehman and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 IHC 90 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-14Read full judgment →
• Fazal Mehmood and others vs Arshad Hussain and others2020 CLC 1406, 2020 PHC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-06Read full judgment →
• Fazal Maula vs State2020 P Cr. L J 1524, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 980 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-08
  narcoticschain of custodyforensic analysiscriminal appealacquittalrecovery memosafe custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 4000 grams of charas. The prosecution alleged that the narcotics were recovered from a secret cavity in the appellant's vehicle. Upon review, the Court identified multiple fatal discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including contradictory statements regarding the location of the recovery, the presence of police witnesses, and the timing of the sealing of samples. Crucially, the Court found that the chain of custody for the forensic samples was broken, as there was an unexplained delay and improper handling of the samples before they reached the Forensic Laboratory. Citing the principle that the prosecution must establish an unbroken, secure chain of custody for narcotic samples to sustain a conviction, the Court held that the forensic report could not be relied upon. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted due to the shaky and unreliable nature of the prosecution's evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of custody of narcotic samples vitiate the reliability of a forensic report?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery of narcotics contains material contradictions?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove an unbroken chain of custody for seized narcotics from the point of recovery to the laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Maqsood etc vs Mst. Naseem Begum etc2020 LHC 953 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
• Fazal Maqsood and another vs Mst. Naseem Begum and 3 others2020 CLC 884 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
• Fazal Khan and 2 Others vs Additional Sessions Judge/Model Criminal Trial2020 P Cr. L J 442 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-22
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictionperjuryfalse evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibuscriminal trialwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the quashment of a trial court judgment that, while acquitting the accused in a murder case, simultaneously directed the initiation of proceedings against the prosecution witnesses under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for giving false evidence. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash the trial court's order directing perjury proceedings against the witnesses. The Court held that the trial court's direction was lawful and justified. Relying on the principle that courts must address the prevalence of false testimony, the Court affirmed the application of the rule 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' in criminal trials. It concluded that the trial court acted within its authority to initiate proceedings against witnesses who provided false evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, emphasizing that inherent powers cannot be used to override express statutory provisions or to shield witnesses from the consequences of perjury.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to override express statutory provisions?
  • Is the rule 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' applicable to criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to direct proceedings under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against witnesses for giving false evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain alias Faqeera and others vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 311 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-07
  criminal appealbenefit of doubteye-witness testimonyretracted confessionanti-terrorismmurder convictionidentification paradereasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by an Anti-Terrorism Court for murder and terrorism-related offences. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the reliance on a chance witness, retracted judicial confessions, and extra-judicial confessions. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The court found the eye-witness testimony unreliable due to the witness's relationship with the deceased, unexplained delays in recording statements, and lack of independent corroboration. Furthermore, the court determined that the judicial confession was not voluntary or truthful, and the extra-judicial confessions were inconsequential. Emphasizing the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence, the court ruled that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted, with the court noting the absence of independent witnesses and the failure to recover the murder weapon.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of a single eye-witness who is a police officer related to the deceased without independent corroboration?
  • Is a retracted judicial confession sufficient for conviction if the context suggests it was not made voluntarily or truthfully?
  • Does the failure to recover the alleged murder weapon and the discrepancy in ballistic reports entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can a conviction be based on extra-judicial confessions when the police already had knowledge of the crime scene and the accused were in custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Dad and others vs Allah Dad and others2021 CLC 383, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 109, 2020 PHC 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Hussain and another vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary2021 PLC (C.S.) 163, 2020 SCMR 2166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-17
  deputationpermanent absorptionrepatriationcivil serviceFIAstatutory mandateleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the repatriation of the petitioners from the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to their parent departments. The petitioners, originally police officers, had been transferred to the FIA on deputation and subsequently permanently absorbed. Following a Supreme Court precedent regarding the illegality of such absorptions, the FIA cancelled their absorption and repatriated them. The core legal question was whether the permanent absorption of deputationists into the FIA was legally sustainable and whether the repatriation was lawful. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any statutory provision or regulation authorizing their permanent absorption into the FIA. The Court emphasized that appointments made without statutory mandate are void. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioners' absorption violated established departmental policies and lacked legal basis. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the petitioners were not entitled to relief, as their absorption suffered from a lack of legal authority and was contrary to the principles laid down in previous judicial pronouncements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department permanently absorb deputationists in the absence of a specific statutory provision authorizing such absorption?
  • Does an appointment or absorption made by a committee without statutory mandate suffer from a lack of legal authority?
  • Is the repatriation of a civil servant to their parent department lawful if their initial absorption into the borrowing department was made in violation of applicable rules and regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ahmed vs Rafaqat Ali and others2020 P Cr. L J 42 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28
  criminal acquittal appealrapetheftbenefit of doubtdouble presumption of innocenceappreciation of evidencedelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hub, which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 376, 380, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding allegations of rape and theft. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of evidence, thereby necessitating interference by the appellate court. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the prosecution’s case was riddled with unexplained delays, contradictions between the complainant's and the victim's statements, and a lack of solid corroborative evidence. The court found that the medical evidence was inconclusive and the prosecution failed to establish a consistent narrative connecting the accused to the alleged offences. The key principle laid down is that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence; therefore, an appellate court should not interfere with such an order unless it is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, fanciful, or contrary to the record. The benefit of any doubt in the prosecution's case must accrue to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order of acquittal carry a double presumption of innocence?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR shake the foundation of the prosecution's case?
  • Is the benefit of doubt in a criminal case a matter of right for the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ahmed and another vs Muhammad Khan and othersPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 216, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 470, 2020 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-09-02
  sudden encounterpremeditationheat of passionconversion of sentencecommon intentionsingle blowQatl-i-amd
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeals were preferred before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by two appellants against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had enhanced the conviction of one appellant from Section 302(c) to Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while maintaining the Section 302(b) conviction of the second appellant. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was clasped by one appellant while the other inflicted a fatal stab wound during an encounter at a school ground. The primary legal issue was whether the act constituted intentional premeditated murder under Section 302(b) or fell under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 due to a sudden encounter without premeditation. The Supreme Court observed that the encounter was entirely sudden and unpremeditated, the alleged motive and weapon recovery were discarded, only a single blow was struck without repetition, and no cruel or unusual advantage was taken in the heat of passion. Consequently, the Supreme Court altered both convictions to Section 302(c), PPC, sentencing each appellant to fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence falls under Section 302(c) rather than Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the crime arises from a sudden encounter without premeditation and only a single blow is inflicted in the heat of passion?
  • Can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 develop on the spot during a sudden occurrence?
  • Whether the enhancement of a sentence from Section 302(c) to Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable where the accused acted without taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ahmed and 2 others vs Muhammad Azam2020 PLJ Quetta 93, 2020 YLR 1764 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-06Read full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Ltd vs Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1414 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Limited and another vs Banking Mohtasib and others2020 CLD 548 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-26Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Khan vs Government Of Pakistan through Secretary Aviation Cabinet2020 P SC 675, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-14
  Airport Security ForceSummary Court Martialnarcotics smugglingjurisdictionconstitutional petitionservice dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition assailing the dismissal of the petitioner, a Corporal/Guard in the Airport Security Force, who was tried and convicted by a Summary Court Martial for facilitating a drug smuggler to board an international flight with heroin. The petitioner challenged his dismissal and the subsequent upholding of the same by the Peshawar High Court via a constitutional petition. The core legal questions involve whether an Airport Security Force personnel is subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and whether a Summary Court Martial has the jurisdiction to try such a civilian-force member for misconduct related to narcotics smuggling. The Supreme Court held that by virtue of Section 7-A of the Airport Security Force Act, 1975, members of the force are subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and thus competently tried by a military tribunal. The Court laid down the principle that findings of a properly constituted Summary Court Martial cannot be upset unless shown to be without jurisdiction, coram non judice, or mala fide, and that CCTV footage and direct involvement in facilitating narcotics trafficking constitute sufficient preponderance of evidence to establish culpability. Leave to appeal was accordingly declined.

  Questions settled

  • Whether members of the Airport Security Force are subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
  • Does a Summary Court Martial have jurisdiction to try an Airport Security Force personnel for facilitating narcotics smuggling?
  • Under what circumstances can the findings of a Summary Court Martial be interfered with by a superior court?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Ali Lakhair and others vs The State2020 SHC 1230 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  pre-arrest bailrule of consistencyprohibitory clausedelay in FIRcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through a bail application filed by the applicants seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of unexplained delay in the First Information Report, application of the rule of consistency vis-a-vis co-accused who were already granted bail, and whether the alleged offences fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the inordinate delay, admitted enmity, and the principle of consistency entitled the applicants to pre-arrest bail, particularly since the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497. The key principles laid down include the application of the rule of consistency in granting bail when co-accused with identical roles have been granted relief, and that bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule while refusal is an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report constitutes a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused facing identical allegations have already been granted pre-arrest bail?
  • Is bail to be granted as a rule and refused as an exception in offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Fawad Yusuf Securities (Pvt.) Ltd vs Commissioner, Securities Market2020 CLD 614 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2020-01-10Read full judgment →
• Fawad Hassan Fawad vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry2020 PLJ Lahore 346 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-21Read full judgment →
• Fawad Hassan Fawad vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2020 P Cr. L J 1438 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-21
  post-arrest bailaccountability referenceassets disproportionate to known sources of incomebenami propertiesdelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner Fawad Hassan Fawad sought his release on bail in Accountability Reference No.21 of 2019, having been arrested by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) during an inquiry on allegations of acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, benami transactions, and maintaining multiple bank accounts. The core legal questions revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established a prima facie nexus between the petitioner and the alleged assets or companies owned by his relatives, and whether the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner without trial progress warranted the grant of bail. The Lahore High Court held that the NAB failed to substantiate the grounds of arrest, bring on record cogent evidence linking the petitioner to the properties or companies, or progress the trial even to the framing of charges over a period of one year and seven months. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was admitted to bail, laying down the principle that an accused cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely when the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie connection to alleged assets and where the trial faces protracted delays.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be kept behind bars indefinitely when the trial makes no progress and charges are not framed?
  • Does the National Accountability Bureau have to establish a prima facie nexus between the accused and assets held by family members?
  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the prosecution fails to substantiate the initial grounds of arrest in the reference?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Sports Wear Ltd & Ors vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd2020 SHC 814 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07Read full judgment →
• Fateh Sher vs The State2021 P S c (Crl.) 127, 2020 SCMR 1004 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-04-29
  criminal appealhomicideprivate complaintreappraisal of evidenceidentification in night-timeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court whereby the petitioner's death sentence under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for a homicide case tried through a private complaint, was altered to imprisonment for life. The core legal question involves the sustainability of the conviction given the wholesale failure of the prosecution case against the co-accused who were assigned identical roles, doubts regarding the identity of assailants during a night-time occurrence, an unanticipated encounter, and an inconsequential forensic report. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine these contentions, holding that the circumstances warrant a thorough reappraisal of the evidence to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution case fails against the majority of co-accused assigned identical roles and identification in a night-time occurrence is doubtful, the evidence requires reappraisal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conviction for homicide sustain when the prosecution case fails against the majority of co-accused assigned identical roles?
  • Is a reappraisal of evidence warranted in a night-time occurrence involving an unanticipated encounter and doubtful identity of assailants?
  • Whether inconsistencies between the crime report and a supplementary statement affect the reliability of eyewitness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan vs The State, etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 692, 2020 PHC 380 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-08-07Read full judgment →
• Farzana Shafique vs Federation of Pakistan and 02 others2020 SHC 986 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-17Read full judgment →
• Farzana Akram etc vs Naseem Akhtar etc2020 PLJ Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-02Read full judgment →
• Faruqi House Building Coporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs M. Sohail Shakil2020 YLR 2166 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Tufail vs The State2020 SHC 1276 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-09Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Nawaz Bhatti vs Prime Minister of Pakistan, Prime Minister’s Office, Islamabad and others2020 IHC 166 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Farooq vs Musavir Ahmed and 3 others2020 P Cr. L J 328 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-01
  criminal acquittal appealpresumption of double innocenceidentification paradeforensic evidencebenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencemurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt to warrant setting aside the acquittal. The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable case. The Court emphasized that an appeal against acquittal carries a presumption of double innocence, requiring clear proof that the trial court's decision was perverse or arbitrary to justify interference. The judgment highlighted several fatal flaws in the prosecution's case: an inordinate delay in holding the identification parade, failure to properly document the identification process (omitting details of dummies), unexplained delay in sending crime weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and significant improvements and contradictions in the testimonies of eye-witnesses. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that failure to send blood-stained earth and victim's clothing alongside crime weapons for serological analysis renders forensic reports inconclusive as corroboratory evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending crime weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory destroy the evidential value of the recovery?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to record the particulars of dummies used during an identification parade?
  • Can an acquittal be set aside if the prosecution fails to send blood-stained earth and victim's clothing alongside crime weapons for serological analysis?
  • What is the standard of interference required by an appellate court when reviewing an order of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Khan and another vs The State and another2020 YLR 292 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-03
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal procedurebail principleshurt offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 73/2019, involving charges under Sections 324, 148, 149, 337-D, and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were accused of inflicting knife injuries on the complainant and an injured party. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries and the statutory punishment prescribed. The Court observed that the injuries attributed to the petitioners were ultimately categorized under Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the petitioners' further detention would serve no useful purpose as the investigation was complete and the petitioners were not repeat offenders, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The judgment reaffirms the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly when the alleged offences do not attract the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence punishable by a maximum of three years fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is bail appropriate when the investigation is complete and the accused's further detention serves no useful purpose?
  • Does the absence of a repeat offence influence the grant of bail in cases involving hurt?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Hussain, etc vs Sheikh Aftab Ahmad, etc2020 PLD Supreme Court 617, 2020 P SC 1359, 2020 SCP 158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-18
  Supreme Court reviewcivil review petitionjudgment writingfair trialdue processcase managementshort order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil review petitions filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking review of an earlier order dated 01.08.2019, whereby leave to appeal was declined. The core legal question addressed is whether the Supreme Court is legally obligated to write elaborate and detailed reasons when dismissing a leave petition and endorsing the well-reasoned judgment of a lower court, or if a concise order adopting the lower court's reasoning satisfies due process and fair trial requirements under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court held that when the Court is satisfied with the reasoning of the impugned judgment and declines interference, it can simply endorse and adopt the reasoning of the court below through a concise order without re-tracing the same path, and such practice does not violate the right to a fair trial or due process. The key principle laid down is that concise orders adopting lower court judgments in affirmed matters constitute efficient case management and valid judicial practice, avoiding unnecessary waste of public time.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court is required to write detailed reasons when dismissing a leave petition and upholding the judgment of the lower court?
  • Does the adoption of a lower court's reasoning through a concise dismissal order violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a civil review petition be maintained merely on the ground that the order under review is brief and lacks extensive independent reasoning?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Hussain vs The State etc2020 LHC 1449 · Lahore High Court · 2020-05-20
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealacquittal of co-accusedlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This miscellaneous application was filed by the appellant, Farooq Hussain, seeking the suspension of his sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court for the murder of Imran Khan. The core legal question was whether the appellant had made out a case for the suspension of his sentence pending the final disposal of his criminal appeal, given the evidentiary inconsistencies in the trial court's judgment. The Lahore High Court observed that while the appellant was convicted for the murder of Imran Khan, the prosecution's own case attributed the fatal injuries to other co-accused persons who had been acquitted. Furthermore, the court noted that no motive was established against the appellant, and the legal heirs of the other deceased victim had entered into a compromise. Holding that the conviction required a thorough reappraisal of evidence, the Court allowed the application, suspended the execution of the sentence, and granted bail to the appellant pending the final decision of the main appeal, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Can the execution of a sentence be suspended pending the final disposal of a criminal appeal when the conviction requires a reappraisal of evidence?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused persons to whom the fatal injuries were attributed provide grounds for the suspension of a sentence for the remaining accused?
  • Is the absence of an established motive a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding on the suspension of a sentence pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmad vs The State2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 53, 2020 PLD Supreme Court 313, 2020 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-05-12
  rapeDNA testingretrospective applicationsentencingcriminal appealevidencestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a conviction for rape under Section 376(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern whether DNA testing is a mandatory requirement to sustain a rape conviction and whether the High Court erred in imposing a sentence of 'imprisonment for life' for an offense committed before the 2016 legislative amendment. The Supreme Court maintained the conviction, holding that the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible victim testimony and medical evidence. It affirmed that DNA testing is not a mandatory legal requirement for proving rape. However, the Court granted leave to appeal regarding the sentence, ruling that the High Court incorrectly applied the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences Relating to Rape) Act, 2016, retrospectively. The Court established that penal enhancements cannot be applied to crimes committed before their enactment, necessitating a review of the sentence to align with the law as it stood at the time of the offense.

  Questions settled

  • Is DNA testing a mandatory requirement of law to sustain a conviction for rape?
  • Can the enhanced sentencing provisions introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences Relating to Rape) Act, 2016 be applied retrospectively to crimes committed before its enactment?
  • Does the omission of scientific DNA testing materially affect the prosecution's case when other evidence is sufficient to establish guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmad vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1693 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-25
  criminal appealcontrol of narcotic substancessafe custodychain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtacquittalnarcotics recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal assailed the trial court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment following the alleged recovery of 260 grams of charas. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of safe custody for the seized contraband and sample parcels to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, finding fatal contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. Specifically, the Moharrar and designated constable testified that the sample parcel was handed over for transmission to the Chemical Examiner on September 8, 2009, whereas the Chemical Examiner's report reflected receipt of the parcel on September 7, 2009, delivered by an entirely different constable. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish who held the custody of the seized substance between the complainant and the investigating officer before deposit in the Malkhana. The court held that failure to prove safe custody and link the chemical report to the seized drug creates a reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 can be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of safe custody for the seized narcotics?
  • Does a discrepancy between the testified transmission date of a sample parcel and the receipt date shown in the Chemical Examiner's report entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can a report of the Chemical Examiner be relied upon when the person who delivered the sample parcel to the laboratory differs from the witness produced by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq @ Farooqi etc vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1277 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-14
  joint identification paradebenefit of doubtcapital punishmentforensic evidencecriminal appealmurder convictionmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentences awarded by the trial court for murder, robbery, and arms offenses. The core legal questions concerned the validity of a joint identification parade for non-nominated accused and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain convictions. The Court held that the conviction of the appellant caught red-handed was maintained, though his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment due to the absence of specific injury attribution and a lack of forensic matching between the recovered weapon and crime empties. Conversely, the Court acquitted the other two appellants, holding that the identification parade was legally defective because it involved identifying multiple suspects in a single proceeding, a practice consistently disapproved by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that where identification procedures are flawed and recoveries are inconclusive, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. The judgment reinforces the principle that joint identification parades are inadmissible and that forensic evidence is critical in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Is a joint identification parade, where multiple accused are identified in one go, legally admissible?
  • Does the lack of a forensic match between a recovered weapon and crime empties constitute a mitigating circumstance for a death sentence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained against non-nominated accused solely on the basis of a joint identification parade?
  Read full judgment →
• Farnaz Ahmed vs Faysal Bank Limited2020 SHC 1204 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-23Read full judgment →
• Farman Ullah vs The State through Additional Advocate General and anotherPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 1, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 1011, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 1011, 2020 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-13
  post-arrest baildelay in FIRfurther inquirysudden altercationstone peltingconstitutional right to liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 337-A(v)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delay in lodging the FIR, the sudden nature of the altercation involving stone pelting from both factions, and the delayed reporting to the police despite the victim's discharge from the hospital. The Supreme Court held that the cumulative effect of the un-explained delay in reporting, the suddenness of the occurrence without pre-planning, the use of a stone rather than a conventional weapon during mutual pelting, and the belated recovery from an open place brings the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appeal was allowed and post-arrest bail was granted, reaffirming the principle that a person's liberty is a precious constitutional right and that attending circumstances must be weighed alongside the severity of injuries when considering bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging an FIR and reporting to the police can be a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Does an occurrence resulting from a sudden scuffle involving mutual stone pelting without pre-planning fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the recovery of an alleged weapon of offense from an open place after a significant lapse of time creates a dent in the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Farman Ali vs Sani Gul and another2020 MLD 1284 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-10
  criminal appealmurderappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubtfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusadverse inferencerecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant contradictions in the evidence regarding the place of occurrence, the arrest of the accused, and the recovery of the weapon. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies: the complainant's narrative was contradicted by independent witnesses and the physical evidence, the recovery of the weapon was disputed by police witnesses, and the prosecution failed to produce natural witnesses present at the scene. Consequently, the Court found the prosecution's evidence unreliable and insufficient to sustain a conviction. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case through consistent, credible evidence, and any significant doubt arising from contradictions or the withholding of best evidence—such as failing to examine natural witnesses—must be resolved in favor of the accused, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine natural witnesses at the scene of the crime warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence regarding the place of occurrence and the recovery of the weapon is internally contradictory?
  • Is the practice of handing over the FIR and murasila to the Investigating Officer at the spot of occurrence contrary to the fundamental principles of criminal justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Farman Ali and another vs The State and another2020 P SC (Crl.) 646, 2020 SCMR 597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-09-25
  Criminal appealMurder convictionLeave to appealOcular evidenceMedical evidenceAbscondenceAppreciation of evidenceWitness reliabilityQanun-e-Shahadat OrderSpecific injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the petitioners' conviction and life sentence under Section 302(b) PPC for murder. The petitioners challenged their conviction, arguing contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the prosecution's failure to examine a witness (invoking Section 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order), non-dispatch of empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and non-attribution of specific injuries. The Court dismissed the petitions, declining leave to appeal. It held that prompt reporting and postmortem exclude the possibility of deliberation, and a consistent ocular account from reliable witnesses, even if related, is sufficient. The Court further ruled that non-attribution of specific injuries is not fatal when multiple assailants fire, abscondence corroborates the prosecution's case, and non-dispatch of empties is not fatal if no weapon is recovered. The prosecution has the prerogative to produce witnesses of its choice, emphasizing quality over quantity of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the statement of a solitary eye-witness if found truthful and reliable?
  • Is non-dispatching of empties to a firearm expert fatal to the prosecution case when no weapon is recovered during investigation?
  • Is non-examination of a particular prosecution witness fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does prompt reporting of an occurrence and postmortem exclude the possibility of consultation or deliberation on the part of the prosecution?
  • Is it necessary for eye-witnesses to specify injuries caused by each assailant when multiple persons fire upon one victim?
  Read full judgment →
• Farjan Khan vs Kamran Khan and others2020 PHC 386, 2021 PLD Peshawar 29, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 131 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
• Farhan Zaib vs Govt of KPK& others2020 PLC (C.S) 1574, 2020 PHC 244 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-03
  repatriationdeputationparent departmentborrowing departmentvested rightconstitutional petitionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court via a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by the petitioner challenging his repatriation from the Local Council Board back to his parent department, the Galiyat Development Authority. The core legal question revolves around whether a deputationist whose services were placed at the disposal of a borrowing department can claim permanent absorption or a vested right to continue serving in the borrowing department indefinitely, and whether repatriation to the parent department is unlawful. The court held that a deputationist has no vested right to serve the entire period of deputation and can be repatriated to their parent department at any time by the competent authority, and that services cannot be deemed absorbed without explicit lawful orders. The key principle laid down is that deputation is a temporary arrangement and a borrowing department is under no obligation to retain a deputationist, whose repatriation to the parent department causes no legal prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a deputationist has a legal or vested right to serve the entire period of deputation in the borrowing department?
  • Can an employee on deputation be deemed to have been permanently absorbed in the borrowing department without express orders?
  • Whether an order of repatriation of a deputationist to their parent department can be challenged when the borrowing department no longer requires their services?
  Read full judgment →
• Farhan Aslam and others vs Mst. Nuzba Shaheen and another2021 P SC 149, 2021 SCMR 179, 2020 SCP 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-27
  InheritanceGiftShariahWomen's rightsProperty rightsBurden of proofPublic policyOrphans
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition against concurrent findings of lower courts that rejected an alleged gift of land, which had effectively disinherited the widow and daughter of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as alleged donees, had sufficiently established the validity of the gift to defeat the inheritance rights of the respondents. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the beneficiaries of a gift bear the strict burden of proof to establish it, which the petitioners failed to discharge. The Court affirmed that depriving female heirs of their inheritance through fictitious gifts is a social evil, contrary to Shariah, and against public policy. The judgment laid down the principle that courts and state authorities must act expeditiously to protect the inheritance rights of widows and orphans, emphasizing that such rights are safeguarded by the Constitution and that any attempt to deprive female heirs of their legal entitlement is void as being against public policy.

  Questions settled

  • Who bears the burden of proof when a gift is alleged to deprive legal heirs of their inheritance?
  • Is the deprivation of female heirs of their inheritance contrary to public policy?
  • What is the duty of revenue authorities regarding purported gifts that disinherit female family members?
  Read full judgment →
• Farhad Ali son of Muhammad Siddique, Multan vs Additional Director, Intelligence & Investi- gation-FBR, Range Office, Multan and an othersPTCL 2020 CL. 219 · Customs Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Farhad Alam vs The State2020 YLR 1474 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-11-21
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailappellate delayremission of sentenceconcurrent sentencescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of sentences and release on bail pending appeal. The petitioner, convicted and sentenced by the trial court to five years simple imprisonment under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with shorter concurrent sentences under Sections 459 and 506(II), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, argued that he had already served a major portion of his sentence and that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail given the duration of the sentence served and the delay in the appellate process. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he had served a significant portion of his sentence and that, when accounting for statutory remissions, he had effectively served nearly the entire term. The Court affirmed that where an appeal is unlikely to be heard promptly and a substantial portion of the sentence has been served, suspension of sentence is appropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a convict be released on bail pending appeal if they have served a major portion of their sentence?
  • Does the calculation of served sentence for bail purposes include remissions granted by the President and under the Jail Manual?
  • Is the suspension of a sentence under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justified when the appellate court is unlikely to hear the appeal in the near future?
  Read full judgment →
• Faraz Memon vs The State2020 SHC 738, 2022 MLD 657 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-31Read full judgment →
• Faraz Ahmed Baloch and another vs The State2020 YLR 2388 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-21
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtbank fraudhandwriting expertembezzlementforgeryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of two bank employees, Faraz Ahmed Baloch and Shafiq Ahmed Abro, for offences under sections 409, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, related to the fraudulent withdrawal of funds from a customer's account. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the systemic failure of bank security protocols, the sharing of passwords/IDs among staff, and the failure of the investigation to verify the signature of the Operations Manager on the disputed cheque. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between the appellants and the alleged fraud. It noted that the Operations Manager, who supervised the transaction, had admitted to sharing his ID and was later terminated, and the investigation failed to send the disputed signature to a handwriting expert. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, ruling that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. The key principle reaffirmed is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to send a disputed signature to a handwriting expert create reasonable doubt in a criminal trial?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish a direct link between the accused and the commission of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Shah and others vs Mst Bakhat Bibi and others2021 YLR 803, 2020 PHC 412 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-22Read full judgment →
• Fakhr ud Din and 34 others vs Govt. of KPK through Secretary2021 PLC (C.S.) 632, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 8, 2020 PHC 500 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-01
  writ jurisdictionlachesdelayequitable reliefservice matterdisputed questions of facttermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by thirty-five petitioners seeking the declaration of their termination notifications as illegal and requesting reinstatement into service. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners were entitled to reinstatement despite significant delays in filing the petition and whether the High Court could resolve disputed questions of fact regarding their employment status and termination. The Court held that the petition was unsustainable, noting that the record contradicted the petitioners' claims regarding their job designations and that the petitioners had failed to substantiate their alleged reinstatement. Crucially, the Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of laches, observing that the petitioners had waited approximately six years after their termination in 2013 to seek relief. The Court affirmed the principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and equitable, and it cannot be invoked by those who sleep on their rights. Furthermore, the Court held that constitutional jurisdiction is inappropriate for resolving complex, disputed questions of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of laches bar a constitutional petition filed several years after the cause of action arose?
  • Can the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding employment and termination?
  • Is a party who fails to act with diligence entitled to equitable relief under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Fakhar-Ud-Din Butt (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others vs Manzoor Baqai2020 P SC 1354, 2020 SCMR 1065 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-05-29
  property disputePermanent Transfer Deedforged documentsnecessary partiesleave to appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment affirming a decree for declaration and permanent injunction in a property dispute. The core legal questions were whether the lower courts erred in declaring the petitioners' Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) as forged and bogus, and whether the failure to implead the Government of Punjab and the Settlement Department as parties was a fatal defect. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence, noting that official witnesses from the Board of Revenue and Settlement Department testified that the petitioners' documents were fabricated, contained interpolations, and lacked record support. Furthermore, the Court held that the Government and Settlement Department were not necessary parties as no relief was sought against them. The Court concluded that the findings of the lower fora were based on a sound appreciation of evidence, free from any misreading or non-reading of the record, and thus refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the petitioners' case.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Government or the Settlement Department a necessary party in a suit for declaration of title where no relief is sought against them?
  • Can a court rely on the testimony of departmental functionaries to determine the authenticity of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
  • Does the failure to challenge the cancellation of a document before the relevant administrative department preclude a party from asserting its validity in civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ur Rehman Alvi vs Additional District Judge, Burewala and others2020 YLR 2143 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-11Read full judgment →
• Faiz Rasool vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 1598 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-09
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseforgerydocumentary evidencefurther inquirypublic servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by a petitioner accused of fabricating official documents to secure a job transfer. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the statutory classification of the alleged offences. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution's case relied on presumptions rather than direct evidence linking the petitioner to the forgery. The court observed that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the prosecution had already secured the relevant documentary evidence, eliminating the risk of tampering. The court reaffirmed the principle that in non-bailable offences punishable by less than ten years' imprisonment, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, applicable unless there are exceptional circumstances such as a risk of abscondence, evidence tampering, or a history of criminal convictions, none of which were established in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of bail become the rule in non-bailable offences punishable by less than ten years' imprisonment?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of being a beneficiary of a forged document without direct evidence of their involvement in the forgery?
  • Does the fact that the prosecution has already collected all relevant documentary evidence mitigate the risk of evidence tampering for the purpose of a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs Federation of Pakistan & another2020 SHC 1306 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-11Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmed vs Mst. Soni and 2 others2020 CLC 148 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-30
  maintenanceunmarried daughterconstitutional petitionpleadingsfamily lawconcurrent findingswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition challenging concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts whereby a family suit for maintenance filed by the respondent wife against the petitioner was partly decreed, granting past maintenance to the wife and past and future maintenance to the unmarried daughter, alongside an annual increase. The core legal question was whether the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts regarding maintenance and the rejection of an unpleaded plea of divorce warranted interference under constitutional jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence by two courts below cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction, reiterating that parties are strictly bound by their pleadings and cannot adduce evidence or raise contentions beyond them. The High Court established the principle that a husband and father is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife and his unmarried daughter until her marriage, and that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate forum to re-agitate disputed questions of fact, particularly when the petitioner's conduct is mala fide and contumacious.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by family courts regarding maintenance can be disturbed in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Is a party allowed to adduce evidence or raise a contention regarding a plea not specifically taken in the pleadings?
  • What is the extent of a father's legal obligation to provide maintenance to his daughter under the law?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction be converted into an appellate forum to re-agitate disputed questions of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal vs The State2020 SHC 1376 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
• Faisal vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 971 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-01
  pre-arrest bailnarcotics controlfurther inquiryconsistency in bailmala fidetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for pre-arrest bail under Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in a case involving the alleged possession of 520 grams of Charas under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner was alleged to have fled the scene, leaving behind the contraband, while his wife was arrested at the spot with a smaller quantity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the alleged escape from armed police and the potential for malicious implication. The Court held that the prosecution's narrative regarding the petitioner's escape from seven armed police officials was implausible and required further inquiry. Furthermore, noting that the co-accused had already been granted bail and that the petitioner's involvement appeared potentially motivated by his relationship with the co-accused, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where a co-accused is already on bail and the case against the petitioner requires further inquiry, denying bail would serve no useful purpose, especially when the investigation is complete.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the implausibility of the prosecution's narrative regarding an accused's escape from police custody constitutes grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when a co-accused has already been granted bail in a narcotics case?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the investigation is complete and no further recovery is required from the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Malik and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 YLR 253 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-27Read full judgment →
• Faisal Khan vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 471 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-27
  quashment of FIRFIA jurisdictionForeign Exchange Regulation Actcognizable offenceswrit jurisdictioninvestigation process
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, sought the quashment of an FIR registered under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947, alleging that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) lacked the competence to investigate such offences and questioning the status of the offences as cognizable and non-bailable. The Court examined the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 and the relevant Federal Government notification, confirming that offences under Section 23 of the Act were declared cognizable and non-bailable for the period ending 30th June 2021. Furthermore, the Court held that under the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974, the FIA is statutorily empowered to investigate offences specified in its Schedule, which includes those under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947. The Court emphasized that quashing an FIR during the investigation stage, absent exceptional circumstances, would improperly interfere with the investigative process. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner must face the ordinary course of investigation and trial.

  Questions settled

  • Are offences under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 cognizable and non-bailable?
  • Is the Federal Investigation Agency competent to investigate offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947?
  • Can the High Court quash an FIR during the investigation stage when a cognizable offence is alleged?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Imtiaz and others vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 851 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-16
  murderbenefit of doubtconfessional statementsupplementary statementcapital punishmentcircumstantial evidencecriminal appealcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants, Faisal Imtiaz and Qurat-ul-Ain, who were tried and convicted under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Hanif. The Lahore High Court examined the veracity of the prosecution's case, which originated from an FIR against unknown persons and was subsequently shaped by suspicious supplementary statements and delayed confessional statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while the accused was in police custody. The core legal questions revolved around the evidentiary value of tainted supplementary statements, the voluntariness and legal sanctity of confessional statements recorded during prolonged police remand, and whether corroborative pieces of evidence like recoveries can sustain a conviction when direct evidence fails. The court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish an unimpeachable link between the appellants and the crime due to material contradictions, delayed reporting, and tainted evidence. Consequently, the High Court established the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right. The appeals were accepted, the convictions and sentences set aside, and the murder reference answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a supplementary statement that is introduced belatedly without prompt explanation?
  • Can a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 retain its voluntariness and legal sanctity if the maker remains in police custody for a prolonged period?
  • Is it permissible under law to record the confessional statement of one co-accused in the presence of another?
  • Can a conviction be maintained solely on the basis of corroborative evidence such as weapon recovery when the primary direct evidence has been disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Ejaz vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Information and Broadcasting and others2020 [M] C L R 494 · Islamabad High Court
  service matterdisciplinary proceedingspast and closed transactionnatural justicedue processtermination of servicefake educational testimonialswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Television Corporation (P.T.V.), challenged an office order that converted a 2007 disciplinary penalty of a one-year increment stoppage into a termination of service in 2018. The core legal question was whether an employer could, after a decade, unilaterally convert a finalized disciplinary penalty into a harsher one without conducting a de-novo inquiry or providing the employee an opportunity to be heard. The Court held that the impugned order was unlawful. It reasoned that the original disciplinary proceedings had concluded in 2007, rendering the matter a past and closed transaction. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that while employers may pursue criminal proceedings for fraudulent credentials, they cannot arbitrarily enhance a previously imposed penalty years later without adhering to due process. The judgment established that statutory authorities must observe the principles of natural justice in service matters, and any action taken in disregard of procedural requirements, such as failing to issue a show-cause notice or provide a hearing before imposing a harsher penalty, is subject to judicial interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory authority unilaterally convert a finalized disciplinary penalty into a harsher one after a lapse of ten years without a de-novo inquiry?
  • Does the imposition of a disciplinary penalty for submitting fake educational testimonials preclude an employer from initiating criminal proceedings against the employee?
  • Is an order passed by a statutory authority in violation of the principles of natural justice and procedural requirements subject to interference in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Abbas vs Chairman, Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies2020 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 1 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  service tribunal jurisdictioncivil servant definitioncontract employeepublic servant vs civil servantmaintainability of appealtemporary appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of a service appeal filed by the appellant, who was appointed as a Team Head in the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies Liquidation Board on a temporary contract basis. The core legal question was whether the appellant qualified as a 'civil servant' under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, thereby granting the Tribunal jurisdiction to hear his grievance regarding termination. The appellant argued that his status as a 'public servant' under the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies Act, 1993, and Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, conferred civil servant status. The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable. It distinguished between the broad definition of a 'public servant' and the specific, narrower definition of a 'civil servant' under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The ratio established that being a public servant does not automatically equate to being a civil servant. Furthermore, the court held that employees hired on a temporary contract basis are expressly excluded from the definition of civil servant under Section 2(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of a 'public servant' under the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies Act, 1993, automatically qualify an employee as a 'civil servant' under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Are employees recruited on a temporary contract basis excluded from the definition of 'civil servant' under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate appeals filed by employees of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies Liquidation Board who are not civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Fair Sea International FZC vs MV "Miski" and others2020 CLC 515, 2020 CLD 139 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-23
  admiralty jurisdictionsupply of necessariesmaritime lienpriority of claimsstranded vesselport duescommercial operator
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an admiralty suit filed by a corporate entity from the United Arab Emirates against a foreign-flagged vessel and its owner for the recovery of outstanding dues, supply of necessaries, and expenses incurred while the vessel remained stranded at Karachi Port. The core legal questions relate to the existence of a business relationship, the liability of the defendants for supplies and necessaries, the jurisdiction over claims arising prior to the vessel's arrival in Pakistani waters, and the priority of maritime claims against the sale proceeds of the vessel. The court held that the plaintiff established a valid business relationship and is entitled to recover expenses and costs for necessaries provided from the date the vessel entered Pakistani territorial waters. The court laid down principles regarding the order of priority of maritime claims, affirming that port authority dues rank first, followed by crew wages as maritime liens, mortgagees, and claims for necessaries respectively.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a business relationship exists between a commercial operator and the ship owner for the supply of necessaries?
  • Can a plaintiff claim expenses and costs incurred prior to the vessel entering the territorial waters of Pakistan in an admiralty action?
  • What is the order of priority for the settlement of maritime claims and liens against the sale proceeds of a vessel?
  • Are port authority charges entitled to the highest priority over other maritime claims including mortgages and crew wages?
  Read full judgment →
• Faique Ali Jagirani & Another vs The Government of Sindh & Others2021 PLD Sindh 139, 2020 SHC 244 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
• Faiq Ali and others vs The State and others2020 MLD 1557 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-23
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencecontradictory testimonymurder convictionacquittalforensic delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentences awarded by the trial court for double murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence. The Balochistan High Court found that the ocular accounts were riddled with material contradictions regarding the sequence of events, the distance from which shots were fired, and the timing of the FIR registration. Furthermore, the court noted that the recovery of the weapon was from an open, abandoned place, and the forensic evidence was compromised by significant delays in submission. Emphasizing that the prosecution's case suffered from multiple infirmities, the Court held that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that the 'golden rule' of criminal jurisprudence requires that if a single significant doubt exists regarding the prosecution's story, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt, as it is better to acquit ten guilty persons than to convict one innocent person.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of material contradictions in the testimony of ocular witnesses necessitate the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can an accused be convicted based on the recovery of a weapon from an open, abandoned place not in the accused's possession?
  • Is mere absconsion of an accused sufficient to corroborate ocular testimony in a murder case?
  • Does the 'golden rule' of criminal jurisprudence require acquittal when there are multiple, unresolvable doubts in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahim Ali vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 963, 2021 YLR 159 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-18
  criminal appealreduction of sentenceexplosive substancesanti-terrorismmitigating circumstancesquantum of punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 353, 324, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908, and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question revolved around the propriety of the conviction and the quantum of sentence given the mitigating circumstances. The Sindh High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone, considering factors such as his young age, status as a first offender, being the sole breadwinner for his family, and the time already spent in incarceration. The court laid down the principle that while evaluating sentences and charges under anti-terrorism legislation, courts must carefully examine the object, design, or purpose of the act, and consider mitigating circumstances such as youth and family dependency when determining the quantum of punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence of an accused convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and the Explosive Substances Act 1908 can be reduced to the period already undergone based on mitigating circumstances?
  • Is it obligatory for the prosecution to establish the object, design, or purpose of an act to sustain a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can the trial court award maximum sentence without appreciating attending circumstances such as the appellant being a first offender and sole bread earner?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem vs The State2020 SHC 624 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
• Faheem Arshadullah s/o Muhammad Arshadullah vs The State2020 SHC 376, 2022 PCr. LJ 353 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-21
  bank fraudmisappropriationcriminal breach of trustSection 342 statementappellate jurisdictionevidence appreciationbank embezzlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by bank employees convicted of misappropriation and fraud regarding a cash shortfall of approximately 38.9 million rupees at a bank branch. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given the appellants' claims of innocence and mutual finger-pointing. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution's evidence—comprising ocular testimony, documentary records, and the appellants' own admissions during their statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—was reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the appellants failed to rebut the evidence or provide a credible defense. The key principle laid down is that where an accused person admits to the prosecution's allegations or facts during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, such admissions can be legally utilized to support a conviction, provided the overall evidence remains consistent and credible.

  Questions settled

  • Can admissions made by an accused during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to support a conviction?
  • Does the prosecution's failure to examine handwriting experts invalidate a conviction for bank fraud if other evidence is sufficient?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the accused persons merely shift blame to one another without providing exculpatory evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem Ahmed vs The State2020 YLR 1354 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-30
  post-arrest bailGutka and Panparagfurther inquirycriminal jurisprudencebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant Faheem Ahmed, who was charged with possessing 40 packets of Gutka and Panparag weighing 9000 grams under Section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the basic ingredients of the charged offence were made out and whether the applicant made a case for post-arrest bail. The court held that since no public complainant, purchaser, or victim was present or identified at the scene to whom the alleged substance was administered or sold, the essential ingredients of Section 337-J were lacking at this stage. Consequently, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the bail application was allowed. The key principle laid down is that mere heinousness of an offence is no ground for withholding bail, and the prosecution cannot be granted undue latitude at the bail stage when foundational ingredients of the penal provision are absent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a purchaser or victim at the scene makes out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in offences under Section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can bail be withheld merely on the ground that the alleged offence is heinous in nature?
  • Does the prosecution get the benefit of stretched interpretation of law at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem Ahmed Farooqi vs Govt Of Sindh & Other2020 SHC 1094 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
• Fahad Ahmed vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1036 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-20Read full judgment →
• Executive Officer Cantt, Board vs Saadullah Khan2020 PHC 62, 2020 MLD 1469 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
• Excessive and Unannounced Shedding In Sindh: In the matter of vs N/A2020 SCMR 1702 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-01
  electricity supplypower sheddingK-ElectricNEPRAlicense modificationAppellate Tribunalpublic interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns excessive and unannounced power shedding and electricity supply failures in Karachi due to heavy rains, impacting K-Electric's infrastructure. The core legal questions involve the responsibilities of K-Electric as a private utility provider regarding infrastructure maintenance, the coordination required between the Power Division, NEPRA, and NTDC, and the implementation of statutory provisions concerning the modification of licenses. The Supreme Court held that K-Electric, being a private company, must utilize its own resources to clear sub-stations and restore electricity without relying on government assistance or blaming state institutions. Furthermore, the Court directed the relevant Authority to proceed with implementing Section 26 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 to address the issue of K-Electric's exclusive right of generation and distribution, free from any court injunctions, and ordered the Federal Government to appoint members to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 12A of the same Act within ten days. The key principles laid down include the strict liability of private utility companies to maintain weather-resilient infrastructure and the unfettered mandate of regulatory authorities to act in the public interest under the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Is a private electricity supply company responsible for clearing its rain-inundated installations and restoring power using its own resources without relying on government assistance?
  • Can the Authority proceed to implement Section 26 of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 to address the exclusivity of a power licensee's rights without being hampered by court injunctions?
  • Within what timeframe must the Federal Government appoint members to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 12A of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Essem Hotels Limited and others vs The Bank of Punjab2020 CLD 963, 2020 YLR 1096 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-06Read full judgment →
• Erick (Arick) Feroze vs Pethres alias Mitho and another2020 PLD Balochistan 83 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
• Engro Foods Ltd vs Pakistan & others2020 SHC 1002 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad through Attorney vs Rai Muhammad Riaz (Deceased) through Legal Heirs and others2020 CLC 1652 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-04Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad & others vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2020 CLC 2094, 2020 PHC 178 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
• Ehtesab Bureau through Deputy Chief Prosecutor vs Shabbir Farooqi2020 YLR 1744 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-10-29
  revenue record tamperingcriminal liability of public servantEhtesab referenceacquittal appealforgery of public documentscustodian of record
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of a Patwari/Muharrar by the Ehtesab Court regarding allegations of tampering with revenue records. The respondent was accused of creating a fraudulent survey number in his father's name, thereby reducing the complainant's landholding. The trial court had acquitted the respondent, characterizing the dispute as civil in nature. Upon review, the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the respondent, as the custodian of the revenue records during the settlement period, was responsible for the unauthorized alterations. The Court rejected the trial court's classification of the matter as purely civil, affirming that the deliberate tampering of official government records by a public servant constitutes a criminal offense. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal, convicted the respondent under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Azad Penal Code, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment. The judgment establishes that when a public servant tampers with official records, the act transcends civil dispute and attracts criminal liability, regardless of the underlying property claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does the tampering of revenue records by a public servant constitute a criminal offense rather than a civil dispute?
  • Can a court convict an accused for tampering with official records based on evidence of custody and opportunity, even without a handwriting expert report?
  • Is a public servant who serves as the custodian of revenue records liable for unauthorized alterations made to those records during their tenure?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehtesab Bureau Aj&K vs Waseem Afzal2020 SC AJK 118 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
• Ehtasham ul Haq vs The State & another2020 IHC 32 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-31
  criminal breach of trustacquittalSection 249-A Cr.P.C.fair trialconcurrent proceedingssuo moto powersCode of Criminal Procedure 1898
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of a Judicial Magistrate acquitting the respondent under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving alleged criminal breach of trust. The core legal questions concern whether the trial court correctly exercised its suo moto powers to acquit the accused without disposing of a pending application under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the existence of civil litigation bars concurrent criminal proceedings. The High Court held that the trial court’s order was legally unsustainable, as it failed to adhere to principles of natural justice and fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court ruled that civil and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously and that Section 249-A powers must be exercised sparingly. Furthermore, the Court clarified that an acquittal under Section 249-A does not carry the same presumption of innocence as an acquittal following a full trial. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court exercise suo moto powers under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused without deciding a pending application under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the existence of civil litigation regarding the same transaction bar the maintenance of criminal proceedings?
  • Does an acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 carry the same presumption of innocence as an acquittal after a full trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehtasham Ul Haq vs State through Advocate-General Islamabad and another2020 P Cr. L J 830 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-11
  acquittalcriminal breach of trustfair trialsuo motu powersconcurrent proceedingsremandCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order of acquittal passed by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant, a complainant in a criminal breach of trust case, alleged that the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent suo motu without hearing the complainant and while an application under Section 94, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was pending. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted lawfully in exercising its powers under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit the accused without considering pending applications or evidence. The High Court held that the trial court's order was legally unsustainable as it bypassed fair trial principles and failed to adjudicate the pending application. The court emphasized that civil and criminal proceedings can run concurrently, and acquittal under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not carry the same sanctity as an acquittal after a full trial. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for trial to proceed from the previous stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be maintained simultaneously with civil litigation regarding the same transaction?
  • Does an acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 carry the same sanctity as an acquittal after a full trial?
  • Is a trial court required to dispose of pending applications before exercising suo motu powers of acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsan-ul-Rehman, Senior (Accounts) Clerk presently reverted as Junior2020 SC AJK 50 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  police employeeRemoval from Service Actspecial law versus general lawreversionService Tribunaldepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's appeals against his reversion from Senior Clerk to Junior Clerk and his subsequent transfer within the Police Department. The appellant, a police department employee, was proceeded against under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001 following a criminal case and inquiry. The core legal question was whether the provisions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001 are applicable to members of the police force. The Supreme Court held that the Police Act and rules made thereunder regarding efficiency and discipline are special laws which prevail over the general provisions of the 2001 Act, and police employees are exempt from the purview of the 2001 Act. Consequently, proceedings and punishments awarded to a police employee under the 2001 Act are nullities in the eye of the law. The impugned judgment and departmental notifications were set aside, and the appeal was accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001 applicable to members of the police force?
  • Whether the Police Act and Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules constitute a special law that excludes the application of general statutes to police employees?
  • What is the legal status of disciplinary proceedings and punishments conducted against a police employee under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1556 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-06
  narcotics possessionsentence reductioncriminal appealremorse and repentancerigorous imprisonmentControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant, Ehsan Ullah, by the trial court for the possession of 5 kilograms of Charas under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant was originally sentenced to seven years and six months of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant did not challenge the conviction itself but sought a reduction in the sentence, citing remorse and repentance. The Special Public Prosecutor did not oppose this request. Upon reappraisal of the evidence, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. However, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, the appellant's expression of remorse, and the agony of the trial already faced, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence from seven years and six months to five years and five months of rigorous imprisonment. The fine was maintained, though the sentence in default was reduced, and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was extended.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence for a narcotics conviction if the appellant expresses remorse and the prosecution does not oppose the reduction?
  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences imposed under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah Khan and others vs The State and others2020 YLR 50 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-17
  murderbenefit of doubtprivate complaintwithholding best evidenceocular accountcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, alongside a connected criminal revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through trustworthy ocular and circumstantial evidence, considering a significant delay in filing the private complaint, the omission of the eyewitnesses named in the initial police report, and the questionable presence of the claimed eyewitnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution withheld best evidence, that the testimony of the interested eyewitnesses was not reliable without independent corroboration, and that the medical evidence and inconsequential weapon recovery failed to bridge the gaps in the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that the withholding of best evidence creates an adverse presumption, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of withholding the best available evidence by the prosecution in a criminal trial?
  • Whether medical evidence alone can corroborate an unreliable ocular account to sustain a murder conviction?
  • Does a significant and unexplained delay in lodging a private complaint cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient for the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ul Haq vs The Provincial Government Gilgit-Baltistan through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit and 8 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 264 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-03-27
  merit allocationFPSCwrit jurisdictionsubsequent eventsmoulding of reliefservice matterconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the Federal Public Service Commission's (FPSC) merit allocation process, wherein the petitioner, despite securing high marks in the 2017 examination, was bypassed for a preferred position. The core legal question concerned whether the FPSC acted discriminatorily in its allocation of posts and whether the Court possessed the authority to intervene and rectify such allocations. The Court held that the FPSC's allocation was flawed, as the petitioner was entitled to a higher-ranked position based on his merit score. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Tehsildar (BPS-16) rather than a Development Officer, noting that the petitioner's existing administrative experience as a Naib Tehsildar made him suitable for the role. The key principle laid down is that the Court, while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, possesses the inherent authority to take notice of subsequent events and mould relief to ensure complete justice, even where such specific relief was not explicitly claimed in the original petition, thereby ensuring that administrative appointments align with merit and candidate aptitude.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Court have the jurisdiction to take notice of subsequent events to mould relief in a constitutional petition?
  • Can the High Court direct the appointment of a candidate to a specific post if the selection process was found to be discriminatory?
  • Is the Court empowered to consider a candidate's prior administrative experience when determining their suitability for a government post?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehlian-E-Bunji through representatives vs Federal Government through Defence Secretary, Islamabad and 7 others2020 MLD 1765 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-03-18Read full judgment →
• Efu General Insurance Ltd vs M/s. Emirates Airline /Emirates Sky Cargo and2021 CLC 824, 2020 SHC 340 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-06Read full judgment →
• East West Insurance Co. Limited vs Federal Insurance Ombudsman and others2020 P C T L R 1023, 2019 PLD Sindh 557, 2019 CLD 993 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-08Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zohara Jabeen, etc vs Muhammad Aslam Pervaiz, etc2021 SCMR 194, 2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 151, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 362, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-02
  service lawsenioritypromotees versus direct appointeesbatch promotioncivil servantPunjab Civil Servants Act 1974
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a dispute concerning the determination of seniority between civil servants appointed through promotion versus those appointed through direct recruitment to the post of District Population Welfare Officer/Deputy Director (Non-Technical) (BS-18). The core legal question revolves around how to compute the date of continuous appointment for promotees selected in the same batch by the Departmental Promotion Committee when their formal notification dates differ, and how their seniority stands against direct appointees recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court held that promotees recommended by the same Departmental Promotion Committee constitute a 'batch' or 'group of persons' under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and Rule 8(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, meaning the date of promotion for all members of that batch relates back to the date the first person in the batch was promoted, retaining their inter-se seniority. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the Service Tribunal's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • How is seniority determined between promotees and direct appointees when appointed close in time?
  • Does a recommendation by the Departmental Promotion Committee constitute a batch or group of persons for determining seniority?
  • What is the effect of deferment on a civil servant's inclusion in a promotion batch for seniority purposes?
  Read full judgment →