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.

• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief2020 P SC 145 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Ayub Khan etc vs The District Land Acqusition Collector Mardan etc2021 MLD 140, 2020 PHC 358 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-04Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Batool and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary, Higher Education Department, Peshawar and others2020 PHC 208 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ayaz Hussain vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 737 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-21
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsheroin recoveryprohibitory clausefurther inquiryfalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a narcotics case arising from Crime No.164 of 2019 registered at Police Station Sanghar under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 325 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the non-prohibitory nature of the offense and prior litigation between the applicant's family and the local police. The Sindh High Court allowed the application and granted bail to the applicant, holding that the recovered quantity did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the lack of independent witnesses from a populated area raised doubts, and prior litigation between the accused's family and the police made false implication a matter for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of 325 grams of heroin fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether bail can be granted when the alleged contraband does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the case requires further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does prior litigation and animosity between the accused's family and the local police constitute grounds for further inquiry at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz and 2 others vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (F.S.C.) 13 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-25
  identification paradevisual identificationSection 342 examinationcriminal appealbenefit of doubtprocedural irregularitymurderdacoity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of identification parades, the reliability of visual identification of unknown assailants, and the legal consequences of the trial court's failure to put all incriminating evidence to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the identification parade procedurally flawed and the visual identification unreliable due to the absence of prior acquaintance and insufficient lighting. Crucially, the trial court’s failure to confront the accused with all incriminating evidence violated the mandatory requirements of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, establishing that conviction cannot rest on suspicion and that procedural safeguards in criminal trials are mandatory.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to disclose the features of an unknown suspect in the FIR render an identification parade legally invalid?
  • Is visual identification of an unknown assailant sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal consequence of a trial court's failure to put all incriminating evidence to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on suspicion or high probability in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ahmed Soomro and others vs National Accountability Bureau2020 P Cr. L J 1273 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-05
  pre-arrest bailNational Accountability Bureaucorruption and corrupt practicesirrigation departmentembezzlementmisuse of authorityaccountability court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, serving as irrigation officers and government contractors, filed Constitution Petitions seeking pre-arrest bail in a reference pending before the Accountability Court concerning corruption, corrupt practices, and embezzlement of public funds in development schemes of the Irrigation Department. The core legal question involved whether the petitioners made illegal and excess payments to contractors without executing proper works, causing loss to the national exchequer, and whether they demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that there was sufficient incriminating material connecting the petitioners to the alleged offenses of corruption and misuse of authority, and that pre-arrest bail, being an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of mala fides, could not be extended merely on offers to deposit liabilities or allegations of selective accountability. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions, recalled the interim pre-arrest bail, and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months. The key principles laid down include that selective accountability does not absolve an individual of criminal liability, and that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy that cannot be granted without establishing mala fides or ulterior motives.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can challenge prosecution on the ground of selective accountability to absolve himself from criminal liability?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted in corruption cases solely on the willingness of the petitioners to deposit the alleged financial liability?
  • What are the essential prerequisites for the grant of pre-arrest bail in criminal jurisprudence?
  • Whether sufficient incriminating material collected during investigation warrants the dismissal of a pre-arrest bail petition in accountability cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Aya Khan and another vs The StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 200, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 496, 2020 SCMR 350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-26
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsheroinbenefit of doubtnet weightgross weightborderline case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal was filed against the Peshawar High Court's order refusing bail to the petitioners. The case originated from an FIR registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 1100 grams of Heroin powder from a vehicle occupied by the petitioners. The primary legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail based on the ambiguity regarding the weight of the recovered narcotics. The Supreme Court observed that neither the FIR nor the recovery memo specified whether the 1100 grams constituted the net or gross weight of the substance. This omission rendered the matter a borderline case between subsections (b) and (c) of Section 9 of the CNSA. Applying the principle that the benefit of doubt regarding the classification of the offense should favor the accused at the bail stage, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail. The ruling reinforces that technical ambiguities in the quantification of narcotics can justify the grant of bail.

  Read full judgment →
• Awam-E-Japukey through Representatives and 6 others vs Numberdar2020 YLR 2407 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-08-31Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs The State2020 PHC 112, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1216, 2021 YLR 1683 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-02
  homicideocular evidenceacquittal of co-accusedsafe administration of criminal justiceappraisal of evidenceleave to appealcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction for homicide under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, where the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution's case was flawed due to the acquittal of six co-accused, improvements in the complainant's supplementary statement, and the improbability of witness presence. The Supreme Court examined the ocular evidence provided by the deceased's father and a collateral relative, finding their presence at the crime scene—a Kabaddi match—plausible and their testimony consistent regarding the petitioner's specific role. The Court held that the acquittal of co-accused out of abundant caution did not undermine the case against the petitioner, who was singularly identified as the shooter. Furthermore, the prompt reporting of the incident and consistency with the autopsy report excluded the possibility of fabrication. Finding the lower courts' appraisal of evidence aligned with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused automatically render the conviction of the remaining accused unsustainable?
  • Can ocular testimony be relied upon if the witnesses are close relatives of the deceased?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the case against all accused necessarily weaken the case against the principal offender?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Iftikhar and 3 others vs Sheikh Muhammad Haneef and 112020 CLC 1870 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-28Read full judgment →
• Aurang Zeb Khan Toru vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2020 [M] C L R 485 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Attaullah vs The State2020 YLR 315 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-07
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsrecovery of narcoticsprivate witnessesprohibitory clausetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Attaullah, seeking post-arrest bail in a narcotics case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The accused was apprehended with five kilograms of narcotics during a search of a passenger coach. The core legal questions were whether the absence of private witnesses during the recovery of narcotics vitiates the prosecution's case, and whether the accused is entitled to bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the statutory prohibition against bail for such offenses. The Court held that the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is excluded in narcotics cases by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that law enforcement officials are competent witnesses. Finding that the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that prima facie evidence connects the accused to the crime, the Court dismissed the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 render the recovery of narcotics valid without private witnesses?
  • Are members of law enforcement agencies competent witnesses in narcotics cases in the absence of evidence of mala fide?
  • Does the recovery of five kilograms of narcotics bring an offense under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaullah vs The State through Ag Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another2020 P SC (Crl.) 682, 2020 SCMR 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-21
  post-arrest bailabscondenceno injury attributedmurdercommon intentionvicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail was filed by an accused booked under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, who had remained an absconder for seven years. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, ambushed the complainant and his family members, resulting in three deaths. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the petitioner's long-term abscondence and presence at the crime scene were sufficient to deny bail when no specific injury to any of the victims was attributed to him. The Court held that since no injury was attributed to the petitioner, no reasonable grounds existed to deny him bail, and he was no longer required for investigation. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed the same, and granted bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing a surety bond. The key principle laid down is that where no specific injury is attributed to an accused, and their custody is not required for investigation, bail may be granted despite a long period of abscondence.

  Questions settled

  • Can post-arrest bail be granted to an accused in a murder case if no specific injury to any victim is attributed to him?
  • Does a long period of abscondence automatically disentitle an accused from the grant of bail if no reasonable grounds connect him to the specific injuries of the deceased?
  • Whether an accused can be denied bail when his custody is no longer required by the police for the purpose of investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Ullah vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 739 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-01-17
  post-arrest bailcontrol of narcotic substancessearch warrantborderline casefurther inquirymedical groundsprivacy and dignity of man
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in case FIR No.98/2019 registered under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1000 grams of charas from his residential house. The core legal questions involved the legality of a police raid conducted without a search warrant under section 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whether the recovery constituted a borderline case between clauses (b) and (c) of section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 warranting further inquiry, and entitlement to bail on medical grounds due to hepatitis B. The court held that the police failed to comply with mandatory search warrant requirements and that the recovery quantity presented a borderline case requiring further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, alongside medical grounds. The petition was consequently allowed, granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner upon furnishing required security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a police raid conducted on a residential house without obtaining a search warrant under section 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the search in narcotics cases?
  • Does the recovery of 1000 grams of charas constitute a borderline case between clauses (b) and (c) of section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 attracting further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can a chronic illness such as hepatitis B serve as a valid medical ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in narcotic cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs The State2020 SHC 542 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07
  bail applicationdismissal as not pressedwithdrawal of applicationcriminal procedurepost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed before the Sindh High Court. The applicant, through learned counsel, sought post-arrest bail in relation to criminal proceedings. During the hearing, the applicant's counsel, acting under instructions, explicitly stated that they did not wish to press the bail application. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application as not pressed. The judgment serves as a procedural record of the withdrawal of the bail plea by the applicant, resulting in the termination of the proceedings before the High Court without an adjudication on the merits of the bail request.

  Questions settled

  • What is the procedural consequence when an applicant's counsel does not press a bail application?
  • Can a bail application be dismissed as not pressed upon the instruction of the applicant's counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Aurangzaib and 2 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 923 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-01
  criminal acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencecommon intentionbenefit of doubtocular accountreappraisal of evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal acquittal appeal filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents was perverse, contrary to the material on record, or the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the common intention of the accused, that ocular witnesses attributed no injuries and admitted the respondents were empty-handed, and that the testimonies contained contradictions and lacked independent corroboration. The court reaffirmed the principle that double presumption of innocence is attached to an order of acquittal, which cannot be interfered with unless the reasons given by the trial court are arbitrary, fanciful, or capricious. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether double presumption of innocence attaches to an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
  • Does mere presence of an accused at the spot of an unpremeditated crime by itself connect them to the crime?
  • Can an order of acquittal be interfered with when the prosecution evidence is contradictory, self-destructing, and fails to establish common intention?
  • Is it necessary for the prosecution to provide strong and cogent reasons to dislodge the presumption of innocence upon acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Shahani vs The Secretary Establishment Division & others2020 SHC 600 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• Atta Mohammad and others vs Mst. Munir Sultan (deceased) through her2021 PLJ SC 240, 2021 P SC 215, 2021 SCMR 73, 2020 SCP 252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-10
  inheritancegift mutationsburden of prooffemale heirsrevenue recordsland revenueconstitutional protection of women
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit concerning inheritance and the validity of gift mutations. The deceased, Fateh Khan, allegedly gifted his entire landed estate to his second wife and two sons a few months prior to his death, thereby disinheriting his daughters. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed in favour of the deceased's daughter, a decision upheld by the High Court in concurrent findings. The core legal question was whether the petitioners discharged the heavy burden of proof required to establish the validity of the purported oral gifts made by an elderly and frail donor. The Supreme Court held that the beneficiaries failed to discharge the burden of proof, as material particulars regarding the making and acceptance of the gifts were missing from the mutations and daily registers, and the transaction was highly suspect. The Court laid down that purported gifts executed to deprive female heirs of their legal inheritance under shariah are void, contrary to public policy and the Constitution, and that revenue authorities must exercise strict vigilance and compliance in recording alienations.

  Questions settled

  • Who bears the burden of proof to establish the validity of a gift of immovable property when challenged by other legal heirs?
  • Are gift mutations executed to deprive female heirs of their legal inheritance under shariah contrary to public policy?
  • What are the statutory duties of revenue authorities under the Land Revenue Act, 1967 when sanctioning changes in the register of mutations?
  • Does the mere challenge of a court judgment and decree before a higher forum suspend its operation automatically?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Hussain vs Mst. Nazia & another2020 SHC 766, 2021 MLD 1521 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
• Atif Muhammad Khan vs The State through Station House Officer Police2020 P Cr. L J 130 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-02
  cancellation reportdischarge reportsection 173 Cr.P.C.judicial magistratepolice investigationspeaking ordercognizance of offencewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two consolidated writ petitions challenging an order by a Judicial Magistrate who disagreed with a police cancellation/discharge report regarding an FIR registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a Judicial Magistrate has the jurisdiction to disagree with a police report recommending the discharge of accused persons or cancellation of an FIR, and the extent of powers exercisable under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Islamabad High Court held that a Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the Investigating Officer and may disagree with a cancellation or discharge report, provided such disagreement is based on cogent grounds and expressed through a reasoned, speaking order reflecting an application of judicial mind in an administrative capacity, without dictating the specific manner of the final challan. The Court laid down that while investigation is the prerogative of the police, the Magistrate retains the power to scrutinize police reports under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and ensure compliance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Judicial Magistrate is competent to disagree with a police cancellation or discharge report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a Magistrate act in a judicial or administrative capacity when reviewing a report submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate direct the police to submit a challan against an accused in a specific manner or place names in particular columns?
  • What are the legal requirements for a Magistrate's order when disagreeing with the final report of an Investigating Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Atif Mehmood etc vs Member (Judicial-VIII), B.O.R, etc2020 [M] C L R 1554 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-11Read full judgment →
• Atam Parkash Chanani vs Gos & Ors2020 SHC 982 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-22Read full judgment →
• Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd2020 PCTLR 1329 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, India · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner, SRB, Karachi vs Messrs Mohsin Mehmood2020 PTD (Trib.) 836 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-05-17Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner, SRB, Karachi vs Messrs Falcon-I (Pvt.) Ltd2020 PTD (Trib.) 141 · Sindh Revenue Board · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner, Srb, Karachi vs Messrs Bata Pakistan Limited2020 PTD (Trib.) 2087 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-08-16Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner, SRB Karachi vs Messrs Daewoo Pakistan2020 PTD (Trib.) 121 · Sindh Revenue Board · 2019-04-30Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah vs The State and another2020 YLR 2336 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-23
  criminal appealabsconsionSection 512 CrPCright of cross-examinationocular evidenceconviction in absentiaQanun-e-Shahadatacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerns whether a statement of an injured witness, recorded under Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the appellant's absconsion, can be utilized to convict the accused after his arrest, despite the absence of cross-examination. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It ruled that Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is intended solely for the preservation of evidence and does not confer jurisdiction to convict an accused in absentia. Furthermore, the Court determined that under Article 47, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, evidence from prior proceedings is only admissible if the adverse party had the right and opportunity to cross-examine the witness, which was absent here. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The Court affirmed that absconsion is merely a corroborative piece of evidence and cannot substitute for substantive proof when the ocular account is unreliable or inadmissible.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded under Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to convict an accused who was absent during the recording?
  • Does the absence of cross-examination render evidence recorded under Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 inadmissible against an accused in a subsequent trial?
  • Is absconsion sufficient evidence to sustain a criminal conviction when the primary ocular evidence is unreliable?
  • Does Article 47, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 permit the use of evidence from prior proceedings where the accused had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Janejo vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 IHC 116 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-12Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Janejo vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1196 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-05
  writ petitionforeign postingsvested rightpolicy making domainjudicial reviewRules of BusinessFIA
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an order issued by the Ministry of Interior halting recommendations for foreign postings and appointments in Link Offices of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), which had recommended the petitioner as Counselor Immigration for Italy. The core legal question revolves around whether the Ministry or the Minister of Interior is authorized to halt an appointment process and whether the petitioner has acquired a vested right to the post. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner did not possess a final approval or notification from the competent authority, meaning no vested right or fundamental right had been infringed. The court further held that policy-making and executive administrative decisions, particularly regarding foreign postings and foreign policy, fall within the exclusive domain of the executive and are generally immune from judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public official acquires a vested right to a post merely upon being recommended by a selection committee in the absence of final executive approval?
  • Can the superior courts interfere in policy-making decisions of the executive under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Whether the Minister of Interior and the Ministry have the authority under the Rules of Business 1973 to halt or review an unfinalized appointment process for foreign missions?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmat Ali vs The State2020 SCMR 1000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-05-04
  narcotic possessioncriminal appealrecovery witnessesforensic reportconcurrent findingssafe administration of criminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner, Asmat Ali, for the possession of 9600 grams of cannabis, an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner was intercepted while driving a truck, and the contraband was recovered from the vehicle's tool box. Following a conviction by the trial court, which sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, the High Court upheld the decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the recovery and forensic analysis of the narcotics were sustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the testimony of the recovery witnesses was consistent and credible, and that the forensic report conclusively established the narcotic nature of the substance. The Court affirmed that the petitioner's own statement and the evidence presented failed to contradict the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings, emphasizing that the administration of criminal justice was properly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the recovery of narcotics warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does a forensic report confirming the narcotic character of a substance satisfy the evidentiary requirements for conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can a petitioner's own statement on oath be used to corroborate prosecution evidence regarding the possession of contraband?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim Jahangir vs The State and another2020 KLR Criminal Cases 116, 2020 PLJ Cr.C (Islamabad) 959, 2020 YLR 891, · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-08
  post-arrest baildacoityfurther inquiryidentification paradeprinciple of consistencyabsconsioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an alleged dacoity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite allegations of being a habitual offender and having absconded, given the lack of an identification parade and the fact that the complainant was not an eyewitness. The court held that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution failed to conduct an identification parade and the complainant was not present at the occurrence. Furthermore, applying the principle of consistency, the court noted that a co-accused had already been granted bail on the same evidence. The court emphasized that bail should not be withheld as punishment and that mere absconsion does not bar the grant of bail if the case has merit. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds, with the court clarifying that these observations were tentative and would not influence the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to conduct an identification parade in a dacoity case make the matter one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can bail be granted to an accused person who has a history of absconsion if the case otherwise has merit?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when a co-accused has been granted bail on the same set of evidence?
  • Is bail to be withheld as a form of punishment for an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim alias Hashim vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 3 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-15
  criminal appealrapeextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceadverse inferenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Asim alias Hashim, for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahkot. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the reliance on an alleged extra-judicial confession and medical evidence in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge. The court found the extra-judicial confession to be weak, ambiguous, and uncorroborated, and noted that the prosecution withheld a key witness, invoking an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, while medical evidence confirmed sexual assault, it did not link the appellant to the crime, especially given the negative chemical examiner report. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that medical evidence alone is insufficient to convict without independent corroboration linking the specific accused to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Is medical evidence alone sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape without independent corroboration linking the accused to the crime?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession that lacks specific details regarding the time, place, and manner of the occurrence?
  • Does the withholding of a material witness by the prosecution warrant an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim Ahmad vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 369 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-23
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustcivil disputeentrustmentmala fidefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a dispute over non-payment of an amount taken as a loan for a property deal. The core legal question is whether a civil dispute involving the non-payment of a loan constitutes a criminal breach of trust under Section 405 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Lahore High Court held that the transaction was purely civil in nature, lacking the essential ingredient of entrustment required for criminal breach of trust, and that the criminal case appeared to be a mala fide conversion of a civil dispute following prior litigation between the petitioner and the complainant's sister. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that a mere breach of a promise, agreement, or contract regarding money paid or invested does not amount to criminal breach of trust without a clear case of entrustment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-payment of an amount taken as a loan for a property deal constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the distinction between payment or investment of money and entrustment of money or property under criminal law?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when a civil transaction is converted into a criminal case with potential mala fide intentions?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 656, 2020 PHC 374 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-24Read full judgment →
• Asif Raza Masih vs Mst. Sofia alias Pinky etc2021 PLD Peshawar 41, 2020 PHC 426 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-14Read full judgment →
• Asif Nawaz vs Chairman, Punjab Vacational Training Council and 4 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1140 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-09
  transfer and postingservice matterswrit jurisdictionArticle 212mala fidepresumption of regularitycivil servantPunjab Vocational Training Council
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a transfer order issued by the Managing Director of the Punjab Vocational Training Council, alleging it was passed without lawful authority and under political influence. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, asserting that the petitioner, as a civil servant, was barred from approaching the High Court due to the constitutional prohibition on service matters. The Court held that transfer and posting constitute terms and conditions of service, thereby attracting the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Regarding the allegation of political influence, the Court observed that the petitioner provided only vague assertions without naming specific political figures or impleading them, failing to rebut the presumption of regularity attached to official acts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with the Court advising the petitioner to approach the competent authority for grievance redressal in accordance with the applicable transfer policy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to the transfer and posting of employees of the Punjab Vocational Training Council?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish an allegation of mala fide in an official transfer order?
  • Are the Punjab Vocational Training Council Employees' Service Regulations 2014 considered statutory in nature for the purpose of maintaining a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Mannaan and 9 others vs Suleman Lallani and 9 others2021 P C T L R 380, 2020 CLD 1095, 2020 SHC 292 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-16Read full judgment →
• Asif Majeed and 3 others vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation through Mayor, Karachi2020 MLD 1810 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-04Read full judgment →
• Asif Javed, Advocate vs Board of Directors through Chairman Lahore2020 CLD 210 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-19Read full judgment →
• Asif Iqbal vs The State2020 MLD 498, PTCL 2020 CL. 310, 2020 PTD 237 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-26
  sales tax fraudcriminal appealbenefit of the doubtbogus invoicescustoms and taxationacquittaldispatch clerk
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, a dispatch clerk in the Sales Tax Department, under Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for his alleged involvement in a tax refund fraud involving a bogus entity, Messrs Magna Teck Industries. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt regarding forgery and fraudulent collection of tax refund cheques. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution evidence failed to connect the appellant to the fraudulent scheme, noting that his handling of documents and collection of mail fell within his routine duties as a dispatch clerk, and that numerous material doubts plagued the prosecution case. The court laid down the principle that low-grade employees cannot be made scapegoats without substantive proof linking them to the core offense, and where material doubts exist in the prosecution's narrative, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused resulting in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a routine dispatch clerk can be convicted of tax fraud solely on the basis of handling official documents and courier consignments in the ordinary course of employment?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to investigate principal actors or examine primary witnesses create fatal doubts in a criminal case?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions in witness testimony regarding the identity of courier services in a tax fraud prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif and others vs The State2020 P SC (Crl.) 643, 2020 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-18
  criminal appealreappraisal of evidenceexplosive substancesillicit armsterrorismconcurrent findingsattempted murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants for offences including attempted murder, assault on public servants, possession of explosives and illicit arms, and terrorism-related charges. The core legal question involved the reappraisal of evidence to determine the guilt of the appellants who were apprehended red-handed at the spot. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent statements of public servant eye-witnesses, positive expert reports, and matching crime empties. The key principle laid down is that where two courts below have concurrently evaluated the evidence and arrived at a well-reasoned conclusion of guilt, the Supreme Court will not interfere with such concurrent findings upon reappraisal unless a serious legal or factual flaw is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence in a criminal appeal against concurrent convictions by the courts below?
  • Does the testimony of public servant eye-witnesses require corroboration when found consistent and reliable?
  • Whether recovery of explosive substances and matching crime empties sufficiently establishes the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Zardari vs State through Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, etc2020 PLJ Islamabad 119 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Asif Ali vs The State2020 SHC 570 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlrecovery of charasprohibitory clausepolice witnessessearch and arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant Muhammad seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 09/2020 registered at Police Station Sakrand under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after a recovery of 5155 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the huge quantity of contraband recovered and the contentions regarding lack of private witnesses and alleged police planting. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, as a huge quantity of charas falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was recovered, police officials are competent witnesses, and Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is excluded under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The key principles laid down are that the exclusion of Section 103 Cr.P.C. applies to narcotic searches under the CNS Act, police testimonies are competent at the bail stage without private witnesses, and deeper appreciation of evidence regarding alleged mala fides cannot be undertaken at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are applicable to searches and arrests made under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Are police officials competent witnesses whose statements cannot be discarded merely due to their official status?
  • Does the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Can a plea of mala fides and foisting of narcotics be deeply examined at the bail stage without substantial material on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali vs Secretary Board of Revenue & Others2020 PLC (C.S) 1553, 2020 SHC 256 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-19
  constitutional petitionpublic appointmentlegitimate expectationstructured discretionlachesservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by the petitioner alleging unlawful inaction by respondents in failing to appoint him as an Assistant or Data Entry Operator despite securing Grade A-I in the recruitment interview. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration for appointment based on merit and whether official respondents acted discriminatorily and arbitrarily. The court held that the official record verified the petitioner's recommendation for the post of Data Entry Operator (Computer) and rejected the respondents' plea of fabricated documents and laches. The court ruled that while appointment is an executive function, administrative discretion must be structured, fair, and reasonable pursuant to statutory duties, and qualified candidates possess a legitimate expectation to be treated without discrimination. The petition was accepted with a direction to the respondents to pass necessary orders within three weeks.

  Questions settled

  • Whether laches per se acts as an absolute bar to invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does a candidate who clears a recruitment interview and is recommended possess a legitimate expectation for fair consideration?
  • Is the executive discretion of authorities in making public appointments subject to the requirement of acting fairly, reasonably, and justly?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali vs Government of Punjab, etc2020 [M] C L R 1291 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-05Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali and 2 others vs The State and another2020 YLR 1081 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-19
  pre-arrest bailcross-versionfurther inquirymala fidesaggressor partycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by three petitioners seeking relief in a cross-version case registered under sections 337-A(iii), 337-F(i), 427, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the existence of a cross-version, a significant delay in lodging the FIR, and the resulting uncertainty regarding which party acted as the aggressor. The Court held that the case against the petitioners constituted a matter of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The holding emphasized that in cross-version cases, determining the aggressor party requires the recording of evidence at trial. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it may evaluate the merits and potential mala fides of the prosecution's case when deciding on pre-arrest bail applications. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim bail previously granted to the petitioners, ruling that their culpability must be determined by the trial court after evidence is presented.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a cross-version case, where the identity of the aggressor is disputed, warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Can a court evaluate the merits and potential mala fides of a case when deciding an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Is a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR a relevant factor in determining whether a case falls within the ambit of further inquiry for bail purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashkaran alias Aashankar and others vs The State (NAB) through Director2020 MLD 763 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali @ Ghazi vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1518 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-13
  pre-arrest bailconfirmation of bailprohibitory clauseunexplained delay in FIRmedical boardinterim bailSection 497 CrPCPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application was brought before the High Court of Sindh by the applicant seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 337A(ii), 337F(i), and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dismissal of his application by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail in light of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, a discrepancy in medical evidence, and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, noting an unexplained four-day delay in lodging the FIR, the suspension of the injured party's medical certificate by the Medical Board, and the fact that the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of up to five years. The court reaffirmed the settled legal principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of four days in lodging an FIR creates sufficient ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the suspension of an injured party's medical certificate by a Medical Board justify the confirmation of bail?
  • Whether the grant of bail is the rule and refusal 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 →
• ASI.Qurban Ali vs The State2020 SHC 180 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain vs Judicial Magistrate, etc2020 [M] C L R 1343 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-11Read full judgment →
• Ashfaque Ahmed vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 602 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Hussain vs The State2020 YLR 85 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-05-09
  criminal appealmurdercircumstantial evidencelast seen evidencedelayed FIRbenefit of the doubtacquittalsentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder, alongside a criminal revision petition by the State seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial and last-seen evidence in an unwitnessed, blind murder case where the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of eight days. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the last-seen evidence furnished by close relatives who remained silent for several days was unreliable and uncorroborated, that the missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence must benefit the accused, and that the prosecution failed to establish the charge. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the State's revision petition for sentence enhancement, laying down the principle that uncorroborated last-seen evidence from delayed statements of interested witnesses is insufficient to sustain a murder conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether uncorroborated last-seen evidence furnished by close relatives is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does an unexplained delay of several days in recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rob their testimony of credibility?
  • What is the legal effect of a broken chain of circumstances in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Can a conviction be maintained where the weapon of offence and site plan are not recovered on the pointation of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ali vs Ehtesab Bureau & others2020 SC AJK 84 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-05-21Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmed vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1516 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-01
  NADRAappointment of membersstatutory dutyconstitutional petitiongood governanceservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Islamabad High Court seeking directions for the Federal Government to appoint members of the National Database and Registration Authority under section 3 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, and for the expedited disposal of the petitioner's pending departmental appeal against his removal from service. The core legal question concerned the statutory obligation of the Federal Government to fill vacancies of members within the mandated timeframe and whether the absence of members invalidated the Authority's functions. The Court held that the Federal Government failed to perform its statutory and executive duties by leaving member positions vacant for years, violating the strict timelines prescribed in the law. The Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Federal Government to appoint members of the Authority expeditiously in accordance with the law, and directed that the petitioner's departmental appeal be decided promptly by the competent authority. The key principle laid down is that good governance requires the executive to strictly adhere to statutory timelines and fulfill its appointment obligations under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government is bound to fill vacancies of members in the National Database and Registration Authority within the timeframe prescribed by law?
  • Does the existence of vacancies in the National Database and Registration Authority invalidate its acts or proceedings?
  • Can the High Court direct the Federal Government under Article 199 of the Constitution to make appointments to statutory authorities in accordance with the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar vs The State2020 YLR 354 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-29
  Section 302(b) PPCbenefit of doubtdelayed Section 161 CrPC statementsubsequent nominationimprovement in FIRcapital sentence referenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeals and a confirmation reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arose against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Adam, whereby one appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life, while the other was awarded the death penalty. The core legal issues centered on whether the subsequent nomination of accused persons through an application made 18 days after a prompt FIR without specific roles, along with an unexplained four-day delay in recording eyewitness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranted extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants. The High Court held that the complainant's delayed application amounted to an unreliable improvement of the FIR. Furthermore, following established Supreme Court precedent, the unexplained delay in recording witnesses' statements under Section 161 rendered their testimony untrustworthy. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants, and disposed of the appeals and reference.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application submitted days after the registration of a prompt FIR be treated as part of the FIR to implicate previously unnamed accused without specifying their roles?
  • What is the evidentiary value of prosecution witnesses' statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with an unexplained delay?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Virk vs National Accountability Bureau and 2 others2020 P Cr. L J 1648 · Lahore High Court · 2020-05-05
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyNational Accountability Ordinancehousing schemeillegal release of mortgaged landconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in which the petitioner, a Tehsil Officer (Infrastructure) at the Tehsil Municipal Administration, sought post-arrest bail in an accountability reference relating to the illegal release of mortgaged land in a housing scheme. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was competent to issue a certification for the release of mortgaged plots without a formal field report, whether criminal liability attaches to a void document, and the applicability of the rule of consistency vis-a-vis a co-accused already granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner lacked the technical competence and authority under the Punjab Private Housing Schemes and Land Sub-Division Rules, 2010 to issue such a certificate, that the certificate was legally inconsequential, and that the petitioner's case fell squarely within the rule of consistency since a co-accused had already been admitted to bail. The court laid down that a subordinate officer lacking statutory competence and technical expertise cannot incur criminal liability for an administrative certification, and that the rule of consistency applies when a co-accused similarly situated is granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a municipal officer lacking technical competence can incur criminal liability for issuing a certification for the release of mortgaged land under the Punjab Private Housing Schemes and Land Sub-Division Rules, 2010?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply to grant post-arrest bail to an accused whose co-accused holding a similar position has already been released on bail by the court?
  • Can an official document issued without statutory competence and mandatory field reports form the basis of a criminal charge under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Khan vs SHO PS Saidu Sharif & others2020 YLR 1341, 2020 PHC 10 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali, since deceased through legal heirs. and others vs Mst. Batul Bai, since deceased through legal heirs, and others2020 SHC 1160 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs Muhammad Saleem Akhtar and 5 others2020 [M] C L R 1584, 2020 YLR 745 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali Rajput vs The State2020 MLD 1473 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-06
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clauserecovery proceedingsprivate witnessesnon-prohibitory offencediscretionary punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arose from the refusal of pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court to the applicant, Asghar Ali Rajput, who was charged under sections 337-J, 269, and 272 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged possession and sale of 'Z-21 Gutka'. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail, specifically considering the applicability of section 337-J and whether the alleged offence fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the recovery was rendered doubtful by the failure to associate private witnesses and that section 337-J was not prima facie applicable at the current stage. Furthermore, the Court determined that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the punishment provided is discretionary. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that in non-prohibitory offences, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the failure of police to associate private witnesses in recovery proceedings a ground to doubt the prosecution's case in a bail application?
  • Should bail be granted as a rule in cases where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali Mallah vs Learned Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court and 22020 P Cr. L J 1534 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-17
  perjuryfalse evidencehostile witnessacquittalbenefit of doubtshow-cause noticeanti-terrorism court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, which initiated proceedings against the applicant, a prosecution witness, for giving false evidence under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant had been issued a show-cause notice following the acquittal of the accused in the underlying criminal case, where the trial court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. The core legal question was whether the applicant could be prosecuted for perjury based on his testimony when the prosecution had not declared him hostile during the trial. The High Court held that the impugned order was unjustified. The Court reasoned that the applicant's statement during the investigation was not on oath, and since the prosecution did not declare him hostile, his testimony was implicitly accepted as true. Furthermore, the acquittal of the accused due to the prosecution's failure to prove its case could not be attributed solely to the applicant. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, establishing that prosecution for perjury is not warranted where a witness was not declared hostile and the acquittal resulted from general evidentiary deficiencies.

  Questions settled

  • Can a prosecution witness be prosecuted for giving false evidence under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the prosecution did not declare them hostile during the trial?
  • Is a witness liable for perjury solely because the accused were acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to prove its case?
  • Does a statement recorded by police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute evidence on oath for the purposes of Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Asfand Yar Khan and another vs The State and anotherPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 122, 2020 P SC (Crl.) 673, 2020 SCMR 715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-04-02
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysupplementary statementcriminal appealhomicideidentification of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two brothers, Asfand Yar Khan and Salman Khan, who were implicated as accused in a double homicide case through a supplementary statement filed weeks after the initial First Information Report. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given their absence from the initial crime report and the consistency of witnesses regarding the number of assailants. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners were not named in the original crime report, and all witnesses were unanimous that only five individuals were involved in the incident, which excluded the petitioners. The Court held that this significant omission created a case of further inquiry under the relevant bail provisions. Consequently, the Court converted the criminal petition into an appeal, allowed the bail, and directed the petitioners' release upon furnishing bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that the unexplained omission of an accused from the initial crime report, coupled with consistent witness testimony limiting the number of perpetrators to a number excluding the accused, constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inclusion of an accused in a supplementary statement, when they were absent from the initial crime report, constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when witness testimony consistently limits the number of perpetrators to a count that excludes the petitioners?
  Read full judgment →
• Asal Janan & others vs Zareef Khan & others2020 SCMR 668, 2020 SCP 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-21
  inheritancelimitationconcurrent findingsadmissibility of documentsmutationcivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision against concurrent findings of the lower courts. The petitioners sought to challenge land mutations from 1922 and 1927, claiming inheritance rights through their mother, Mst. Sabardana, whom they alleged was the daughter of Ganj. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners sufficiently proved their lineage to establish inheritance rights and whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to prove their mother was the daughter of Ganj, as the documentary evidence (Exh. PW-3) was inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, due to lack of proper certification. Consequently, the claim of inheritance failed, rendering the suit time-barred. The Court affirmed the principle that while legal heirs become joint owners upon the death of a propositus, the benefit of inheritance-based limitation exceptions only applies if the claimant successfully proves their status as a legal heir. Absent such proof, the bar of limitation applies to challenges against long-standing mutations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere assertion of an inheritance claim automatically exempt a suit from the bar of limitation?
  • What are the requirements for a certified copy of a public document to be admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Under what circumstances can a legal heir be ousted from property, and what is the effect of such ouster on limitation?
  • Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding lineage and inheritance in a civil petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Asadullah vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 90 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-29Read full judgment →
• Asadullah Khawaja vs Investment Corporation of Pakistan (ICP)2020 SHC 302 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-29
  Voluntary Retirement Schemeservice duesManagement Grade M-Ipast and closed transactionacquiescenceaudit objectionsrecoveriesstatutory corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, former Managing Director of the Investment Corporation of Pakistan (ICP), instituted a suit for recovery of service dues and benefits under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), challenging an ICP letter that calculated his benefits based on a reduced salary rather than his initial salary of Rs. 1,25,000 per month. The core legal questions centered on whether the plaintiff's retirement benefits were rightly computed based on the M-1 Management Grade as fixed by the ICP Board pursuant to federal directives, and whether the withholding of certain amounts due to audit objections was legally justified. The Sindh High Court held that while the plaintiff was entitled to retirement benefits as of the cut-off date, those benefits were correctly calculated on the basis of the M-1 Management Grade finalized in earlier board meetings, which the plaintiff had acquiesced to, but ruled that the withholding of the balance sum of Rs. 613,624.23 under audit objections was illegal since prior payments were treated as past and closed transactions. The court partly decreed the suit, directing the payment of the withheld amount along with a 10% annual markup.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee's retirement benefits under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme can be calculated on a salary scale subsequently modified and accepted through board decisions?
  • Whether payments received by a corporate executive during tenure can be reopened under audit objections when treated by the board as a past and closed transaction?
  • Does the doctrine of acquiescence under Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 preclude an employee from challenging a salary fixation after acting upon it without demur?
  • Is a statutory corporation justified in withholding undisputed retirement dues on the basis of unilateral audit objections?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad vs The State2020 PHC 48 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-03Read full judgment →
• Asad Muneer Khan s/o Yaqoob Khan r/o Komi, Tehsil and District2021 P Cr.LJ 126, 2020 SC AJK 76 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-05-05
  COVID-19 pandemicmass release of prisonersinherent powerssuo motu jurisdictionSection 561-A CrPCShariat Appellate Benchvictim notice in Qisas casesstatutory bail mechanism
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals challenged a High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir order granting blanket conditional bail to numerous undertrial prisoners across Central and District Jails due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The core legal questions addressed whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction—under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974, or suo motu powers—to release prisoners en masse without individual statutory bail proceedings, without hearing victims' legal heirs in Qisas and Diyat cases, and while bypassing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Shariat Appellate Bench. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir set aside the High Court's order, directing the re-arrest of released prisoners. The Court held that the High Court lacks suo motu jurisdiction under Article 44 and cannot invoke Section 561-A as a substitute for ordinary statutory bail remedies or to bypass special legal fora. The statutory bail mechanism and the right of victims' legal heirs to notice cannot be circumvented under the pretext of a health emergency.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise suo motu jurisdiction under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974 to order the wholesale release of prisoners?
  • Can the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked as a substitute for ordinary statutory bail proceedings or to override special legal fora?
  • Does Section 9 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Constitution of Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court Act, 2017 bar the regular High Court from granting bail to accused persons facing trial for offences under Qisas and Diyat laws?
  • Is a judicial order granting bail to undertrial prisoners in Qisas and Diyat cases valid if passed without issuing notice to and hearing the legal heirs of the victims?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Khan vs The State2020 YLR 843 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-19
  circumstantial evidenceQatl-e-Amdtelevised confessionmodern devices evidencedomestic violencecriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the Qatl-e-Amd of his wife. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution's case, resting entirely on circumstantial evidence and a televised confession, was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstances, including the appellant's motive, the victim's unnatural death inside their locked home, the appellant's subsequent flight, and the recovery of the murder weapon at his pointation. Regarding the televised confession, the Court affirmed that evidence derived from modern devices is admissible under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, provided the genuineness of the recording is established through the testimony of the person who prepared it. Finding no infirmity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence, the Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction. The judgment also emphasized the necessity for the government to enforce the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act 2013 to protect vulnerable women from domestic abuse.

  Questions settled

  • Is a televised confession admissible as evidence in a criminal trial?
  • What is the standard of proof required for a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Must the person who prepared a recording from a modern device be examined to prove its genuineness in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Jamal Daudpoto vs Assistant Commissioner Ratodero and 4 others2020 CLC 1945 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-28
  constitutional petitiondemarcation of landmutation entrydocument of titlecompulsory registrationlachesequitable reliefArticle 199
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 seeking a direction to revenue authorities to carry out the demarcation of certain commercial land allegedly purchased by his grandfather. The core legal questions were whether constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked to direct land demarcation or effectively obtain possession where the petitioner lacks established title, relies on an unverified mutation entry without a registered sale deed, and suffers from laches. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that mutation entries are not documents of title and confer no ownership rights. Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any transfer of immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or upwards must be effected through a registered instrument. The Court laid down that relief under Article 199 requires a clear, undisputed legal right that is evident without elaborate inquiry, and equitable relief cannot be extended to a party guilty of laches or suppression of material facts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a mutation entry in revenue records by itself constitutes a document of title conferring legal ownership rights?
  • Does the transfer of immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or upwards require compulsory registration to be valid in law?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 be invoked for land demarcation when the petitioner's title is controversial and disputed?
  • Whether a party guilty of gross negligence, laches, and suppression of material facts is entitled to equitable relief under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad alias Diloo vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 207 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-24
  murdercriminal appealidentification paradebenefit of doubtchance witnessballistic expertweapon recoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted without prior description of the culprits or proper matching of dummies, the impact of non-production of material witnesses and lack of forensic ballistic reports for recovered weapons, and the sufficiency of evidence in a night-time occurrence. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that material contradictions among eye-witnesses, the absence of prior descriptions of the assailants, flawed identification parade procedures, open eyes and mouths of the deceased casting doubt on witness presence, and uncorroborated weapon recoveries rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The key principles laid down include that the absence of a pre-arrest physical description of unknown culprits renders subsequent identification parades inconsequential, that dock identification without prior identification parade is unsafe, and that weapon recoveries without a positive forensic science laboratory report cannot serve as corroborative evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of eye-witnesses to provide a pre-arrest description of unknown assailants render a subsequent identification parade inconsequential?
  • Can dock identification for the first time in court be safely relied upon to convict an accused without a prior valid identification parade?
  • Is the recovery of a crime weapon usable as corroborative evidence in the absence of a positive Forensic Science Laboratory or ballistic report?
  • Does the non-production of a natural and material witness lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 776 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-31
  post-arrest bailextra-judicial confessioninadmissibility of statement before policevicarious liabilityfurther inquiryfundamental rightsspeedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Asad Ali, seeking release in case FIR No. 79/2018 registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ganda Sing Wala, District Kasur. The core legal question revolves around whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused is not named in the initial FIR, is implicated merely through a delayed supplementary statement based on an extra-judicial confession of a co-accused, and where police investigation lacks corroborative evidence. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that a statement of a co-accused recorded by police during investigation is inadmissible under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, making the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principles laid down include that the ipse dixit of police is not binding on courts, statements before police by co-accused carry no evidentiary value against other accused, and prolonged incarceration without trial violates fundamental rights to a fair and speedy trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the initial FIR and is implicated solely through a delayed supplementary statement based on a co-accused's confession?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a statement of a co-accused recorded by the police during investigation under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the opinion or finding of guilt by the police during investigation bind the court during bail adjudication?
  • When does further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 become applicable in bail matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali and 9 others vs The Bank Of Punjab and others2020 PLD Supreme Court 736, 2021 PSC 777 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-09
  limitationcondonation of delaylabour lawsoffice objectionsre-filing of appealvested rightindustrial relationsjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals arose from the dismissal of the appellants' grievance petitions by the Labour Court. The appellants initially filed appeals before the Lahore High Court within the 30-day limitation period prescribed by Section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. However, the High Court office returned the appeals for removal of objections within three days. The appellants re-filed the appeals six months later, after the limitation period had expired. During pendency, the matters were transferred to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal under the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, which condoned the delay and remanded the case. The High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the Tribunal's order. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that when a file is returned for objections and re-filed after the limitation period without a plausible explanation for each day of delay, the appeal is time-barred. The Court clarified that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to override High Court office objections or condone delay where a vested right had accrued to the respondent due to the expiry of limitation.

  Read full judgment →
• Arzi Gull and others vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 178 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07
  safe custody of case propertychain of custodynarcotics possessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealenhancement of sentencecontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision challenge a trial court judgment convicting the appellants under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possessing narcotics and sentencing them to terms of imprisonment and fines, alongside a state petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution established the safe custody, transmission, and unblemished production of the case property (charas) from recovery to forensic analysis and presentation in court. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions regarding the return of parcels from the forensic laboratory and discrepancies between the oral testimony (charas in slabs inside white shopping bags) and physical production in court (pieces in dark brown wrappers) broke the chain of safe custody and discredited the prosecution case. The court laid down the principle that a broken chain of custody and a failure to safely transmit or correctly produce the recovered substance in court are fatal to the prosecution, entitling the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure by the prosecution to prove the unbroken chain of safe custody of narcotics from recovery to forensic analysis vitiate the conviction?
  • Whether material discrepancies between the oral description of recovered contraband and the physical condition of the case property produced in court prove fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Is a single significant dent in the prosecution's case sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Arthur Lawrence (Private) Ltd vs Messrs Actlaw through Patron2020 PLD Sindh 129 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-05Read full judgment →
• Arslan Masih alias Dena Masih vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1048 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-10
  narcotic recoveryforensic reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appealevidentiary protocolspolice fabricationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 1320 grams of charas. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the prosecution's evidence regarding the place of recovery and the evidentiary value of a forensic report that failed to detail the protocols and tests performed. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the complainant could not specify the place of recovery, the site plan was deficient, and the police proceedings appeared fabricated. Furthermore, the Court held that a forensic report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency that omits the required testing protocols and procedures, as mandated by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, is inconclusive and cannot serve as reliable proof of the narcotic nature of the substance. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a forensic report that fails to detail the required testing protocols and procedures constitute conclusive proof of the narcotic nature of a substance?
  • What is the legal consequence of a prosecution's failure to establish the specific place of recovery in a narcotics case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery of contraband is found to be unreliable and contradictory?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad S/O Abdul Sattar vs The State2021 P Cr. LJ 285, 2020 SHC 1342 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-15
  defective investigationfake encounterpolice misconductpunishment for defective investigationAnti-Terrorism Actcriminal appealinvestigating officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal proceeding addresses defective investigation and police misconduct arising from a false police encounter resulting in the death of one accused and the wrongful arrest and detention of another. The core legal question concerns whether delinquent police officials and investigating officers can be punished under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for failing to conduct a proper and diligent investigation, fabricating false police encounters, and committing grave breaches of duty. The Sindh High Court held that the police officials failed to perform their duties honestly and diligently, cooked up a false story, omitted vital investigative steps such as forensic analysis of weapons and medical-legal verification, and thus established a clear case of defective investigation. Consequently, the court convicted the delinquent police officials under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment and fines. The key principle laid down is that High Courts and Anti-Terrorism Courts possess the statutory power to summarily punish investigating officers for defective, dishonest, or malafide investigations that subvert the course of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can police officials be punished summarily for conducting a defective investigation under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Whether failure to perform duties diligently and honestly during a criminal inquiry attracts penal consequences for investigating officers?
  • Is the jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 separate and independent from departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Riaz Mughal, Advocate vs Province Of Sindh through Chief2020 CLC 1099 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-09Read full judgment →
• Arshad Riaz Mughal vs Pos and others2020 SHC 286 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-08Read full judgment →
• Arshad Nadeem and 2 others vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 657 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-10
  post-arrest bailunregistered drugsfurther inquiryDrugs Actcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioners sought post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 403 of 2019 registered under Schedules II and III of the Drugs Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 and Sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, whose services were hired for preparing and packing unregistered cosmetic material at premises owned by another absconding accused, are entitled to further inquiry regarding their guilty knowledge under the statutory framework. The court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the lesser punishment for the offence is three years, the petitioners lacked direct ownership of the premises, their knowledge of non-registration requires probing, and they have suffered prolonged incarceration without trial progress. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail, establishing that where complicity and knowledge require further investigation and the statutory punishment threshold permits, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused whose services were hired for preparing unregistered products is entitled to post-arrest bail when knowledge of non-registration requires further inquiry?
  • Whether the lesser punishment provided for an offence is to be considered for the limited purpose of bail?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without progress in the trial warrant the grant of post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Masih and another vs State, etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1178 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-07
  criminal appealQatl-i-amdQatl Shibh-i-amdalteration of convictionsudden quarrelblunt force traumaDiyat installmentsrevision dismissed
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, by which he was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that during a sudden quarrel over wastewater in the street, the appellant pushed the deceased, causing his head to strike a gate pillar, which resulted in fatal blunt-force head trauma. The High Court evaluated the ocular testimony, medical evidence, and the nature of the appellant's act. Finding that the appellant was empty-handed, acted without an intention to cause death, and used force during a sudden dispute that in the ordinary course of nature was not likely to cause death, the Court held that the offence fell under Qatl Shibh-i-amd pursuant to Section 315, PPC. Consequently, the conviction was altered from Section 302(b) to Section 315, PPC, reducing the sentence under Section 316, PPC to the period already undergone, alongside the liability to pay Diyat in installments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether causing fatal injury by pushing an unarmed victim against a pillar during a sudden quarrel constitutes Qatl-i-amd under Section 302(b), PPC or Qatl Shibh-i-amd under Section 315, PPC?
  • Can the conviction of a primary accused be sustained when co-accused facing common intention charges have been acquitted?
  • Does the absence of an intention to kill or the use of means not ordinarily likely to cause death mandate the application of Section 315, PPC rather than Section 302, PPC?
  • Can the statutory Diyat amount awarded under Section 316, PPC be ordered to be paid in installments due to the convict's financial incapacity?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Iqbal vs Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation2020 YLR 1222, 2020 IHC 8 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-16Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali vs WAPDA etc2020 LHC 1753 · Lahore High Court · 2020-08-20
  Time Scale Upgradationlegitimate expectationpro forma promotiondepartmental lapseconstitutional jurisdictionmandatory dutyservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order denying the petitioner Time Scale Upgradation (TSU) after his retirement. The core legal question was whether the respondent-authority's failure to convene mandatory TSU board meetings, as required by policy, deprived the petitioner of his right to be considered for promotion, thereby causing him financial loss. The Court held that the use of the word "shall" in the promotion policy imposed a mandatory duty on the authority to convene meetings. It ruled that while promotion is not a vested right, the right to be considered for it is, and an employee cannot be penalized for departmental inaction or negligence. Applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the Court determined that the petitioner was entitled to have his case reconsidered despite his retirement, as the failure to hold meetings was a departmental lapse. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration in light of existing departmental policies, establishing that administrative bodies cannot deny benefits due to their own failure to follow mandatory procedural timelines.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an authority to convene mandatory promotion board meetings constitute a denial of an employee's right to be considered for promotion?
  • Can a retired civil servant be granted pro forma promotion if the delay in promotion was caused by departmental inaction?
  • Does the use of the word 'shall' in a departmental promotion policy impose a mandatory duty on the authority to hold meetings?
  • Is the doctrine of legitimate expectation applicable to administrative decisions regarding service benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali vs The State2020 SHC 524 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali and others vs Mst. Bushra and others2020 CLC 1273 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-22Read full judgment →
• Arsalan Zohaib and another vs State, etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 915 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-12
  criminal appealidentification paradebenefit of doubtadverse inferencewithholding evidencejoint identificationmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions of the appellants for murder and robbery under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern the evidentiary impact of the prosecution's failure to produce a star witness and the legal validity of a joint identification parade. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the convictions and acquitting the appellants. The court held that the prosecution's unexplained failure to produce the star witness, who initially identified the accused, warrants an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, suggesting the evidence would have been unfavorable. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that joint identification parades, where multiple accused are paraded together, are legally impermissible and lack evidentiary value. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the benefit of doubt is a fundamental right of the accused, not a concession, and must be extended whenever reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's narrative, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution's failure to produce a star witness warrant an adverse inference under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a joint identification parade of multiple accused persons legally permissible?
  • Must the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused as a matter of right when reasonable doubt exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Arsalan and 4 others vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 797 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-19
  amendment of chargecriminal revisioncounterfeit sealtrial proceduredeletion of chargeappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mirpurkhas, which declined the applicants' request to amend the charge by deleting Section 472 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants argued that since no evidence regarding the preparation of counterfeit seals or instruments had emerged during the trial, the specific charge under Section 472, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 should be removed. The core legal question was whether a trial court is obligated to amend or delete a charge solely because the prosecution allegedly failed to produce evidence supporting that specific provision before the judgment is pronounced. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that a charge cannot be amended or a penal section deleted merely on the assertion that evidence is lacking. The Court clarified that if the prosecution fails to establish a specific portion of the charge, the accused must address this deficiency during final arguments rather than through a pre-judgment amendment of the charge. The principle established is that the absence of evidence for a specific charge does not necessitate its deletion before the final verdict.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court be compelled to delete a penal section from a charge solely on the ground that the prosecution failed to produce evidence for it during trial?
  • Is the absence of evidence regarding a specific charge a valid legal ground to amend the charge before the pronouncement of judgment?
  • How should an accused address the failure of the prosecution to prove a specific charge if the trial has already concluded?
  Read full judgment →
• Arsalan Aijaz vs Mst. Sanobar and others2020 SHC 782 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-28Read full judgment →
• Arsala vs Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court and another2020 PLD Balochistan 100 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-14Read full judgment →
• Army Strategic Command Force through Authorised Representative vs Saeed Azam and another2020 MLD 2014 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-04
  criminal breach of trustacquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceoral agreemententrustmentperverse judgmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged the acquittal of the respondent by a Magistrate 1st Class regarding an alleged offence under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence, and whether the prosecution successfully established the ingredients of criminal breach of trust. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of 'entrustment' or dominion over property, which is a prerequisite for a conviction under Section 406. It reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal order cannot be interfered with unless it is perverse, speculative, or results in a miscarriage of justice. The Court emphasized that an accused person enjoys a double presumption of innocence, and appellate courts should not disturb an acquittal unless compelling and substantial reasons exist to warrant such interference.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
  • Does an oral agreement regarding the transfer of land and subsequent failure to return money constitute criminal breach of trust if the element of entrustment is not proven?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain vs The State through A.A.G. and 2 others2020 YLR 589 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-18
  criminal appealmurderjuvenile offenderocular evidenceFIRlife imprisonmentmedical evidencecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision challenge the conviction and sentence handed down by the trial court for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the non-mention of an eye-witness in the FIR, minor overwriting in official documents, and the appellant's juvenility. The Court held that the prosecution established guilt through consistent ocular evidence from natural witnesses, which was corroborated by medical evidence. The Court affirmed that the failure to name an eye-witness in the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution's case where the witness is credible. Furthermore, the Court held that minor discrepancies or clerical overwriting in documents are inconsequential when the overall evidence is consistent. Regarding juvenility, the Court ruled that while it is a relevant factor, it does not mandate acquittal or sentence reduction for grave offenses. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were maintained, and the revision for enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to name an eye-witness in the FIR render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Is juvenility of an accused sufficient ground for acquittal or reduction of sentence in a murder case?
  • Does minor overwriting in the FIR and medical reports invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is corroboration required for ocular evidence that is otherwise reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain etc. vs State through Addl. A.G., K.P.K. and othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 383 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-18
  criminal appealocular evidencejuvenile offendermurderFIRmedical evidenceconvictionsentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the non-mention of eye-witnesses in the First Information Report, alleged procedural irregularities like overwriting in official documents, and the validity of joint pointation for weapon recovery. The court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction and sentence, finding the ocular evidence consistent and corroborated by medical reports. The court held that the non-mention of eye-witnesses in an FIR is not fatal to the prosecution's case if the witnesses are natural and credible. Minor discrepancies in evidence do not warrant acquittal when the core testimony remains consistent. Furthermore, while juvenility is a relevant factor in sentencing, it does not mandate acquittal for grave offenses. The court also clarified that overwriting in official documents, when explained, does not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case, and that ocular evidence, if reliable, does not require corroboration from circumstantial evidence like weapon recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to name an eye-witness in the First Information Report render their testimony inadmissible or unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence despite minor discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative?
  • Does the juvenility of an accused person constitute sufficient grounds for acquittal in a murder case?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon based on joint pointation of multiple accused legally valid and sufficient for corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Baloch vs The State2020 MLD 1755 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-14
  post-arrest bailplea of alibifurther inquiryidentification paradetentative assessmentbenefit of doubtcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from FIR No. 166/2019, involving charges under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought post-arrest bail after the trial court rejected his initial application, despite his plea of alibi supported by employer verification and call detail records (CDR). The core legal question was whether the applicant's plea of alibi and the potential weakness of the prosecution's case, specifically regarding the identification parade and the reliance on a co-accused's extra-judicial confession, warranted the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, reasoning that the employer's verification of the applicant's presence at work remained unchallenged and that the 'last seen' evidence was insufficient to overcome the doubt created by the alibi. The Court affirmed that courts must conduct a tentative assessment of both prosecution and defense materials at the bail stage, and that the benefit of any doubt arising from the record must be extended to the accused, consistent with the principles of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi be considered by the court at the bail stage?
  • Does the failure to register a SIM card in the accused's name automatically invalidate the evidentiary value of CDR evidence for the purpose of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a court consider both prosecution and defense materials when making a tentative assessment for bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Ali Shah vs Muhammad Tariq and 3 others2020 MLD 1914 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-11
  acquittalSection 265-K Cr.P.C.audi alteram partemnatural justiceright of hearingcriminal appealremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Karachi-West, whereby the respondents were acquitted under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an acquittal order passed on the same day an application was filed, without affording the complainant an opportunity of hearing, is legally sustainable. The High Court observed that the trial court acted in a hasty and slipshod manner, effectively condemning the appellant unheard. Relying on the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem, the Court held that any order made to the prejudice of a party without providing them a fair opportunity to be heard is contrary to natural justice and cannot be maintained. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned acquittal order and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to decide the application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 afresh after hearing the appellant. The trial court was further directed to ensure the proceedings are conducted without unnecessary adjournments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court pass an order of acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without providing the complainant an opportunity of hearing?
  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to proceedings involving an application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an acquittal order passed in a hasty and slipshod manner without hearing the opposing party legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Arfan vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 789 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-09
  criminal appealrape convictiondeaf and dumb witnessmental capacitymedical boardremandprocedural infirmitywitness examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for an offence under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal. The core legal question concerned the procedural validity of the trial, specifically regarding the handling of a victim who was deaf, dumb, and allegedly mentally incapacitated. The interpreter appointed by the trial court reported that the victim was unable to communicate or provide a statement due to multiple disabilities. The trial court failed to adequately address the victim's mental capacity or allow for proper expert testimony and cross-examination regarding her condition, despite a formal application from the defence for a medical examination. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's failure to medically assess the victim and examine the medical expert as a court witness constituted a significant legal infirmity. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a fresh trial, directing the constitution of a medical board to assess the victim's mental capacity and the examination of the board's chairman as a court witness.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court required to medically examine a victim who is deaf, dumb, and alleged to be mentally incapacitated before recording her testimony?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to properly assess the mental capacity of a disabled victim constitute a legal infirmity warranting a remand?
  • Should a medical expert assessing a victim's mental capacity be examined as a court witness to allow for cross-examination by the defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Arfan Akram vs The StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 158, 2020 P SC (Crl.) 815, 2020 SCMR 685 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-03
  criminal petitionmurderocular testimonyforensic evidenceabscondenceleave to appealimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a jail petition assailing the judgment dated 2.11.2015 passed by the High Court, which altered the petitioner's death sentence to imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The 62-year-old deceased was shot dead outside her home allegedly by her son-in-law after she declined his demand to sell her residential property. The core legal question pertained to the appreciation of ocular testimony, prompt reporting, corroborative forensic evidence, and the abscondence of the accused in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through natural and consistent eyewitness testimony, positive forensic reports matching the weapon recovered pursuant to the petitioner's disclosure, and his prolonged abscondence. Consequently, the petition failed and leave to appeal was declined, maintaining the conviction and sentence. The key principle laid down is that prompt reporting, trustworthy natural witnesses, corroborated forensic evidence, and unexplained abscondence sufficiently establish criminal liability in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a natural witness who is an inmate of the premises can be relied upon without corroboration?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused person heavily militate against the position taken by him during trial?
  • Whether a positive forensic match between the crime empty and the recovered weapon corroborates ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbab Ali Balkani son of Hakim Ali vs Province of Sindh & four others2020 SHC 444 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-19Read full judgment →
• Arain Fibers Ltd. Kot Chutta vs Hassan Cotton Ginning and Pressing2020 PLJ Lahore 52 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-07Read full judgment →
• Aqsad Mehmood vs Muhammad Javed s/o Walayat, caste Sheikh r/o2020 SC AJK 16 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →