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.

• Ch. Muhammad Aslam vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1164 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-22
  narcotics controlheroine recoverybenefit of the doubtgovernment analyst reporttest protocolsreturn of vehiclecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals arising from a judgment convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to nine years rigorous imprisonment alongside a fine, while simultaneously ordering the return of the seized vehicle to its original owner. The core legal questions concern the credibility of the prosecution's recovery evidence, the evidentiary value of the Government Analyst's report regarding test protocols, and the legality of releasing a vehicle involved in narcotics transport to an innocent owner. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the time and place of the alleged recovery beyond a reasonable doubt due to unexplained delays in FIR registration and contradictory testimonies, and that the analyst's reports were legally deficient for failing to provide full test protocols and data. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, granted the appellant the benefit of the doubt resulting in an acquittal, and dismissed the State's appeal seeking to forfeit the vehicle. The key principles established relate to the mandatory compliance with rule-prescribed test protocols in narcotics reports and the entitlement of an unconnected vehicle owner to the release of their property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR in a narcotics case casts a serious doubt on the prosecution's version of the time and place of occurrence?
  • Is a Government Analyst's report legally sufficient if it merely states an opinion that the sample contains heroin without detailing the full protocols and results of the tests applied?
  • Does Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 prohibit the release of a vehicle involved in narcotics trafficking to an owner who had no knowledge of or connection to the crime?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when safe transmission of sample parcels to the police station is left doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Mazhar Iqbal son of Ch. Muhammad Yousaf resident of Chabrain2020 SC AJK 62 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Ch. Iftikhar Ahmed vs Cynthia D Ritchie, etc2020 IHC 142 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-01Read full judgment →
• Ch. Fakhar-U-Zaman and another vs Hassan Ali and 3 others2020 YLR 616 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-08Read full judgment →
• Ch. Azeem Ahmed vs S.H.O., Police Station Sanjar Chang, District Tando2020 MLD 1826 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-08
  dispute concerning landbreach of peaceattachment of propertyactual physical possessioncriminal revisionquashing of order
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant assailed the concurrent orders passed by the lower courts arising from proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding a dispute over agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate and Revisional Court erred in determining possession and concluding that no apprehension of breach of peace existed to warrant continued attachment of the property. The Sindh High Court held that the Magistrate acted within jurisdiction under Section 146(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by recording subjective satisfaction that the private respondents were in actual physical possession and that the likelihood of a breach of the peace had subsided, making attachment unnecessary. The court established that a Magistrate is empowered to release attached property to the party found to be in possession when apprehension of a breach of peace no longer exists, and that parallel civil litigation or a disputed sale agreement does not vitiate the Magistrate's inquiry into actual physical possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate can restore possession of disputed land to a party under Section 146(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon concluding that no apprehension of a breach of the peace exists?
  • Does the pendency of civil litigation regarding title preclude a Magistrate from inquiring into actual physical possession under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a sale agreement executed by an unauthorized attorney sufficient to establish actual physical possession in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Cellandgene Pharmaceuticals Int vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2020 SHC 992, 2022 PTD 1464 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
• Cdr. (Retd.) Muhammad Sharif vs Lt. Col. (Retd.) Ghulam Farid & Pdoha2021 P C T L R 452, 2020 SHC 382 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-29Read full judgment →
• Capt. Umer Naveed Pirzada vs Rana Abdur Raheem etc2021 CLC 684, 2020 LHC 2953 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-03Read full judgment →
• Capt. (Rtd) Muhammad Safdar vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Islamabad2020 IHC 168 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-14Read full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority through Chairman, Islamabad vs Muhammad Hanif Abbasi and 4 others2020 CLC 1804 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-08Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board Quetta through Cantonment Executive Officer vs Messrs Muhammad Rahim Khan & Co. through Managing Partner2020 CLC 1300 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-27Read full judgment →
• C.Ps. Nos. D-2167, D-2387, D-2388, D-2389, D-2390, D-2439 and D-2440 of 2019 vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2020 CLC 1714 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
• Byco Petroleum Pakistan Ltd vs Pakistan and OthersPTCL 2021 CL. 756, 2020 SHC 792, 2021 PTD 1386 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-16Read full judgment →
• Byco Petroleum Pakistan Ltd vs Pakistan and Ors2020 SHC 798 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-20Read full judgment →
• Bushra Tabassum vs Government Of Punjab and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1526 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-29
  Intra Court Appealmaintainabilityalternative remedyservice tribunalconstitutional petitiondisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the dismissal of a constitutional petition filed against an order passed under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The core legal question is whether an Intra Court Appeal is maintainable under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, when the governing statute provides an alternative statutory remedy of appeal, such as before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Lahore High Court held that the Intra Court Appeal is barred under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, because the applicable law provides an adequate and alternate remedy of appeal. The key principle laid down is that where proceedings originate under a specific statute providing a remedy of appeal, revision, or review, an Intra Court Appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a constitutional petition is not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Intra Court Appeal maintainable against an order of a Single Judge where the governing law provides an alternative remedy of appeal to the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, bar an Intra Court Appeal when a statutory remedy of appeal, revision, or review exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Bushra Bibi and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1436 · Lahore High Court · 2020-08-31
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycircumstantial evidencepoisoningmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the alleged administration of poisonous material to the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of motive, absence of direct or convincing circumstantial evidence, and negative forensic reports. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution case against the petitioners fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as mere suspicion, absence of motive, negative forensic analysis of recovered items, and the fact that the deceased was removed alive from the petitioners' house did not constitute sufficient grounds to withhold bail. The court laid down the principle that the recovery of a dead body or the shifting of a deceased from an accused's house, standing alone without corroborative incriminating evidence or established motive, constitutes weak circumstantial evidence warranting the grant of post-arrest bail pending further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the prosecution relies solely on suspicion and weak circumstantial evidence without establishing a motive?
  • Does the mere shifting of a deceased person from the house of the accused constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail in a murder case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of call data records when the ownership of the relevant SIM cards has not been verified by the investigating officer during the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Burhan Wali and another vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1305 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-02-03
  pre-arrest bailabductioncompromisenon-compoundable offencebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail under section 498, Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 07/2020 registered under sections 365-B/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for allegedly abetting the abduction of the victim girl. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed based on a compromise when the underlying offence is technically non-compoundable. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that although the offence under section 365-B is non-compoundable, the fact that the victim has settled the matter outside court, forgiven the accused, and stated she has no objection to the confirmation of bail constitutes a valid ground for granting pre-arrest bail, as the court cannot compel an unwilling complainant party to prosecute the matter. The court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail subject to the petitioners joining and cooperating with the investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted or confirmed on the basis of a compromise when the offence involved is non-compoundable?
  • Can a court compel an unwilling victim or complainant party to prosecute a criminal matter further?
  • Does a statement by the victim forgiving the accused and expressing no objection to bail serve as a ground for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Brr Guardian Modaraba through Authorized Representative_Manager vs Altas Insurance Company Limited2020 CLD 1379 · Lahore High Court · 2020-07-01Read full judgment →
• Brig. (R) Masood Salam through Legal Heirs vs Sohail Ahmad and others2020 PLD Lahore 478, 2020 LHC 937 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
• Boards Of Intermediate And Secondary Education, Abbottabad vs The Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad2020 PTD 557 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2019-12-19Read full judgment →
• Board Of Intermediate And Secondary Education, Sahiwal and another vs Akhtar Usman and 2 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1036 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-05
  regularization of servicedaily wagersintra-court appealprinciple of consistencyfundamental rightsjudicial precedentdiscriminatory treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns intra-court appeals filed by the Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sahiwal and Multan, challenging the orders of a Single Judge directing the regularization of daily wage employees. The core legal question was whether these employees were entitled to regularization based on the principle of consistency and equality, given that similarly placed employees in other educational boards had already been regularized. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the respondents were entitled to the same relief as their counterparts. The judgment affirms that under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, pronouncements by the Supreme Court are binding on all courts. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle of judicial consistency, noting that a Bench of the same High Court cannot deviate from the view of an earlier Bench on the same point of law. The Court rejected the appellants' arguments, finding no distinguishable features between the respondents and previously regularized employees, and held that discriminatory treatment violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Are daily wage employees entitled to regularization if similarly placed employees in other departments have already been regularized?
  • Is a Bench of the High Court bound to follow the view taken by an earlier Bench of the same Court on the same point of law?
  • Does the failure to provide a cogent reason for treating similarly situated employees differently violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Bismillah Jan and others vs The State and another2020 YLR 1211 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-06
  common intentionvicarious liabilitymurderrelated witnesschance witnesscriminal appealsentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and revision against a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Swat, which convicted four appellants for murder under Section 302(b)/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the co-accused, who were present at the scene and held farming tools, shared a common intention with the principal accused who committed the fatal stabbing. The Court held that while the principal accused's conviction was justified, the co-accused did not share a common intention to kill, as evidenced by their failure to use their weapons despite opportunities during the altercation. The Court established the principle that vicarious liability under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, requires proof of a pre-arranged plan or a common intention that can be inferred from conduct, and mere presence or participation in a scuffle does not automatically establish such liability for a murder committed by a co-accused. Consequently, the Court acquitted the co-accused, dismissed the appeal of the principal accused, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of co-accused at the scene of a crime automatically establish vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the testimony of a related witness be discarded solely on the ground of relationship to the deceased?
  • Under what circumstances can a chance witness's testimony be considered reliable?
  • Is a pre-arranged plan required to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or can it develop at the spur of the moment?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilqees Shaukat vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and 3 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 183 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-08
  inter-provincial transferpermanent absorptionwedlock policydeputationfemale civil servantdomicilerepatriation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses constitutional petitions filed by female civil servants originally appointed in other provinces who sought permanent absorption into the civil service of the Province of Punjab on the basis of the wedlock policy following their marriages to residents of Punjab. The core legal question was whether female government servants transferred on deputation due to marriage can claim permanent absorption into the Punjab provincial service in light of existing rules and government policy. The Lahore High Court held that under Rule 20 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, read with the established policy of the Government of Punjab regarding domicile and marriage, a female government servant who acquires the domicile of her husband is entitled to be accommodated and permanently absorbed without requiring rule relaxation. The petitions were consequently allowed, the repatriation orders were set aside, and respondents were directed to issue permanent absorption orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female government servant transferred to Punjab on deputation due to marriage is entitled to permanent absorption based on the wedlock policy?
  • Does Rule 20 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 permit the permanent absorption of a female civil servant who acquires her husband's domicile?
  • Can the competent authority lawfully repatriate a female civil servant to her parent department after extending her deputation beyond the sanctioned period when the governing wedlock policy permits absorption?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal vs Abdul Karim and 6 others2020 P Cr. L J 843 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-06
  illegal dispossessioncriminal revisionland grabberscivil disputemaintainabilitydismissal of complaintqabza group
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition assailed the order of the trial court dismissing a complaint filed under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of a revision petition against the dismissal of a complaint under the Act, and whether a civil dispute could be converted into a criminal offence under the said special law. The Balochistan High Court held that a revision petition is maintainable against the dismissal of a complaint where no charge has been framed or acquittal recorded, but affirmed that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is a special law intended exclusively to curb land grabbers, property grabbers, and the qabza group. The court laid down the principle that civil disputes cannot be allowed to be converted into criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to proceedings under the Act where no specific procedure is provided.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal revision petition is maintainable against an order dismissing a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the framing of a charge?
  • Do the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 in the absence of specific procedural provisions?
  • Can a bona fide civil dispute regarding property boundaries and ownership be adjudicated through the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • What are the essential ingredients and criteria required to attract the application of section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal Khan vs The State through P.G., Punjab and another2020 SCMR 937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-08-02
  post-arrest bailfirearm injuryprohibitory clausetentative assessmentpolice investigationattempted murdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner contended that he was found innocent during the police investigation, that no recovery was effected from him, and that prosecution witnesses did not incriminate him in their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The prosecution and complainant opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIR for causing a firearm injury to a witness. The Supreme Court held that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the evidence is permissible, and deeper appreciation is forbidden. The Court found sufficient material on record to connect the petitioner with the crime, noting that the injured witness stood by his statement. As the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Cr.P.C., the Court declined to grant bail and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that police findings of innocence do not override incriminating material at the tentative assessment stage.

  Read full judgment →
• Bilal Jan vs The State2021 P Cr. LJ 323, 2020 PHC 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-01
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprostitutionsearch warrantcriminal procedurebail concession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Bilal Jan, who was charged under Section 371-AB of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged involvement in the buying/selling of persons for prostitution. The petitioner was apprehended during a police raid at a plaza. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail, noting that the prosecution's case required further inquiry. The Court reasoned that the record lacked evidence of prior complaints, witness statements from the plaza owner, or medical reports to substantiate the charges. Furthermore, the failure to obtain a search warrant rendered the case against the petitioner arguable for bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation and that co-accused had already been granted bail, establishing a precedent for the petitioner's release.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a search warrant in a raid case entitle an accused to the concession of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when the prosecution fails to provide evidence of prior complaints or medical reports to substantiate the charges?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when they are no longer required for further investigation and co-accused have already been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal Aurangzeb Noor vs The Commissioner (Smd), SECP, Islamabad2020 CLD 1113 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
• Bilal Anwar vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 505 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-19
  pre-arrest bailpolice investigationmalafide involvementdelayed recoveryconflicting medical reportcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 489 dated 14.10.2019 registered under Sections 337-F(V), 337-L(2), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar District Sargodha. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the conflicting medical and police investigation reports regarding his role and weapon attribution, alongside questions concerning the utility of a delayed weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that where police investigation during the course of probe concluded the petitioner was empty-handed and arrived after the occurrence, and where medical reports noted the possibility of injury fabrication, further incarceration or custodial investigation served no useful purpose. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing that a stale recovery of a weapon after a considerable lapse of time does not warrant denial of bail, and mala fide involvement through an expanded net of accused persons must be considered at the pre-arrest stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the police investigation contradicts the initial FIR regarding the weapon and role attributed to the accused?
  • Does the possibility of injury fabrication noted in a medico-legal report make a case for further inquiry and pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether the potential recovery of a weapon after a considerable lapse of time justifies withholding pre-arrest bail?
  • Can malafide involvement of an accused through a wide net in the FIR be considered as a ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal Ahmed and another vs Abdul Hameed2020 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-01
  right of pre-emptionurbanized propertyrevenue recordsTalb-i-IshhadPunjab Pre-emption Actco-ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent against the appellant vendees, which was initially dismissed by the trial court, but decreed by the appellate court and upheld in revision by the High Court. The core legal questions pertained to whether a right of pre-emption could be claimed on the basis of joint ownership in revenue records for urbanized commercial properties, and whether the findings on Talbs were supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower courts' judgments, holding that urbanized commercial properties do not afford a right of pre-emption through revenue record entries of joint ownership when co-ownership is not established, and that the pre-emptor failed to prove Talb-i-Ishhad and proper knowledge of the sale. The key principles laid down include that outdated revenue records cannot substantiate pre-emption claims for urbanized properties, and that statutory notice under section 31 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 triggers a legal presumption of knowledge regarding the sale.

  Questions settled

  • Can a right of pre-emption be claimed on the basis of joint ownership in revenue records for urbanized commercial properties?
  • What is the legal effect of a notice issued under Section 31 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 regarding the pre-emptor's knowledge of a sale?
  • Does out-dated revenue record substantiate a claim of pre-emption at the time of making Talb and filing the suit?
  • What is the consequence of failing to produce the required witnesses for notice of Talb-i-Ishhad?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Zarghoona and another vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1562 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-31
  Diyatcompromiseminor legal heirsindigent convictsstate financial assistanceBait-ul-Maalconstitutional equality
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the trial court rejecting the petitioners' application to direct the State to pay the Diyat amount on their behalf. The petitioners, daughters of the deceased, were charged under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but subsequently entered into a compromise with the adult legal heirs. However, the trial court ordered them to deposit the Diyat share for a minor legal heir. Being impoverished women without an independent source of income, the petitioners sought state assistance. The core legal question was whether indigent convicts, particularly women released on bail who cannot afford to pay Diyat for minor heirs, are entitled to financial assistance from the State when rules restrict such funds to prisoners languishing in jail above a certain age. The Balochistan High Court held that denying relief based on age limits or the requirement of being incarcerated is discriminatory and violates Article 25 of the Constitution. The court laid down that where indigent convicts lack resources and property to pay Diyat, the State must step in as guardian to pay the amount from Bait-ul-Maal or government funds, remanding the matter to the trial court for a financial inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the State can be directed to pay the Diyat amount on behalf of indigent female convicts who have entered into a compromise but cannot pay the share of minor legal heirs?
  • Does the restriction in the Diyat, Arsh and Daman Fund Rules, 2007 requiring prisoners to be incarcerated and above a certain age violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is it mandatory for the trial court to conduct an inquiry into the financial status and property of convicts before deciding on state assistance for Diyat payment?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Moashara vs Sahib Jan and 10 others2021 PLJ Quetta 134, 2020 MLD 491 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-24Read full judgment →
• Bibi Maryam and 8 others vs Government Of Balochistan, through Secretary Education and 9 others2021 PLJ Quetta 156, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 548 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-13
  constitutional petitionpublic appointmentland donationvoid agreementpublic policyequality of citizensmerit-based recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court by nine petitioners seeking to declare the recommendations of the selection committee for Class-IV posts as void and illegal, and to enforce their claim for appointment based on an alleged agreement wherein they donated land for the construction of government schools. The core legal question was whether public office or government employment can be claimed or granted in consideration of land donation, and whether an agreement guaranteeing employment to land donors is legally enforceable. The court held that public appointments must be made strictly on merit and that any agreement promising government employment in exchange for land donation is illegal, against public policy, void under Section 23 of the Contract Act 1872, and violative of the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The court dismissed the petition, ruling that land donors have no vested right to claim public posts and preference can only be considered if the donor is otherwise equally eligible and fit on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether public employment can be claimed on the basis of an agreement to donate land for government schools?
  • Does an agreement to fill public posts on the recommendation of a land donor violate public policy and statutory provisions?
  • Can preferential treatment in public appointments be claimed as a matter of right by a land donor under the law?
  • Whether promising employment in consideration of donated land amounts to the unlawful sale of a public office?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Kalsoom vs The General Public and others2020 CLC 943 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-11-12Read full judgment →
• Bherji vs Federation of Pakistan & others2020 SHC 1138 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
• Behram vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and another2020 YLR 1015, 2020 [M] C L R 1118, 2021 PLJ Quetta 151 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-25Read full judgment →
• Beecham Pakistan (Private) Limited vs Assistant Collector Of Customs and another2020 PTD 2079 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-20Read full judgment →
• Bawar Khan vs The State2020 PHC 232 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 432 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Prov of Sindh & Ors2020 SHC 498 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 1190 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-15Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Muhammad Zaman2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 255, 2021 P SC 752, 2020 SCP 220, 2021 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-04
  pre-emptionTalb-i-Muwathibatimmediate demandconcurrent findingscivil revisionpre-emption suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from concurrent findings of the Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's suit for pre-emption. The core legal question was whether a discrepancy in the timing of the Talb-i-Muwathibat (immediate demand) between the preemptor and his witnesses, resulting in a two-hour delay, was fatal to the suit. The petitioner argued that the discrepancy was minor and attributable to the passage of time, citing previous case law. The Supreme Court held that the statutory requirement of 'immediate' demand under the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987, is mandatory and cannot be undermined. The Court found that a two-hour delay between receiving information of the sale and making the demand constitutes a failure to perform the Talb-i-Muwathibat immediately. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that such a delay is fatal to a pre-emption claim. The principle established is that the requirement of immediacy in Talb-i-Muwathibat is strict, and a significant time gap between knowledge of the sale and the demand invalidates the claim.

  Questions settled

  • Is a two-hour delay in making the Talb-i-Muwathibat fatal to a pre-emption suit?
  • Does a discrepancy between the preemptor's stated time of demand and the witnesses' testimony regarding when the sale information was conveyed invalidate the Talb-i-Muwathibat?
  • What is the legal definition of 'immediate demand' in the context of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act 1987?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan & 03 others2020 SHC 200 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-02
  pensionary benefitsdaily wage servicequalifying serviceconstitutional petitionCivil Aviation Authorityservice regularizationsuperannuation pension
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired employee of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), sought to include his prior daily-wage service period with his subsequent regular service to meet the qualifying criteria for pensionary benefits. The core legal questions were whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against the CAA regarding its non-statutory service rules, and whether prior contingent service can be counted towards pensionable qualifying service. The Court held that the petition is maintainable, as an aggrieved person may invoke constitutional jurisdiction against a public authority for violations of service regulations. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner’s daily-wage service, having been followed by regularization, must be counted towards his total length of service for pension purposes. The key principle laid down is that temporary or contingent service, when followed by regular appointment, constitutes qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to include the petitioner's entire period of service, spanning from his initial daily-wage appointment to his retirement, for the calculation and settlement of his pensionary dues.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the Civil Aviation Authority regarding its non-statutory service rules?
  • Can service rendered on a daily wage or contingent basis be counted towards the qualifying service required for pensionary benefits?
  • Does the commencement of qualifying service for pension purposes begin from the date of initial appointment, even if the appointment was initially on a temporary or contingent basis?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Director General, National Accountability Bureau2020 PLD Balochistan 15, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 207 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed S/o Wali Muhammad vs The State2020 SHC 514 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed son of Meeral Nizamani vs The State2020 SHC 1068 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23
  criminal appealQatl-e-Amdvicarious liabilityinstigationnon-examination of complainantRoznamcha entryreasonable doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of the Model Criminal Trial Court-II/IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby he was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentenced to life imprisonment, and ordered to pay compensation. The core legal questions pertained to whether conviction on the basis of vicarious liability and instigation could be sustained where the appellant was omitted from the initial Roznamcha entry, whether the non-examination of the complainant and a material witness prejudiced the defence, and whether conflict between ocular and medical evidence raised reasonable doubt. The High Court observed that the appellant's name was absent from the initial Roznamcha report, the parties had admitted prior enmity, and the complainant was not examined at trial, causing serious prejudice to the defence. Further, material witnesses were omitted, ocular claims contradicted medical findings, and police investigation had found the appellant innocent. Applying the principle that a single infirmity creating reasonable doubt renders the entire prosecution case doubtful, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-examination of the complainant at trial severely prejudices the defence and undermines the prosecution's case?
  • Whether an accused can be convicted on the basis of vicarious liability and instigation when their name is absent from the initial Roznamcha report and parties share admitted enmity?
  • Does a contradiction between the ocular account in the First Information Report and the medical evidence entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • What is the effect of the non-examination of a material witness who recorded statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the credibility of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Phulpoto & others vs P.O. Sindh & others2020 SHC 420, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 322 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-23
  natural justiceaudi alteram partemshow-cause noticetermination of serviceirregular appointmentmunicipal employeesprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the termination of numerous employees by the Municipal Committee, Ghotki, who were removed from service on allegations that their appointments were irregular or bogus. The core legal question is whether the summary termination of these employees, without the issuance of proper show-cause notices or an opportunity for a hearing, violates the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the termination orders were legally deficient because they failed to provide the employees with adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to respond to the specific allegations against them. Emphasizing the fundamental nature of the audi alteram partem principle, the Court ruled that even where appointments are alleged to be illegal or bogus, the authorities must adhere to procedural fairness. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned termination orders and directed the Government of Sindh to constitute a committee to individually scrutinize each employee's case, granting them a fair hearing before determining the validity of their employment and initiating any recovery proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer terminate employees for alleged irregular or bogus appointments without first issuing a proper show-cause notice?
  • Does the failure to provide a meaningful opportunity of hearing to employees before termination violate the principle of audi alteram partem?
  • What constitutes a valid show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings against public employees?
  • Can a court order the constitution of a committee to scrutinize the legality of individual employment appointments?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Leghari vs The StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 162, 2020 P SC (Crl.) 430, 2020 SCMR 595 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-02-25
  criminal appealmurderous assaultItlaf-i-Udwabsconsionappreciation of evidencemedical jurisprudenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Bashir Ahmed Laghari, sought leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the High Court whereby he was convicted for a murderous assault and Itlaf-i-Udw, resulting in sentences of rigorous imprisonment and compensation, following an incident where the victim sustained multiple pellet injuries causing the amputation of a leg. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence, the impact of the petitioner's prolonged absconsion, and the reliability of ocular and medical testimony. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of guilt were well-founded, noting that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular account, the injured witness gave a consistent and graphic statement, and the petitioner's long absconsion rendered the non-recovery of the weapon insignificant. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined, affirming the principles of safe administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prolonged absconsion of an accused render the non-recovery of the crime weapon insignificant in a criminal trial?
  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt by the courts below warrant interference by the Supreme Court when supported by consistent ocular and medical evidence?
  • Can the testimony of an injured witness be relied upon when corroborated by medical observations and consistent witness accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Leghari vs StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murderous assaultItlaf-i-Udwabscondencenon-recovery of weaponcriminal appealleave to appeal declinedappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a jail appeal assailing the concurrent convictions of the petitioner, Bashir Ahmed Laghari, for murderous assault and Itlaf-i-Udw under a trial concluding on 10.8.2017 and upheld by the High Court on 11.3.2019. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction was sustainable despite the non-recovery of the weapon and the delayed arrest of the petitioner who had absconded after the occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of guilt were based on consistent medical evidence, credible ocular testimony of the injured victim and supporting witnesses, and that the petitioner's prolonged abscondence rendered the non-recovery of the weapon insignificant. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined, laying down that abscondence of an accused diminishes the impact of non-recovery of a crime weapon where direct and corroborative medical and ocular evidence firmly establishes guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prolonged abscondence of an accused render the non-recovery of the crime weapon insignificant in a criminal trial?
  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts warrant interference by the Supreme Court when supported by consistent medical and ocular evidence?
  • Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient to maintain a conviction for murderous assault and Itlaf-i-Udw?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Badal vs The State and 2 others2020 MLD 964 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-16
  criminal breach of trustcheatingcompromise of offencesrevisional jurisdictioncompounding of offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the applicant's conviction under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involve whether the ingredients of criminal breach of trust under section 406 were made out, and whether the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction can directly entertain a compromise application for compoundable offences without remanding the case to the trial court. The Sindh High Court held that the ingredients of criminal breach of trust were absent as the allegation pertained strictly to cheating regarding a visa arrangement, rendering the conviction under section 406 illegal and setting it aside. Furthermore, the court held that under section 345(5A) read with section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a High Court in revisional jurisdiction is fully competent to directly accept a genuine and voluntary compromise for a compoundable offence without needing to remand the matter. The key principle laid down is that criminal breach of trust requires voluntary entrustment and subsequent misappropriation, and revisional courts can directly compound offences.

  Questions settled

  • Are the ingredients of criminal breach of trust satisfied in a case involving allegations of cheating over the arrangement of a visa?
  • Can a High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directly entertain and allow an application for compounding an offence pursuant to section 345(5A)?
  • Is it legally permissible to remand a case to the trial court for a compromise without setting aside the underlying conviction or determining its legality?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed and another vs The State2020 PLD Sindh 202 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed alias Nazeer Ali vs The State2020 MLD 945 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-22
  narcotics possessionrecovery proceedingsindependent witnessescomplainant as investigating officersentencing policycriminal appealControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, for the possession of 2500 grams of charas. The core legal questions concerned whether the conviction was sustainable despite the absence of independent witnesses during recovery in a public place, the procedural impropriety of the complainant acting as the investigating officer, and the failure to prove the safe transmission of case property to the Chemical Examiner. The Court held that while the prosecution established the case, the failure to associate independent witnesses in a public area and the dual role of the complainant as the investigating officer were significant procedural flaws. Although the Court affirmed the conviction, it found the original sentence excessive. Applying principles of judicial leniency, the Court dismissed the appeal but modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant and reduced the fine. The judgment reinforces that while Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 may not strictly apply to personal searches, transparency in public recoveries remains essential.

  Questions settled

  • Can the complainant of a criminal case also act as the investigating officer?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery in a public place invalidate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is the provision of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to the personal search of an accused?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone despite upholding a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State and another2021 KLR Criminal Cases 234, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 353, PLD 2019 Lahore · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-13
  recall of witnessre-examination of witnesshostile witnessdiscovery of truthfilling lacunaetrial court discretioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, which permitted the prosecution to recall and re-examine a witness (ASI Niaz Ahmad Khan) after his initial examination and cross-examination. The core legal question was whether the prosecution has an absolute right to recall a witness to rectify testimony or fill lacunae in its case. The Court held that while trial courts possess the power to summon witnesses to ensure the discovery of truth and complete justice, this discretion is not absolute and must be exercised with caution, providing judicial reasons. The Court emphasized that a party cannot use such powers merely to fill gaps or lacunae in their case. It further clarified that invoking provisions to treat a witness as hostile requires establishing that the witness is equivocal, suppressing the truth, or hostile in demeanor, rather than simply providing testimony that conflicts with other evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's order, finding it lacked sufficient justification and risked prejudicing the defense.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution have an absolute right to recall a witness to fill lacunae in its case?
  • Under what circumstances may a trial court exercise its discretion to recall and re-examine a witness?
  • Is a conflict between a witness's testimony and other evidence sufficient grounds to treat a witness as hostile and permit re-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs The Director General, Lahore Development2020 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-20
  labor disputegrievance petitionstatutory rulesjurisdictionconstitutional petitiontermination of servicelabor court
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from a judgment of the High Court of Punjab which set aside the decisions of the Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners, former employees of the Lahore Development Authority, were dismissed or compulsorily retired under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA). They sought redress through grievance petitions before the Labour Court. The High Court held that because the petitioners were proceeded against under a specific statute (PEEDA), their remedy before the Labour Court was barred by the first Proviso to Section 1(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that Section 33(1) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, which allows a worker to bring a grievance regarding rights guaranteed under 'any law', does not apply where no violation of the statutory procedure itself is established. The Court reiterated the established principle that where an employee is proceeded against under a statute or statutory rules that do not provide a specific forum for remedy, the proper remedy lies in filing a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee proceeded against under a specific statute or statutory rules maintain a grievance petition before the Labour Court under Section 33(1) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Does the term 'any law' in Section 33(1) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 provide a standalone remedy to employees governed by statutory disciplinary laws?
  • What is the proper legal forum for an employee seeking remedy against disciplinary action taken under a statute or statutory rules that do not provide a specific forum for appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Basheer Ahmed and others vs Mst. Fatima Bibi (Deceased) through LRs2020 P SC 928, 2020 SCMR 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-12-04
  tenancy rightssuccessionIslamic law of inheritanceColonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912Bahawalpur Stateinheritancefemale heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns a dispute over inheritance rights in tenancy land originally granted by the erstwhile State of Bahawalpur. The core legal question involves determining the applicable law of succession for tenancy rights when a successor tenant dies, specifically whether Section 20 or Section 21(b) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, governs the devolution of such rights. The Court held that while Section 20 applies to the original tenant, Section 21(b) governs succession when a successor tenant dies, requiring the application of Islamic law of inheritance. Consequently, the Court affirmed that female heirs are entitled to their share in the tenancy when succession opens under Section 21(b). The Court rejected the argument that the subsequent insertion of Section 19-A into the Act could retrospectively divest female heirs of rights already accrued. However, the Court clarified that such rights do not extend to the tenancy of a deceased uncle who died issueless, as succession in that specific instance favored the nephews. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the lower court's decree accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the succession to tenancy rights of a successor tenant fall under Section 20 or Section 21(b) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912?
  • Are female heirs entitled to a share in tenancy rights under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, when succession opens after the death of a successor tenant?
  • Did the insertion of Section 19-A into the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, retrospectively defeat inheritance rights already conferred under the un-amended law?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat and another vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 1139 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-10-31
  post-arrest bailabsconsionrule of consistencymurderrevision petitiondeeper appreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arises from an order of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli, dismissing the post-arrest bail application of the accused-petitioners in a case registered under sections 302, 324, and other provisions of the Azad Penal Code. The core legal questions involved whether the accused-petitioners were entitled to bail on the rule of consistency, whether long-term absconsion disentitles an accused to bail, and whether contradictions in witness statements warrant bail at the tentative assessment stage. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the petitioners, who had absconded for nearly seven years and were specifically nominated with corroborated overt acts, could not claim parity under the rule of consistency with a co-accused who lacked similar allegations, and that prolonged unexplained absconsion combined with a prima facie connection to a capital offense bars the grant of bail. The key principles laid down include that absconsion for a prolonged period deprives an accused of discretionary relief like bail, and that matters involving deeper appreciation of evidence or previously decided points cannot be re-examined in subsequent bail or revision applications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who has absconded for a prolonged period is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when the role of the accused-petitioner is specifically distinguished from that of a co-accused who was granted bail?
  • Can points already raised and decided by the court in a previous round of litigation be re-examined in a subsequent revision petition?
  • Whether contradictions in the statement of a complainant warrant deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali CH. vs Chief Secretary, Punjab and others2020 CLC 523 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-04
  Holy Qur'anerror-free publicationblasphemous translationQur'an Boardconstitutional petitioncontempt petitione-publication
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a constitutional petition, a connected petition, and a contempt petition concerning the alleged use of derogatory or unsuitable words for Allah Almighty and the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in certain Urdu translations of the Holy Qur'an, as well as the inaction of public functionaries. The core legal questions involve ensuring error-free publication, printing, and e-publication of the Holy Qur'an and its translation, and addressing grievances regarding erroneous texts. The Lahore High Court held that both provincial and federal governments must ensure error-free publication and e-publication of the Holy Qur'an along with authentic translations. The court ruled that individuals possessing copies containing errors in the Arabic text or translation should approach the Chairman of the Provincial Qur'an Board or the federal committee constituted under the relevant statute. The key principles laid down emphasize the pivotal role of regulatory bodies in preventing printing blunders and rectifying errors in existing and future publications on paper and the internet.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provincial and federal governments are obligated to ensure error-free publication and e-publication of the Holy Qur'an and its translations?
  • What is the appropriate forum for individuals to agitate grievances regarding errors in the Arabic text or translation of the Holy Qur'an?
  • Can the Provincial Qur'an Board direct publishers to replace incorrect words or retrieve defective copies of the Holy Qur'an?
  Read full judgment →
• Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa2020 P SC (Crl.) 284 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-04-09
  cheque dishonourSection 138rebuttable presumptionpreponderance of probabilitiesfinancial capacityburden of proofacquittalperverse judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a High Court judgment that reversed an acquittal for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The core legal question concerned whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act regarding the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The Supreme Court held that the accused had successfully raised a 'probable defence' by casting doubt on the complainant's financial capacity to lend the substantial sum claimed, thereby shifting the burden of proof back to the complainant, which remained undischarged. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's conviction and restored the trial court's acquittal. The judgment reaffirms that the presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable, and the standard of proof for the accused is 'preponderance of probabilities.' Furthermore, it establishes that an accused may rebut this presumption by relying on existing evidence or cross-examination without needing to lead direct evidence, and that an acquittal cannot be deemed 'perverse' if it is based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence on record.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required for an accused to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
  • Can an accused rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 without entering the witness box?
  • Does the failure of a complainant to prove financial capacity in a cheque dishonour case constitute a valid ground for acquittal?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with an acquittal judgment on the ground of perversity?
  Read full judgment →
• Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan, Advocate, Supreme Court Of Aj&K and others vs Government Of The State Of Azad Jammu And Kashmir through Chief Secretary and others2020 [M] C L R 898, 2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 38, PLD 2020 High · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-09-17Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs State through A.A.G. and another2020 YLR 1443 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-03Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali and another vs The State and others2020 YLR 2487 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-14
  murder convictionfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuschance witnessacquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencebenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a Criminal Jail Appeal challenging a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and a Criminal Acquittal Appeal against the acquittal of co-accused. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the identical evidence used against him and the acquitted co-accused. The High Court allowed the appellant’s appeal, set aside his conviction, and dismissed the acquittal appeal. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the witnesses were 'chance witnesses' whose presence was not satisfactorily explained. Crucially, the court applied the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, finding that since the trial court disbelieved the evidence against the acquitted co-accused, it could not rely on the same evidence to convict the appellant without strong corroboration. Furthermore, the court reiterated that in acquittal appeals, the accused enjoys a 'double presumption of innocence,' and appellate courts should only interfere if the acquittal is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a gross misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court convict an accused on evidence that was disbelieved by the trial court regarding co-accused?
  • What is the standard of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Does the rule of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' apply to criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Under what circumstances is a witness considered a 'chance witness' in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others vs Tanvir Abbas Tabish and others2020 SCMR 850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-02-28
  civil petition for leave to appealarbitration awardrule of the courtspecific performanceminors' interestsremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision. The underlying matter originated from a suit for specific performance where the dispute was referred to arbitration during proceedings, resulting in an award made the rule of the court by the trial court. The appellate court subsequently remanded the case, and the High Court upheld that remand. The core legal question revolved around the legality of the trial court referring the matter for grant of a decree to the arbitrator, the failure to appraise the award before making it the rule of the court, and the absence of court permission for entering into an agreement or reference involving minor parties. The Supreme Court held that sending the matter for grant of a decree to the arbitrator is not permissible under the law, and that trial courts must properly appraise awards rather than dismiss objections without evaluation, especially when minors are involved without prior court permission. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can refer the matter for the grant of a decree to an arbitrator?
  • Is a trial court required to appraise an arbitration award before making it the rule of the court?
  • Can an agreement or reference involving minor parties be made without obtaining prior permission of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali & others vs Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 644 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-13Read full judgment →
• Barclays Bank PLC vs Various Claimants2020 P SC 1198, 2020 SCMR 718 · Supreme Court of United Kingdom · 2020-04-01Read full judgment →
• Bara Khan vs Rasheeda Ashraf2020 MLD 272 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-14Read full judgment →
• Bank, Islami Pakistan Limited through President vs Manzar Masood2020 CLD 954 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-22Read full judgment →
• Bank Islami Pakistan Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue & Others2020 SHC 1028 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-19Read full judgment →
• Bank Islami Pakistan Limited through Branch Manager/General Attorney/2020 CLD 1239 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-07Read full judgment →
• Bank Alfalah Limited vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary Revenue2020 PTD 827 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
• Bal Mukund Sharma @ Balmukund Chaudhry, etc. vs The State of Bihar2020 P SC (Crl.) 74 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-04-16
  unlawful assemblycommon objectconstructive liabilitySection 149 IPCmurder convictionbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the conviction of fifteen accused persons for murder and rioting. The prosecution alleged that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, set fire to the informant's house, and killed the deceased. The Trial Court and High Court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, among other provisions. The core legal question was whether the conviction of all accused under Section 302/149 IPC was sustainable, given the evidence regarding the common object of the assembly. The Supreme Court held that while the accused Brahamdeo Chaudhry was guilty of murder, the remaining accused did not share a common object to commit murder, as the act was sudden and lacked prior knowledge or intent. Consequently, the Court acquitted nine accused entirely due to insufficient evidence. Four other accused were acquitted of murder charges, though their convictions for other offences were upheld with sentences modified to time served. The Court reaffirmed that grave suspicion cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt in establishing constructive liability under Section 149 IPC.

  Questions settled

  • Can members of an unlawful assembly be convicted for murder under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 if the act of murder was sudden and not part of the common object?
  • Does grave suspicion regarding the complicity of an accused suffice to establish liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the evidence of the common object is vague and inconsistent?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Nawab vs Sohail Khan and another2020 MLD 266 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-09-12
  HarabahCriminal Procedure CodeJudgment writingMandatory provisionsRemandOffences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979Conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a trial court judgment convicting the appellant for Harabah (robbery) and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s judgment was legally sustainable, given its failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Specifically, the trial court failed to frame points for determination, provide reasons for the decision, or specify the exact offence and statutory provision under which the appellant was convicted and sentenced. The Federal Shariat Court held that the impugned judgment was defective and unsustainable in law due to these procedural lapses. The court emphasized that the requirements of Section 367, Cr.P.C. are mandatory, not merely formal, and are essential for the administration of justice. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to rewrite the judgment in strict accordance with the law, ensuring all statutory requirements are met, including specifying the legal basis for the conviction and the reasons for the sentence imposed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal judgment that fails to specify the offence and the statutory provision under which the accused is convicted sustainable in law?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for a criminal judgment under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Must a trial court provide reasons for awarding a lesser sentence of life imprisonment in its judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Munir vs The State and another2020 P SC (Crl.) 635, 2020 SCMR 588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-02
  sentence reductiondeath penaltyimprisonment for lifemitigating circumstancessudden fightverbal altercationpremeditation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where he was sentenced to death on two counts, alongside convictions under Sections 324 and 337-F(ii) of the same Code. The appellant did not contest his conviction but sought a reduction in the quantum of his sentence. The core legal question was whether the circumstances of the offense justified mitigating the death penalty to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the occurrence took place due to a trivial verbal altercation over a small bridge, without any previous enmity or premeditation. The Court held that because the incident occurred at the spur of the moment without premeditation, mitigating circumstances existed. Consequently, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the convictions but converting the appellant's death sentences on two counts into imprisonment for life, while keeping the other sentences and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 intact.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to life imprisonment if the offense was committed without premeditation and at the spur of the moment?
  • Does a trivial verbal altercation immediately preceding an incident constitute a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Whether the absence of previous enmity between the parties can be considered as a factor in reducing the quantum of sentence from death to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Munir vs The Govt of KPK & others2021 PLC (C.S.) 913, 2020 PHC 242 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-03
  constitutional petitionlocus poenitentiaefraudulent appointmenttampered testimonialsservice matterrescission of orderprimary school teacher
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment as a Primary School Teacher (PST). The core legal question was whether an appointment order secured through tampered educational testimonials and fraud could be rescinded by the competent authority, and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae barred such withdrawal. The Peshawar High Court held that where an appointment or order is obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or tampering with official records, the exception to the principle of locus poenitentiae applies, and the authority retains the power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to rescind or recall the fraudulent order. The court laid down that fraudulent acts vitiate all solemn transactions and that perpetual rights cannot be claimed on the basis of an illegal or void order secured through fabricated documents.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply when an appointment order is secured through fraud or tampered educational testimonials?
  • Can an authority rescind an order under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 if the initial order was obtained unlawfully?
  • Whether an employee can claim vested rights on the basis of a service appointment obtained through fabricated documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Baidar vs Ghulam Nabi and 3 others2020 CLC 2024 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-04Read full judgment →
• Bahramand Khan & another vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Senior Member Board of Revenue, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others2021 PLD Peshawar 27, 2020 PHC 456 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-15Read full judgment →
• Bahoo Dying Industries (Private) Limited vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines2021 PLD Lahore 186, 2020 LHC 2799 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-09Read full judgment →
• Bahlol Khan Kasi vs Azmatullah Kasi and another2020 P Cr. L J 1633 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-17
  appeal against acquittalaggrieved personhurt caselocus standidouble presumption of innocenceinterested witnesscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against an acquittal order in a criminal case involving charges of firing and causing hurt. The primary legal question addressed is whether a complainant, who is not the injured party, qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' competent to file an appeal against an acquittal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases involving hurt. The Court held that in hurt cases, the right to appeal against acquittal is restricted to the victim themselves, or, if the victim is a minor or insane, to their legal guardians as defined under the law. The complainant, being neither the injured party nor a legal guardian of a minor or insane victim, lacks the standing to appeal. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting contradictions between ocular and medical evidence and the absence of independent corroboration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as incompetent, and the acquittal of the respondent was upheld based on the principle of double presumption of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Who qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' competent to file an appeal against an acquittal in a hurt case under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a complainant who is not the injured party file an appeal against an acquittal in a case involving hurt?
  • Does an accused person enjoy a double presumption of innocence after an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan vs The State2020 MLD 2006 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-04-30
  murderbenefit of doubtocular testimonyunnatural conduct of witnessdisclosure statementcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, along with a connected revision petition for enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the sole eye-witness whose presence at the crime scene was rendered doubtful by unnatural conduct, and the admissibility of disclosure statements under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Balochistan High Court held that where an eye-witness fails to accompany a deceased or injured victim to the hospital and instead proceeds to the police station, such unnatural conduct casts serious doubt on their presence, requiring strong independent corroboration which was lacking in this case. Furthermore, police disclosure statements reproducing previously known facts do not constitute discoveries under Article 40. The court laid down that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution fails to establish presence and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in the acquittal of the appellant and the dismissal of the enhancement petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unnatural conduct of an eye-witness in failing to accompany the victim to the hospital casts doubt on their presence at the scene?
  • Can a police disclosure statement reproducing previously known facts be considered a discovery of a new fact under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a conviction sustainable on the sole testimony of an eye-witness whose presence is doubtful and lacks independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadar and 82 others vs Collector Land Acquisition 13 Others2020 PLJ Peshawar 124, 2021 YLR 84, 2020 PHC 162 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
• Bagh Ali vs The State2020 SHC 1278 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-09Read full judgment →
• Badl (deceased) through his L.Rs and others vs Lashkari (deceased)2021 PLJ SC 71, 2020 P SC 678, 2020 SCMR 573, 2020 SCP 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-02-14
  pre-emption rightsLand Reforms Regulation 1972doctrine of sinkertenant statusmustajirsale considerationcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioners claiming rights as tenants under paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioners qualified as tenants under the Regulation, the status of a mustajir (lessee) regarding pre-emption rights, and the applicability of the doctrine of sinker. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower fora dismissing the suit. The Court held that a lessee is not a "tenant" under the Regulation, as clarified by the Land Commission's Press Note No. 57. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the doctrine of sinker applies where a valid pre-emptor joins a non-tenant in a suit, causing the entire claim to fail. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioners failed to deposit the sale consideration within a reasonable time following the initial order, providing an independent ground for dismissal. The judgment reaffirms that pre-emption rights are strictly construed and require the claimant to establish their status as a tenant throughout the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'tenant' under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 include a 'mustajir' or lessee?
  • Does the doctrine of sinker apply when a valid pre-emptor joins a non-tenant in a pre-emption suit?
  • Is a pre-emptor required to deposit the sale consideration within a reasonable time to maintain a pre-emption claim?
  • Can a tenant of a lessee qualify as a tenant of the original landowner for the purposes of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Badaruddin vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 164 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-08Read full judgment →
• Babar vs The State2020 KLR Supreme Court 241, 2020 P SC (Crl.) 537, 2020 SCMR 761, 2020 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-02-11
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirysection 164 statementinvestigation SOPrape case investigationpolice guidelines
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal concerning pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations where the petitioner was associated with another accused named in a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail in circumstances where prior litigation suggested potential mala fide and further information was required by the prosecution. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, confirming the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier on the basis that the case called for further inquiry. Additionally, the Court addressed the violation of the Standard Operating Procedure for Investigation of Rape Cases 2013 regarding the assignment of female rape case investigations to female police officers, directing strict compliance and issuance of fresh instructions across police stations in the province. The key principle laid down is that where a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicates a co-accused in the backdrop of previous enmity and the prosecution has yet to collect corroborative details associating the accused with the crime, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry warranting the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail when a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 names another individual and prior litigation suggests potential mala fide?
  • Whether the assignment of a male police officer instead of a female police officer to investigate a female rape case violates the Standard Operating Procedure for Investigation of Rape Cases 2013?
  • Can observations made by the court during a bail hearing be considered tentative in nature so as not to prejudice the case of either party?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1026 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-19Read full judgment →
• Babar Nadeem vs The State through P.G. Punjab and another2020 SCMR 1253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-21
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabettorcriminal conspiracymurderbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was implicated as an abettor in a murder case based on the disclosure statements of co-accused and subsequent witness testimonies. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the delayed implication and the alleged lack of credible evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's name was omitted from the initial crime report despite witnesses claiming to have seen him shortly before the incident. Furthermore, the Court noted that the exoneration of a co-accused, who was similarly implicated, undermined the prosecution's hypothesis of conspiracy. The Court held that these factors brought the petitioner's culpability within the scope of further inquiry under the relevant statutory provisions, warranting judicial protection. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, confirming the ad interim bail previously granted to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of a bail bond.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of an accused's name from the initial crime report, despite witnesses claiming to have seen them, constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the exoneration of a co-accused implicated on similar grounds undermine the prosecution's case against another accused for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar Mehmood vs Waqas Javed and another2020 P Cr. L J 988 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-16
  cancellation of bailpost arrest bailrule of consistencySection 497(5) CrPCembezzlementIESCOsanitary workerSpecial Judge Central
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Special Judge Central, Islamabad, in a case arising out of FIR No. 10/2019 under Sections 420, 464, 468, 471, 473, 419, 409, 109 PPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The allegations involved a major financial fraud and embezzlement in IESCO. The petitioner argued that the trial court's order was perverse and illegal as respondent No. 1 had recovered a bank seal used in the utility bill fraud. The High Court observed that respondent No. 1 was a daily-wage sanitary worker not involved in accounting, IT, or data entry, was not nominated in the FIR, and was implicated solely via a co-accused's statement. The court noted that co-accused had been granted bail and the trial court properly applied the rule of consistency. Holding that bail once granted by a competent court can only be cancelled under Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. upon showing strong, exceptional grounds or perversity leading to a miscarriage of justice, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can post-arrest bail granted by a competent court be cancelled under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an accused who is a non-governmental daily-wage worker with no official duties regarding accounts or IT can be denied bail solely based on a co-accused's statement in an embezzlement case?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused with similar or greater roles have already been granted post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar Hussain vs The State and another2020 KLR Supreme Court 316, 2020 P SC (Crl.) 626, 2020 SCMR 871, 2020 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-04-13
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytwo versionsprior criminal caseslack of convictiongrant of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, against a High Court order refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a murder and theft case. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted when two conflicting versions of the fatal shooting existed on the record and the petitioner was involved in other unconvicted criminal cases. The Supreme Court granted leave, converted the petition into an appeal, and allowed bail under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The Court held that the existence of two divergent versions regarding the fatal shooting brought the case within the ambit of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court established that mere involvement in other criminal cases without any conviction does not disentitle an accused from the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of two conflicting factual versions of an incident bring a case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. for the grant of bail?
  • Can post-arrest bail be withheld solely on the ground of an accused person's involvement in other criminal cases where no conviction has been recorded?
  • Whether the veracity of conflicting statements made in an FIR versus a dying declaration should be determined at the bail stage or deferred to trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar Ali vs The State2020 SHC 578 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10
  criminal bail applicationpost-arrest bailnot pressedexpedited trialrecording of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the applicant, Babar Ali, before the Sindh High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest relief or expedited trial proceedings. The court dismissed the bail application as not pressed, pursuant to the statement made by the learned counsel for the applicant. The ratio decidendi established by the court directs the trial court to expedite the recording of evidence of the complainant and the victim within a specified timeframe of thirty working days following the receipt of the order and framing of the charge. The key principle laid down is that where a bail application is not pressed, the court may facilitate speedy trial remedies and grant liberty to the accused to approach the trial court afresh on new grounds once the primary witnesses have been examined.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal bail application be dismissed as not pressed when the applicant seeks expedited trial proceedings instead?
  • Whether the trial court can be directed to record the evidence of the complainant and victim within a specific timeframe?
  • Is an applicant at liberty to file a fresh bail application on fresh grounds after the recording of material witnesses' evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Baba Sufi Muhammad Iqbal vs Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions2020 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-08Read full judgment →
• Azra Bibi vs Lateef and others2020 YLR 282 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-25Read full judgment →
• Azmatullah and another vs The University of Balochistan, through its2020 [M] C L R 677 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Azmat Ullah vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forestry, Environment & Wildlife, Peshawar etc2020 PHC 16 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Azizullah alias Hero vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (F.S.C.) 129 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-03-12
  criminal appealconfessional statementabscondenceacquittalretracted confessioncorroborative evidencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his trial after being an absconder, whereas co-accused on the same set of evidence had already been acquitted. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of an alleged confessional statement where the judicial magistrate was not produced as a witness, and whether conviction can be sustained on the basis of abscondence alone when the substantive ocular evidence has been disbelieved. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that a confessional statement retracted by the accused and lacking the testimony of the recording magistrate has no legal sanctity, and that abscondence is merely a corroborative circumstance which cannot form the sole basis for a conviction in the absence of reliable substantive evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of abscondence when the substantive ocular evidence has been disbelieved?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a confessional statement where the recording magistrate is not examined as a witness and the confession is retracted?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the same set of evidence upon which co-accused persons have already been acquitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz-Ur-Rehman vs Mst. Bibi Jameela and 2 others2020 KLR Criminal Cases 317, 2021 PLJ Quetta 126, 2020 CLC 380 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-23Read full judgment →
• Azhar Mahmood Ranjha through Tauseef-ul-Islam vs The Commissioner2020 PTD (Trib.) 1292 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-06-24Read full judgment →
• Azeem Bukhsh vs Chief Executive Officer District Health Authority2020 PLJ Lahore 15 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-04Read full judgment →
• Azee Securities (Private) Limited vs Commissioner (SMD), SECP, Islamabad2020 CLD 1332 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2020-02-06Read full judgment →
• Azam Zaheer Khan and 6 others vs Iqbal Zaheer Khan and 2 others2020 MLD 1198 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-11Read full judgment →
• Azad Jammu & Kashmir Technical Education & Vocational Training2020 SC AJK 44 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Azad Govt. & others vs Barrister Adnan Nawaz and others2020 SC AJK 98 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-12-17Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief2020 P SC 77 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →