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.

• Ali Muhammad and 4 others vs Learned Additional District Judge-III, Dadu and 14 others2020 CLC 365 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-05Read full judgment →
• Ali Madad vs The State2020 MLD 1854 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-10-16
  superdaricustody of vehiclecriminal revisionlast possessorimpounded vehicleinterim custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against an order of the Sessions Judge, Gilgit, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the superdari (custody) of a vehicle impounded by police in connection with a criminal case registered under section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as the last possessor and claimed owner of the vehicle, was entitled to its temporary custody pending trial, given that no rival claimant existed. The court held that the petitioner, being the last possessor from whom the vehicle was seized, was entitled to custody. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the vehicle to be released to the petitioner upon furnishing surety. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of rival claimants, a vehicle seized by police should ordinarily be entrusted to the person from whom it was taken into possession. Furthermore, criminal courts under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 determine entitlement to possession, not title, which remains the domain of civil courts.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal court empowered to determine the title of a vehicle during proceedings under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • To whom should a vehicle be entrusted on superdari when there are no rival claimants?
  • Does the jurisdiction of a criminal court under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to deciding ownership disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali lmran Haider vs Government of Punjab, etc2020 [M] C L R 1542 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-24Read full judgment →
• Ali Johar vs Secretary Forest, Wildlife And Parks Gilgit- Baltistan, Gilgit and another2020 P Cr. L J 1225 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-11-21
  wildlife protectionconfessional statementplea of guiltysummary trialillegal possessionconviction set asidemandatory provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 86(2) of the Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the appellate judgment of the Secretary Forest and Wildlife Gilgit-Baltistan, which maintained the petitioner's conviction and sentence of six months' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100,000 for illegal possession of wildlife under the Northern Areas Wildlife Protection Act 1975. The core legal questions involved the legality of the trial and the admissibility of the petitioner's alleged confession and plea of guilty. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court allowed the petition and set aside the lower forums' judgments, holding that the trial magistrate failed to comply with mandatory provisions governing confessional statements under Sections 164 and 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and failed to issue a mandatory show-cause notice before convicting the accused on a plea of guilty under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principles laid down are that a confessional statement is inadmissible if not certified under Section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that strict compliance with Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is mandatory to avoid involuntary admissions of guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confessional statement admissible in evidence if it is not certified under the mandatory provisions of Section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it mandatory for a trial magistrate under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to ask an accused who pleads guilty to show cause why he should not be convicted before sentencing him?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to comply with the procedural safeguards regarding a plea of guilty in a summary trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan son of Ghulam Nabi Mahessar vs The State2020 SHC 1090 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26
  murderrelated witnessesocular evidencemedical corroborationabscondencemotivecriminal appealdelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased following allegations of "Karo", resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involve whether the testimony of closely related eye-witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration, whether delay in lodging the FIR vitiates the prosecution case, and whether the prosecution successfully established the motive and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them "interested witnesses" in the legal sense if their presence at the scene is natural and their testimony is consistent and trustworthy. The Court affirmed the conviction, finding the ocular account corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of crime empties, while slightly modifying the default sentence for non-payment of compensation. The key principle laid down is that related witnesses are natural witnesses whose testimony cannot be discarded solely on the ground of kinship unless a strong motive for false substitution is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eye-witness can be discarded solely on the ground of a close familial relationship with the deceased?
  • Does a delay of a few hours in lodging the First Information Report, when satisfactorily explained by taking the injured to the hospital, damage the prosecution case?
  • Whether the uncorroborated ocular account of natural witnesses, supported by medical evidence, is sufficient to maintain a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the abscondence of an accused person be considered as an incriminating circumstance supporting the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali J. Siddiqui through Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and others2020 PLD Sindh 9 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-22
  territorial jurisdictionNAB inquirycall-up noticeprotective bailNational Accountability Ordinance 1999Securities and Exchange Commission Act 1997criminal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court to challenge an inquiry and call-up notice issued by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Lahore against the petitioner, a director of M/s Azgard Nine Limited and M/s Agritech Limited, regarding alleged siphoning of corporate funds and fraudulent sale of company shares. The petitioner argued that the inquiry was barred under Section 41B of the Securities and Exchange Commission Act, 1997, and Section 31D of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and that the Sindh High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction because the petitioner resided in Karachi, the transactions occurred through the Karachi Stock Exchange, and relevant approvals were granted in Karachi. The core legal questions involved whether the Sindh High Court had territorial jurisdiction to quash an inquiry conducted by NAB Lahore, and whether the inquiry was barred by special regulatory laws. The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the challenge because the place of occurrence, corporate head office, and prospective trial court were located in Lahore, and the petitioner's residence or service of notices in Karachi did not confer territorial jurisdiction in criminal and accountability matters. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as to quashment, but converted into a petition for protective bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction to quash an inquiry or call-up notice issued by a regional bureau of the National Accountability Bureau located in another province merely because the petitioner resides within its territorial limits?
  • What is the determinative factor for establishing territorial jurisdiction in criminal inquiries and proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Whether the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission Act, 1997 bar the National Accountability Bureau from initiating inquiries into regulated corporate activities without a prior reference from the Commission?
  • Can a constitutional petition challenging a criminal inquiry conducted by a regional accountability bureau in another province be maintained under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Imran vs Forest Wildlife and Fishery Department through Secretary2020 PLJ Lahore 184, 2020 PLD Lahore 24 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-31Read full judgment →
• Ali Imran vs Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Multan and 42020 PLJ Lahore 74 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan vs The State2020 SHC 656 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-17
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseGutka and Mainpuri Actrecovery without private mashirbail not jail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant Ali Hassan seeking post-arrest bail after being unsuccessful before the trial court in Crime No. 56 of 2020 registered under Section 8 of the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation Manufacturing Storage Sale & Use of Gutka, Mainpuri Act, 2019. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail for an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly where no private mashir was associated with the recovery from a busy area and the accused had no previous criminal record. The Sindh High Court allowed the application and admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail, holding that since the offence carried a maximum punishment of three years and did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the case fell under the rule of 'bail not jail', especially as further investigation was complete and the trial would take time. The key principle laid down is that offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. generally warrant the grant of bail, particularly in the absence of a previous criminal record and when the accused is no longer required for investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged under Section 8 of the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation Manufacturing Storage Sale & Use of Gutka, Mainpuri Act, 2019 is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Does the failure to associate private independent witnesses from a locality during a daytime recovery from a busy area justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is bail to be granted as a general rule when an offence is punishable for three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan vs Piac and others2020 PLC 99 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-03-26
  unfair labour practiceshow-cause noticefake academic certificatedisciplinary proceedingsmisconductindustrial relationsservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), filed a petition under section 54(e) read with section 31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, challenging a show-cause notice issued to him regarding the submission of a bogus educational certificate. The single bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) dismissed the petition. On appeal, the NIRC examined whether the issuance of a show-cause notice for a fake academic certificate amounts to an unfair labour practice. The Commission held that initiating disciplinary proceedings or issuing a show-cause notice for misconduct, such as submitting forged academic certificates, is a legal right of the employer and does not constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Commission further noted that mere issuance of a show-cause notice is not an adverse action and does not warrant premature judicial interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere issuance of a show-cause notice for submitting a fake academic certificate amount to an unfair labour practice?
  • Can an employee invoke the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission against a disciplinary show-cause notice?
  • Whether initiating disciplinary proceedings for misconduct is a legal right of the employer?
  • Are the Pakistan International Airlines Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985 statutory or non-statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul vs The State2020 MLD 952 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-24
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRdefective investigationinterested witnessesocular evidencecapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of his cousin. The prosecution alleged that the appellant intercepted the victim's vehicle, engaged in a verbal altercation over a refused lift, and shot the deceased. The defense argued that the appellant was falsely implicated due to a property dispute, noting that the FIR was lodged with a 20-hour delay and initially named unknown assailants. The Sindh High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies, including the failure to name the accused in the initial police report, the lack of credible motive, and the absence of forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime scene. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation was defective and that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable due to improvements made during trial. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the death sentence was not confirmed, with the benefit of the doubt extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, especially when initial reports name unknown persons, create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution's eyewitnesses are closely related and have significantly improved their testimony from their initial statements?
  • Is it legally permissible to rely on eyewitness testimony when the motive alleged is inherently implausible and contradicts natural human conduct?
  • What is the legal consequence of a defective police investigation where the chain of custody for evidence is broken and key witnesses are withheld?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul vs The State and others2020 SHC 988 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-27Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar, etc vs Pervaiz Ahmed, etc2020 PSC (Crl.) 980, 2020 PLD Supreme Court 427, PLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 30, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-30
  Anti-terrorism court jurisdictionInherent jurisdiction of High CourtCognizance of offenceTransfer of casePrivate vendettaCriminal revisionTerrorism definition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a High Court judgment that reversed an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) order transferring a triple murder case to an ordinary criminal court. The core legal questions concerned the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the scope of "cognizance" under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and whether a tribal dispute constitutes "terrorism." The Supreme Court held that the High Court improperly exercised inherent jurisdiction because an alternative remedy, specifically criminal revision under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was available. The Court further clarified that an ATC may transfer a case under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 after taking cognizance, defined as any step indicating an intent to proceed with the trial. Finally, the Court ruled that the incident, arising from a private tribal vendetta, did not constitute "terrorism" under the Act, as it lacked the requisite design or purpose specified in Section 6, reaffirming the principle that private disputes do not qualify as terrorism regardless of the crime's brutality.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to interfere with an order of an Anti-Terrorism Court when an alternative remedy of revision exists?
  • What constitutes 'taking cognizance' of a case by an Anti-Terrorism Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can a crime committed in furtherance of a private tribal dispute be classified as 'terrorism' under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Does the Anti-Terrorism Court have the authority to transfer a case to an ordinary criminal court after taking cognizance?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar and another vs Abdullah Mallah & others2021 CLC 1102, 2020 SHC 684 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Enterprises through its Proprietor Omair Ali Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad & another2020 PTD 1031, 2020 LHC 1249 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Azim Afridi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and others2020 PLD Peshawar 105, 2020 PHC 228 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-30
  independence of judiciarytrichotomy of powersrevenue officersconstitutional petitionouster clauseland revenue administrationjudicial functionsultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the vires of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, specifically provisions empowering revenue officers to perform judicial functions, arguing they violate the doctrine of trichotomy of powers and the independence of the judiciary under Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether the executive, through revenue officers, can exercise judicial powers, including the adjudication of title disputes. The Peshawar High Court held that provisions allowing revenue officers to function as courts are ultra vires the Constitution, as they infringe upon the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. The Court ruled that while revenue officers may handle administrative partition matters where title is undisputed, any dispute of title must be adjudicated by civil courts. Consequently, the Court ordered that pending matters involving title disputes be transferred to the jurisdiction of civil courts and judicial magistrates. This judgment reinforces the principle that judicial functions must be exclusively performed by an independent judiciary, and executive officers cannot be vested with judicial authority through statutory deeming clauses.

  Questions settled

  • Do provisions of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 that empower revenue officers to act as courts violate the doctrine of trichotomy of powers?
  • Can a revenue officer adjudicate a dispute of title in property partition proceedings?
  • Does the exercise of judicial functions by executive officers violate the independence of the judiciary under Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are statutory deeming clauses that confer judicial status upon executive officers valid when they conflict with constitutional separation of powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs Province of Sindh and Others2020 SHC 320 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-23Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar Dawood Bhoy through Attorney vs Ibrahim2020 CLC 1503 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-27Read full judgment →
• Ali Akram, s/o Mohammad Akram, Chief Executive of M/s Akson College of2020 SC AJK 11 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-01-22Read full judgment →
• Ali Akber vs The State2020 YLR 503 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-13
  narcotics possessionsafe custodychemical examinerbenefit of doubtinvestigation by complainantcriminal appealreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of eight kilograms of charas. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the safe custody of the recovered narcotics and the integrity of the investigation. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court identified critical flaws: the prosecution did not establish the safe custody or secure transmission of the narcotic samples to the chemical examiner, as the transporting official was not examined. Furthermore, the court noted material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the arrest proceedings and the failure to associate independent witnesses at a busy public location. Additionally, the court emphasized that the complainant investigating his own case compromises fairness. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the police official responsible for transporting narcotic samples to the chemical examiner create a fatal gap in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a complainant legally investigate the case in which they are the complainant?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a public place during a recovery operation render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar vs The State and othersPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 106, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 1029, 2020 SCMR 1225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-24
  statutory baildelay in trialhardened criminalbail on meritscriminal procedureanti-terrorismproviso to section 497
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the Lahore High Court in a case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having been in custody for over four years without the conclusion of his trial, was entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, or if he was excluded by the fourth proviso regarding 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminals. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court determined that the delay in trial was not solely attributable to the petitioner, as the trial court report cited failures by the complainant and witnesses to appear. Furthermore, the Court established that in the absence of previous convictions and given the specific circumstances of the case, the petitioner did not meet the criteria of a hardened or dangerous criminal. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and bail was granted subject to conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the delay in trial caused by the complainant and prosecution witnesses entitle an accused to statutory bail under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be classified as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' under the fourth proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in the absence of previous convictions?
  • Is the statutory right to bail under the third proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, applicable when the trial court report does not attribute the delay solely to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar vs Mst. Samina and another2021 PLJ Quetta 54, 2020 YLR 332 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-06Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar and 8 others vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Peshawar2020 PLC (C.S.) 566 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-26
  contract appointmentwithdrawal of appointmentpromissory estoppellegitimate expectationpublic functionariesconstitutional petitionmaladministration
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected writ petitions challenging the withdrawal of the petitioners' appointments to fixed-term contract positions under the Community-Driven Local Development (CDLD) project by the Deputy Commissioner, Buner. The core legal questions involved whether a public functionary can arbitrarily withdraw appointment orders based on irrelevant considerations such as local district reservations not stipulated in the advertisement and whether appointees with higher qualifications are barred from holding posts with lower prescription. The Peshawar High Court held that the impugned withdrawal order was based on alien and irrelevant considerations, lacked legal justification, and violated the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. The court ruled that public functionaries cannot act whimsically or rescind transparently made appointments under external pressure. The petitions were consequently allowed, and the impugned withdrawal order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public functionary withdraw an appointment order based on considerations not stipulated in the initial recruitment advertisement?
  • Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked against arbitrary executive actions that rescind commitments made to citizens?
  • Does a Tehsil Council have the legal mandate to interfere in the administrative affairs of the Provincial Government?
  • Is the appointment of a candidate holding a higher qualification than the prescribed minimum an illegality that justifies termination?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1255 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-06
  criminal revisionProhibition Orderchain of custodychemical examiner reportcontradictory statementsrecovery of alcoholacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to imprisonment. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically concerning the safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband to the Forensic Science Laboratory and material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The Balochistan High Court accepted the revision petition, holding that a broken chain of custody and unexplained delay in sending the sample to the chemical examiner, coupled with material discrepancies in the statements of ocular and recovery witnesses, render the prosecution's case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove safe custody and transmission of contraband through confidence-inspiring evidence and that a compromised chain of custody makes it unsafe to rely on a chemical examiner's report.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay and failure to prove safe transmission of a contraband sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiate the chemical examiner's report?
  • Whether material contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses regarding the time and place of occurrence are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 be sustained when the chain of custody of the recovered substance stands compromised?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 693 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-15
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtmedical evidenceocular accountmotiveweapon recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased at a wedding ceremony and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular account, the corroborative value of medical evidence and delayed weapon recovery, and the proof of motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the doubtful presence of the closely related eyewitnesses who were not residents of the locality, material contradictions between the ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding firing distance and lack of charring, delayed sending of crime empties rendering the forensic report inconsequential, and a non-existent, mutually destructive motive. The court laid down the principle that conviction must rest on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt, and any reasonable doubt arising in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favour of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the distance of firing and absence of charring marks render the eyewitness testimony doubtful?
  • Does a positive report from the forensic science laboratory lose its evidentiary value when crime empties are sent to the laboratory after the arrest of the accused or alongside the crime weapon with a delay?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when the alleged motive is mutually destructive and unsupported by evidence?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single reasonable doubt arises in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs The State and another2020 P SC (Crl.) 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-14
  grave and sudden provocationburden of proofocular evidencestatement of accusedsection 342 Cr.P.C.honour killingcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his sister and her paramour. The trial court convicted the appellant under section 302(c) PPC, but the High Court enhanced the conviction to section 302(b) PPC. The Supreme Court, upon review, found the prosecution's ocular evidence unreliable due to significant contradictions and inconsistencies regarding the presence of witnesses at the crime scene. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court examined the appellant's statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. in its entirety, accepting his plea of grave and sudden provocation as a fact. The Court clarified that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, and the burden under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 only shifts if a prima facie case is established. The Court set aside the High Court's conviction, restored the trial court's conviction under section 302(c) PPC, and modified the sentence to 15 years rigorous imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. if the prosecution evidence is rejected?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, if the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case?
  • Must a statement of an accused recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. be accepted in its entirety if the prosecution evidence is disbelieved?
  • What is the legal distinction between 'honour killing' and 'grave and sudden provocation'?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs The State & another2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-14
  grave and sudden provocationhonour killingburden of proofocular evidencesection 342 statementcriminal appealappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his sister and her paramour. The trial court convicted the appellant under section 302(c) PPC, but the High Court enhanced the conviction to section 302(b) PPC, rejecting the appellant's plea of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court, upon review, found the prosecution's ocular evidence unreliable and contradictory, rendering the prosecution's case against the appellant doubtful. The Court held that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt before the burden shifts to the accused under Article 121, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Where the prosecution fails, the court must consider the accused's statement under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in its entirety. The Court determined that the appellant's statement, accepted as a whole, established that the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation. Consequently, the conviction was modified to section 302(c) PPC, and the sentence was reduced to 15 years rigorous imprisonment, emphasizing that an accused cannot be convicted solely on the failure of their defense plea if the prosecution's own case is deficient.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the failure of their defense plea if the prosecution has failed to prove its case?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, if the prosecution has not established a prima facie case?
  • Must a statement of an accused recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be accepted in its entirety if the prosecution evidence is rejected?
  • What is the distinction between 'honour killing' and 'grave and sudden provocation' in criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad and another vs Ali Ahmad and another2020 PLD Supreme Court 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-14
  grave and sudden provocationhonour killingburden of proofSection 342 Cr.P.C.Article 121 QSOocular accountculpable homicidecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a double murder case where the appellant was accused of killing his sister and her paramour. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302(c) PPC, but the High Court enhanced the conviction to Section 302(b) PPC, categorizing it as 'honour killing'. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution's ocular evidence was unreliable due to inconsistencies and the doubtful presence of witnesses at the scene. The Court clarified the scope of Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and Section 342 Cr.P.C., holding that when prosecution evidence is rejected, the accused's statement must be accepted in its entirety. It distinguished 'honour killing' (premeditated) from 'grave and sudden provocation' (impulsive). Finding that the appellant acted upon seeing the deceased in a compromising position, the Court held the act fell under grave and sudden provocation. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the conviction under Section 302(c) PPC, and modified the sentence to fifteen years' rigorous imprisonment.

  Read full judgment →
• Ali Afzal Shaikh and another vs The State and another2020 PTD 791 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-21
  premature acquittalcustoms duty evasiondefective chargeparticulars of time and placeinvestigative flawsadjudication and prosecutioncriminal liability of directors
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal revision and miscellaneous applications filed against the dismissal of applications under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. seeking premature acquittal in a case registered under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question concerned whether the applicants could be subjected to a full trial despite grave investigative flaws, omission of essential particulars regarding the time and place of the alleged tax evasion, and the full recovery of duties, taxes, and penalties during prior adjudication proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from incurable ambiguities, selective nomination of accused persons, and failure to establish foundational ingredients of the offence, rendering any future conviction impossible. The court laid down the principle that the absence of specific particulars as to the time, duration, and place of an alleged offence in the charge and challan is fatal to the prosecution, and that continuing a trial where deficiencies in investigation guarantee failure amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission of specific particulars regarding the time and place of an alleged offence in the FIR and challan is fatal to the prosecution?
  • Can an accused be subjected to a full trial when investigative deficiencies and selective prosecution render any possibility of conviction non-existent?
  • Whether the payment of duties, taxes, and penalties during adjudication proceedings bars criminal proceedings against corporate directors?
  • At what stage can an application for premature acquittal be entertained under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Abad vs Haji Niamat Khan and 14 others2020 MLD 1643 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-04-16Read full judgment →
• Aleemuddin vs The State (NAB)2021 YLR 1464, 2020 SHC 752 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-17
  corruption and corrupt practicesillegal sale of government landfake Gothabad sanadsburden of proofbenefit of the doubthandwriting expertproof of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellants for corruption and corrupt practices relating to the illegal sale of government land and issuance of fake Gothabad scheme sanads. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the evidentiary value of unverified sale agreements and forensic reports. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to produce trustworthy, confidence-inspiring evidence, noting critical flaws in the proof of documents under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order and identifying coercion in the testimony of key witnesses. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key legal principles laid down are that the initial burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and never shifts unless the guilt is established, that an unverified and unattested sale agreement lacks evidentiary value, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unverified sale agreement lacking attesting witnesses is admissible and holds evidentiary value under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 before the prosecution discharges its initial burden?
  • Whether the opinion of a forensic expert regarding signatures can be relied upon when the disputed signatures were never submitted for expert verification during investigation?
  • Is the benefit of reasonable doubt to be extended to an accused person as a matter of right when the prosecution evidence is contradictory and untrustworthy?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamzaib vs Province of Sindh through Secretary and 3 others2020 CLC 384 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-11Read full judgment →
• Alamgir vs The State2020 MLD 68, 2020 KLR Criminal Cases 28 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-29
  Superdarinarcotics controlvehicle confiscationcustody of case propertycriminal appealownership rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances, Lasbela at Hub, which dismissed the appellant's application under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking the release of a vehicle on Superdari. The vehicle had been seized following the recovery of narcotics from its tool-box during a search. The core legal question was whether a vehicle used in the transportation of narcotics should be released to its registered owner when the owner is not implicated in the crime and was unaware of the illicit activity. The Court held that the vehicle should be released, reasoning that the appellant was the undisputed owner and there was no evidence linking him to the drug trafficking or proving his knowledge of the crime. The Court established that a vehicle involved in narcotic trafficking should not be confiscated or denied to its owner when the owner is unconnected to the offense and was unaware of the vehicle's misuse, particularly when the vehicle is deteriorating in police custody.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle seized in a narcotics case be released on Superdari to an owner who is not accused of the crime?
  • Is an owner entitled to the custody of a vehicle used for drug trafficking if they were unaware of the vehicle's misuse?
  • Does the mere seizure of a vehicle as case property justify its continued detention if the owner is unconnected to the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamgir son of Ibrahim vs Mst. Bakht Siraja wife of Bakht Zada2020 PHC 264 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
• Alamgir Khan vs The State and another2020 P SC (Crl.) 674, 2020 SCMR 759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-30
  post-arrest bailfreedom of speechseditionreasonable restrictionsconstitutional rightscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Alamgir Khan, sought post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 990 of 2019, registered under sections 124-A, 290, and 291 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, section 16 of the Maintenance of Public Order 1960, and section 6 of the Punjab Sound Systems (Regulations) Act 2015. The allegations stemmed from an incendiary speech delivered on Mall Road, Lahore, purportedly inciting hatred against State institutions. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s conduct, characterized by the defense as an emotional outburst by a youth affected by the war on terror, warranted continued incarceration pending trial. The Supreme Court held that while freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19 of the Constitution, the determination of whether the petitioner’s specific discourse violated these restrictions is a matter for the trial court to decide after evidence is concluded. Emphasizing that the State should be benign toward citizen dissent, the Court granted bail, noting that the petitioner’s continued incarceration served no useful purpose to the prosecution, and ordered his release upon furnishing a bail bond.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the determination of whether a speech violates reasonable restrictions under Article 19 of the Constitution is a matter to be settled at the bail stage or by the trial court after evidence?
  • Does the State's obligation to be benign toward citizen dissent affect the court's discretion in granting bail for charges of sedition?
  • Is the continued incarceration of a student accused of sedition justified when the prosecution's case requires further evidentiary trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamdar Engineering vs Dongfong Electric Corporation and others2020 CLC 2034 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-28Read full judgment →
• Alam Khan vs Habib Bank Ltd: & others2020 PLC 247, 2020 PHC 370 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-08
  workmangrievance petitionNational Industrial Relations Commissionmanagerial dutiessupervisory dutiescompulsory retirementmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the concurrent judgments of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Single Bench and Full Bench) which dismissed his grievance petition filed under section 37 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010 as not maintainable. The petitioner, who served as an OG-III/Manager Operation at a commercial bank, was compulsorily retired following an inquiry into an unauthorized withdrawal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a 'workman' under the relevant labor laws. The Peshawar High Court held that the determination of whether an employee is a workman depends on the nature of the duties actually performed rather than mere designation or status. Upon examining the job description and admissions showing that the petitioner's duties were supervisory and managerial in nature, the court concluded he did not fall within the definition of a workman. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, affirming the concurrent findings of the NIRC forums.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the designation of an employee is the sole determining factor for classifying them as a workman under labor laws?
  • Does a bank employee performing supervisory and managerial duties fall within the definition of a workman?
  • Can a grievance petition filed by a bank manager against compulsory retirement be entertained by the National Industrial Relations Commission if he is not a workman?
  Read full judgment →
• Al-Rukaya Traders/Sole Proprietorship through Attorney vs Central Board2020 CLC 1767 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
• Al-Madina Aluminium Work and others vs Habib Metropolitan Bank2020 CLD 892 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-22Read full judgment →
• Al-Hassan Tech E Eng SVC (Pvt) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2021 CLC 666, 2020 SHC 184 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
• Al-Haj Sheikh Abdul Hafeez and another vs Suhail Zaman and 6 others2020 PLD Sindh 208 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-18Read full judgment →
• Al-Habib Coop. Housing Society Ltd vs Shamim Barlas2021 YLR 141, 2020 SHC 338 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-05Read full judgment →
• Al-Bakio International and 8 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 8 others2021 PLD Lahore 1, 2020 LHC 2439 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-22Read full judgment →
• Al-Arabia Sugar Mills Ltd vs Securities And Exchange Commission Of Pakistan and others2020 CLD 748 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
• Al-Arabia Sugar Mills Limited & others vs Federal Investigation Agency & others2020 LHC 2619 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-03Read full judgment →
• Al Ghazi Traders Ltd vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1122 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
• Akt Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Limited and others vs Joint Registrar of Companies2020 CLD 865 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Zareen vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 229 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-29
  plea of guiltadmission of accusedretrialcriminal administration of justicemiscarriage of justiceomission to frame judgment on chargesection 342 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine under sections 353, 324, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising out of a trial where he was originally charged under section 302 among other provisions. The core legal question was whether a trial court can validly record a conviction solely on the basis of a subsequent admission or plea of guilt made during examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, without following mandatory procedural requirements, and omit to dispose of the primary capital charge of murder. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's judgment was plagued with grave procedural illegalities, including the failure to determine the murder charge, the improper use of an unverified admission without a show-cause notice, and the unwarranted closure of the prosecution case despite available witnesses. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanded the matter for retrial from the stage of 5 March 2018 to be concluded within six months, and directed departmental proceedings against the trial judge and the prosecutor.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court record a criminal conviction solely on the basis of an admission made during an examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without complying with mandatory procedural safeguards?
  • Whether a trial court is legally required to pronounce a specific finding of conviction or acquittal for every single charge framed against an accused under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused person's admission of allegations during trial equivalent to a formal, legally recorded confession capable of serving as the sole basis for a conviction on a capital charge?
  • Does a prosecutor have the authority to close the prosecution side under section 265-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely upon a written application of admission filed by the accused when prosecution witnesses are in attendance?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Zareen vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 140 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-29
  criminal administration of justiceplea of guiltadmissionillegal convictionremand for retrialjudicial negligencemurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine passed by the trial court in a case arising out of an FIR under Sections 302, 353, 324, 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a trial court can validly convict an accused on a capital charge solely on the basis of a subsequent admission or plea of guilt during Section 342 proceedings, while completely omitting any determination regarding the primary murder charge under Section 302. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's judgment suffered from grave procedural illegalities, including the failure to determine each charged offense separately under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the improper reliance on a half-way admission as a substitute for a voluntary confession, and a mechanical exercise of judicial power. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanded the matter for retrial from the stage of evidence, and directed departmental proceedings against the trial judge and the prosecutor.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court record a conviction on a capital charge solely on the basis of an admission made during Section 342 proceedings without a full trial and proper evaluation of evidence?
  • Is a trial court legally bound to deliver a distinct finding of acquittal or conviction for every single offense for which a formal charge has been framed?
  • Whether an admission of guilt made subsequent to claiming trial can be treated as a valid statutory confession for the purpose of awarding conviction?
  • What are the legal consequences when a trial court completely omits adjudicating upon the primary charge of murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Muhammad alias Ghani and others vs The State and others2020 KLR Criminal Cases 290, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 1466, 2020 P Cr. L J · Balochistan High Court
  circumstantial evidenceretracted judicial confessionblind murderbenefit of doubtforensic evidence delaycriminal appealvoluntariness of confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court for murder and related offenses, alongside a revision petition seeking sentence enhancement. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a blind murder case relying on circumstantial evidence, specifically the validity of a retracted judicial confession and delayed forensic analysis. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete, unbroken chain of evidence. It emphasized that retracted judicial confessions require independent, impeachable corroboration and must be tested for voluntariness, which was absent here due to procedural lapses, including the failure to grant sufficient time for reflection and unexplained delays. Furthermore, the Court found that significant delays in sending crime weapons for forensic examination and inconsistencies between medical evidence and the confession created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the revision petition, reiterating that the benefit of every reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained delay in recording a confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate its voluntariness?
  • Is the pointation of a place of occurrence already known to the police admissible as discovery of a new fact under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does a significant delay in sending a crime weapon for forensic analysis create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Mehmood vs Special Judge (Rent), Lahore and 8 others2020 YLR 2115 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
• Akhtar vs The State2020 SCMR 2020, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-12
  murdercircumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessiondelay in FIRsentence commutationlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of a minor boy. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession, medical evidence showing strangulation and semen-stained swabs, and the recovery of the deceased's body and personal belongings on the appellant's pointation. The appellant challenged the conviction, pointing to a delay in reporting the matter to the police. The Supreme Court held that the delay was naturally explained by a father's search for his missing child and did not damage the prosecution's case. The Court found the chain of circumstantial evidence, supported by the extra-judicial confession and medical findings, sufficient to maintain the conviction. However, because the case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment to meet the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution when a father is searching for his missing minor child?
  • Can a conviction for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession?
  • Whether a death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment when the prosecution's case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Maqsood vs Superintendent of Camp Jail, Lahore and 4 others2020 P Cr. L J 447 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-12
  constitutional petitionconcurrent sentencesperiod undergoneunder-trial prisonerbenefit of section 382-Bpolice omissioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by the petitioner seeking the benefit of concurrent running of sentences and the calculation of the period of detention under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of two criminal cases. The core legal question was whether the period during which an accused remained in judicial custody in one case can be excluded by jail authorities for the purpose of section 382-B benefits simply because the police failed to formally record his arrest in the earlier registered case. The Lahore High Court held that a convict cannot be made to suffer for the omission or mistake of a police officer who failed to enter his arrest on the judicial remand paper of the earlier case. The Court ruled that the petitioner's period of detention as an under-trial prisoner in the subsequent case (wherein he was acquitted) must be reckoned in the earlier case for granting the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C., establishing that procedural lapses by investigating agencies cannot deprive an accused of statutory beneficial reliefs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period of detention served by an accused as an under-trial prisoner in one case can be reckoned as period undergone for the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. in another case where his arrest was not formally shown due to police omission?
  • Does a court have the discretion under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct sentences in separate trials to run concurrently?
  • Can a convict be deprived of statutory benefits under section 382-B Cr.P.C. solely on account of a mistake by an investigating officer in recording judicial remand?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs State & anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 350 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-10
  post-arrest bailrapefurther inquirymedical evidenceforensic DNA analysisheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner seeking release in a criminal case registered under Sections 376 and 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner makes out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, given the medical and forensic evidence. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court held that the absence of physical marks of violence, an intact hymen, the lack of corroborative DNA analysis, and the final opinion of the medical officer prima facie rendered the case one of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that mere involvement in a heinous offence does not disentitle an accused to bail when medical evidence fails to corroborate the allegations and the statutory conditions for further inquiry are met.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of physical marks of violence and an intact hymen in a medical report make a charge of rape one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground that the accused is charged with a heinous offence when medical evidence fails to corroborate the allegation?
  • Whether continued incarceration of an accused serves any beneficial purpose when investigation is complete and the accused is a previous non-convict?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs D.J Hyd. & Others2020 SHC 728 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-24Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Shah vs Oil and Gas Development Company Limited2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 148, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 573 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-17
  pension calculationadvance incrementsservice lawdual charge allowancevested rightsretrospective withdrawalemolumentscompetent authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired employee of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL), challenged the withdrawal of advance increments and the exclusion of additional pay from his pension calculation. The core legal questions were whether the employer could unilaterally withdraw validly approved advance increments after the employee's retirement and whether temporary 'additional pay' granted for dual charge duties constituted 'emoluments' for pension calculation purposes. The Court held that the advance increments, having been approved by the competent authority and not obtained through misrepresentation, created valuable rights that could not be withdrawn post-retirement. The Court rejected the employer's allegations of misconduct, noting they were contradicted by the employer's own internal board resolutions. However, the Court held that the temporary additional pay for dual charge duties did not qualify as 'emoluments' under the relevant pension regulations, as it was not substantive pay. The key principle laid down is that validly granted increments, once approved by a competent authority, cannot be withdrawn retrospectively, and temporary allowances do not form part of pensionable emoluments unless explicitly defined as such.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer unilaterally withdraw advance increments granted to an employee after the employee has retired?
  • Does temporary additional pay granted for dual charge duties constitute 'emoluments' for the purpose of pension calculation?
  • Can an employer impose costs for making false and defamatory allegations in written pleadings?
  • Do advance increments validly approved by a competent authority create vested rights for an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs The State2020 SCMR 1243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-15
  transfer of casesscandalous litigationjudicial restraintimposition of costsadministration of justicejudicial independence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Akhtar Ali, sought the transfer of criminal cases pending before a Judicial Magistrate in Sheikhupura to a court in Gojra, District Nankana Sahib, following unsuccessful attempts before the District and Sessions Judge and the Lahore High Court. The High Court had dismissed his transfer application, characterizing his conduct as scandalous and frivolous, and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged this order while expressing remorse for his previous behavior towards the judiciary and local bar members. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the petitioner's conduct and the imposition of costs for scandalous litigation. The Supreme Court held that while the petitioner's conduct was indeed reckless and scandalous, it would exercise judicial restraint regarding the punitive costs. The Court affirmed that the administration of justice requires judges to perform their duties fearlessly and independently, free from obstruction or interference. Consequently, the Court declined leave to appeal but reduced the imposed cost to a symbolic sum of Rs. 2,000, emphasizing that judicial dignity rests on foundations beyond coercive authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court reduce costs imposed by a High Court for scandalous litigation?
  • Is it permissible for a litigant to cast aspersions on the judiciary and legal practitioners in a transfer application?
  • What is the standard for judicial restraint when dealing with contemptuous or scandalous conduct by a litigant?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs Muhammad Yaar2021 YLR 730, 2020 PLJ Lahore 590 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-26Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ahsan and others vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1520 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-15
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtidentification paradedacoitymurderdeath sentenceacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions and death sentences for dacoity and murder arising from an incident where multiple armed assailants entered a house, resulting in deaths and injuries. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and participation of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where some appellants were nominated years after the occurrence without formal identification parades, and where no specific injuries were attributed to the primary appellant. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with doubt, noting the absence of incriminating recovery, the lack of identification parades for the later-nominated appellants, and the failure of witnesses to identify the appellants in court. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants. The key principle laid down is that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right, not as a matter of grace or concession.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a reasonable doubt exists regarding their guilt?
  • Does the failure to hold a formal identification parade for suspects nominated years after the occurrence create a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when prosecution witnesses fail to identify the accused in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Akd Investment Management Limited and others vs JS Investment Limited2020 CLD 596 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05
  Constitutional petitionshare buybackminority shareholderswrit jurisdictionCompanies Act 2017treasury sharesstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by minority shareholders seeking to restrain a public listed company from purchasing its own shares for cancellation. The core legal questions were whether the company’s buyback for cancellation was permissible under the Companies Act 2017 and whether the High Court’s writ jurisdiction could be invoked to resolve a private commercial dispute aimed at profit maximization. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that it was not maintainable. The Court ruled that Section 88 of the Companies Act 2017 explicitly allows a company to purchase its own shares either for cancellation or to be held as treasury shares, treating these options as disjunctive. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 cannot be invoked against a private entity for private disputes, particularly when the petitioners' sole motivation is to maximize investment returns. The Court emphasized that it cannot legislate or read words into statutes, adhering to the plain meaning of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public listed company purchase its own shares for the purpose of cancellation under the Companies Act 2017?
  • Is the writ jurisdiction of the High Court maintainable against a private entity in a dispute concerning private commercial interests?
  • Does the word 'or' in Section 88 of the Companies Act 2017 create a disjunctive relationship between purchasing shares for cancellation and holding them as treasury shares?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs Said Gul and 2 others2020 PLD Peshawar 10 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-19Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 757 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-24
  post-arrest bailillicit alcoholprohibitory clausefurther inquiryadmissibility of statementcustodial statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 2177, registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the recovery of 28,000 liters of illicit alcohol from a tanker. The petitioner, who was apprehended at the scene while the driver escaped, sought bail on the grounds that he was neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of his arrest and the evidentiary value of his custodial statement. The Court held that the petitioner's statement made while in police custody was inadmissible. Furthermore, noting that the co-accused (including the driver) had already been granted bail and that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court granted bail. The key principle established is that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, necessitating further inquiry into the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a statement made by an accused while in police custody admissible as evidence?
  • Does the grant of bail become the rule when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when co-accused persons have already been admitted to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and another vs Khair Muhammad and others2020 PLJ Peshawar 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-07Read full judgment →
• Ajmir Shah, Ex-Sepoy vs The Inspector General, Frontier Corps KPK and another2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 250, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 420, 2021 P SC 747, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-08-19
  departmental appeallimitation periodcondonation of delayFrontier Corpsdismissal from serviceFederal Service Tribunalstatutory procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal as time-barred. The petitioner, a former Sepoy in the Frontier Corps, was dismissed from service under Sections 8(c) and 10 of the Frontier Corps Ordinance, 1959. He filed his departmental appeal after more than four years and five months, claiming he waited for the outcome of another colleague's successful service appeal. The Supreme Court considered whether awaiting the outcome of another employee's case constitutes sufficient cause to condone delay and whether deciding a departmental appeal on the merits implies condonation of limitation. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that an employee must pursue their own legal remedy within the prescribed limitation period rather than wait for a colleague's outcome. Furthermore, under Rule 14 of the Frontier Corps Rules, 1961, the power to certify delay and extend limitation lies exclusively with the original punishing authority, not the appellate authority; hence, implied condonation cannot arise.

  Questions settled

  • Does awaiting the outcome of a colleague's service appeal constitute sufficient cause for extending the limitation period for filing a departmental appeal?
  • Can an appellate authority impliedly condone a delay in filing a departmental appeal on the merits when the governing rules place the power to extend limitation solely in the original punishing authority?
  • Under Rule 14 of the Frontier Corps Rules 1961, what is the mandatory procedure to extend the limitation period for filing an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Javed vs State etc.PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 780 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-11
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfraudulent transferforgerycriminal breach of trustbank account fraud
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an FIR registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 409, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the fraudulent transfer of foreign currency from a deceased person's bank account using forged cheques. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on merits and on the rule of consistency given that a co-accused with an identical role had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that the disputed amount remained in the accounts of the principal accused daughters, no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner during investigation, and the rule of consistency applied as a co-accused with a similar role had been released on bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused shares an identical role with a co-accused who has already been granted bail, and no recovery or direct benefit is established at the interim stage, the rule of consistency warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency when a co-accused with an identical role has already been enlarged on bail?
  • Does the absence of recovery of incriminating material during investigation justify the grant of post-arrest bail in white-collar crimes?
  • Whether bail can be granted when the primary beneficiaries of the alleged fraudulent transaction are persons other than the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Aizaz Ali vs Javed Ahmed alias Javed and 2 others2020 MLD 1971 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRattempt to commit murderpresumption of innocenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under Sections 324 and 337F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by extending the benefit of the doubt. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court's appreciation of evidence was perverse or arbitrary so as to warrant interference in an acquittal judgment. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the first information report, coupled with material contradictions, lack of recovery of blood-stained earth, clothes, or weapon shells, and the failure to establish an intention to commit murder under Section 324, rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that a double presumption of innocence is attached to an acquittal judgment, which will not be interfered with unless found to be arbitrary, perverse, or against the record, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to recover blood-stained earth, clothes, or weapon empties from the crime scene make the prosecution case doubtful?
  • When can a superior court interfere with a judgment of acquittal passed by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does a failure to repeat fire when an injured is at the mercy of the accused negate the intention to commit murder under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Aitzaz Ahmad vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1099 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-10
  narcoticschain of custodychemical examiner reportburden of proofreasonable doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the possession of 2500 grams of charas, an offence under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The trial court had initially convicted the appellant and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the integrity of the recovered narcotic sample sent for chemical analysis. Upon review, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a secure chain of custody for the sample. Crucially, the official responsible for transporting the sealed parcel to the Chemical Examiner was not produced as a witness to testify that the sample remained intact and untampered during transit. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that in criminal trials, the initial burden of proof rests heavily on the prosecution, and failure to prove the safe custody of recovered narcotics renders the chemical examiner's report unreliable, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the official who transported a narcotic sample to the chemical examiner create a fatal gap in the chain of custody?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove the sample remained untampered during transit?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to prove the safe custody of a recovered narcotic sample on the reliability of the chemical examiner's report?
  Read full judgment →
• Airport Hotel, Hotel Skyrooms (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Authorized Officer vs Khawaja Ahsan Mehmood and others2020 YLR 561 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-28Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani vs Muhammad Mian Soomro and 2 others2020 MLD 551 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-26Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali vs The State2020 SHC 732 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-27Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali son of Muhammad Fazal Mughal vs The State2020 SHC 914 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-02
  criminal appealchain of custodychemical examiner reportreasonable doubtacquittalsafe custodyMainpuri/Gutka
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Tando Muhammad Khan, against the appellant for possession of substances intended for the preparation of Mainpuri/Gutka. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the chain of custody of the recovered substance and the applicability of the charged penal sections. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, noting the absence of independent witnesses, an unexplained five-day delay in chemical examination, and the failure to examine the Malkhana in-charge or the person responsible for transmitting the samples to the Chemical Examiner. Furthermore, the Court observed that the chemical report did not support the charges under the applied sections. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the safe custody and untampered transmission of recovered evidence to the Chemical Examiner, and that any single infirmity creating reasonable doubt regarding the truth of the charge entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending recovered substances to the Chemical Examiner, without plausible explanation, create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to examine the person responsible for transmitting recovered evidence to the Chemical Examiner to prove safe custody?
  • Does a single infirmity in the prosecution's evidence regarding the truth of the charge entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Aijaz & others vs Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 816 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-27Read full judgment →
• Ahtisham Elahi etc vs Insram Elahi etc2020 PLJ Lahore 374 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
• Ahtisham Elahi and another vs Insram Elahi, and another2020 PLJ Lahore 354 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Dilpazir Khan vs Messrs BST Services through CEO Karachi2020 MLD 38 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ahsan alias Keso vs The State2020 SHC 510 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06
  narcotics controlsafe custody of samplechemical examiner reportindependent mashirpolice complainant as investigating officerbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment with a fine, though he was initially released on probation due to his youth. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved the recovery of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt, the legal effect of failing to associate independent witnesses at a busy public location, the consequence of unexplained delay and lack of safe custody regarding the transmission of samples to the chemical examiner, and the propriety of the complainant investigating his own case. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish safe custody of the contraband, that non-association of available independent mashirs rendered the police testimony uncorroborated, and that investigation by the complainant himself introduced bias. The court laid down the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending a narcotic sample to the chemical examiner, coupled with a failure to prove safe custody and malkhana deposit, vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the non-association of independent private witnesses from a busy public place where they are readily available casts serious doubt on a recovery made solely by police officials?
  • Is it legally proper for the complainant of a criminal case to act as its investigating officer?
  • Does a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Ali Chohan vs Province of Sindh and Others2020 SHC 330 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Yar alias Ahma, and 2 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 886 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-12
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceocular accountmurdersentence reductionprotracted trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the ocular account provided by prosecution witnesses, which alleged a single fatal blow, could be reconciled with medical evidence indicating multiple injuries, and whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The Court held that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the primary appellant, Ahmed Yar, as the fatal injury could not have been caused by a single blow. Consequently, the Court acquitted Ahmed Yar, emphasizing that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Regarding the other appellants, Shahzad and Ghazanfar, the Court maintained their convictions as their actions were corroborated by medical evidence but reduced their sentences to the time already served, considering the protracted trial and the acquittal of the main accused. The judgment reinforces the principle that contradictions between ocular and medical testimony necessitate the extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the nature of a fatal injury entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is it necessary for multiple circumstances to exist to grant the benefit of the doubt to an accused?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone in cases of a protracted trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed vs The State2020 SHC 1250 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  post-arrest bailqatl-i-amdfurther inquirydelayed FIRtentative assessmentcriminal bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by an accused charged with qatl-i-amd (intentional murder) and causing injuries to a prosecution witness. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry, given allegations of false implication, delayed FIR, and the relationship between prosecution witnesses. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, finding reasonable grounds to believe he was guilty of the charged offense. The court specifically noted that the FIR contained a specific allegation of the applicant causing a head injury to the deceased with a weapon, which contradicted the defense's claim that no specific injury was attributed. The court further held that the delay in lodging the FIR was plausibly explained and that the relationship between prosecution witnesses did not warrant disbelieving them at the bail stage. The court emphasized that observations made during bail proceedings are tentative and should not prejudice the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship between prosecution witnesses automatically render their testimony unreliable at the bail stage?
  • Can a delay in lodging an FIR be considered a sufficient ground for the grant of bail when the delay is explained within the FIR?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when there is a specific allegation of causing a fatal injury, despite claims of false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Shah and another vs The State2020 YLR 1715 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-04-03
  explosive substancesconscious possessioninvestigating officerindependent witnessessafe custodyacquittalprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the prosecution's case given that the complainant acted as the investigating officer, the lack of independent witnesses during the search, the investigation being conducted by an officer of incompetent rank, and the reliance on an expert report from a non-notified individual. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasized that conscious possession of explosive substances by a passenger must be established through independent evidence, and that the failure to produce the Moharrir to prove safe custody of case property created significant doubt. Furthermore, the Court deprecated the practice of the complainant acting as the investigating officer and noted that the investigation by an officer below the required rank violated the Anti-Terrorism Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, establishing that procedural lapses and lack of impartial investigation render a conviction unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of a passenger in a vehicle constitute conscious possession of explosive substances found therein?
  • Is an expert report admissible if the expert is not notified by the Provincial or Federal Government under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a search, as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiate the recovery?
  • Can a complainant who is also the investigating officer conduct a fair and impartial investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Saqib vs The State, etc2020 KLR Criminal Cases 365 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-10
  post-arrest bailtheftsupplementary statementCCTV footagefurther inquiryNADRA report
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Ahmed Saqib in connection with FIR No. 376 dated 23.6.2018 registered under sections 380, 457, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Chak Jhumra, District Faisalabad, concerning the theft of mobile phones from a warehouse. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in light of the delayed supplementary nomination, negative NADRA verification of CCTV footage, and the completion of the investigation. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The Court held that the delayed nomination through a supplementary statement without a disclosed source, coupled with a negative NADRA report regarding the CCTV footage and unverified identification, brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, establishing that further incarceration of the accused would serve no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging the FIR and subsequent delayed nomination through a supplementary statement warrants post-arrest bail?
  • Does a negative NADRA report regarding CCTV footage identification create sufficient grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when the investigation is complete and further incarceration serves no beneficial purpose for the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Saeed alias Bharam alias Nagori vs Inspector General of Police2020 P Cr. L J 395, 2022 PLJ Karachi 70 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-20
  constitutional petitionretracted confessionwrit of mandamuscriminal investigationevidentiary valueNo Objection Certificatepolice powersAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking to restrain law enforcement agencies from implicating him in multiple criminal cases based on a retracted judicial confession and to declare a "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) issued by the Rangers as illegal. The core legal questions were whether a High Court, under writ jurisdiction, can adjudicate the evidentiary value of a confession and whether it can restrain the police from investigating a suspect. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the evidentiary value of a confession is a matter strictly for the trial court, not for writ proceedings. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the investigative process is a statutory duty that should not be hampered by judicial interference. The Court ruled that the NOC was legally redundant, as investigating agencies possess the inherent authority to investigate suspects without requiring permission from other entities. Relying on the principles in Sughran Bibi, the Court emphasized that an investigating officer’s duty is to discover the truth, and they are not restricted by the initial allegations in an FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court, under writ jurisdiction, adjudicate the legality or evidentiary value of a judicial confession?
  • Does the investigative process of the police require a "No Objection Certificate" from other law enforcement agencies to proceed against a suspect?
  • Is a court permitted to restrain the police from investigating a suspect in multiple criminal cases based on a retracted confession?
  • Are investigating officers restricted to the version of events narrated in the initial FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Nawaz vs The State2020 SHC 918 · Sindh High Court
  customs fraudsentencing discretionappellate powerscriminal appealundervaluation of goodsrevenue recoveryprocedural delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three criminal appeals against a 2009 conviction for customs fraud, specifically the undervaluation of imported machinery. The appellants, who did not contest the conviction on its merits, sought leniency regarding their sentences, citing the twenty-five-year duration of the proceedings and their personal circumstances. The core legal question was whether the appellate court possessed the authority to modify the sentence of imprisonment to a fine, given the specific provisions of the Customs Act, 1969. The court maintained the conviction but held that the 11-month imprisonment sentence should be converted into an additional fine of Rs. 500,000 for each appellant. The ratio established is that the Customs Act, 1969 grants courts wide sentencing discretion, prioritizing revenue recovery over incarceration. Considering the prosecution's failure to take disciplinary action against the appellants during the long pendency of the case and the absence of prior criminal records, the court exercised its powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to substitute imprisonment with a fine as a compensatory measure for the revenue loss.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court convert a sentence of imprisonment into a fine in a customs fraud case?
  • Does the Customs Act, 1969 grant courts discretion to impose only a fine instead of imprisonment for customs offences?
  • Can the conduct of the prosecution in failing to take disciplinary action against accused employees be considered when determining the appropriate sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Asif Siddiqui and others vs IIIrd Adj East Karachi and others2020 CLC 179 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ahmed alias Ahmed Ali vs Falak Sher (deceased) through LRs etc2020 LHC 1975, 2021 CLC 58 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-30Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali Sahran and others vs Province Of Sindh through Additional2020 PLC (C.S.) 417 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16
  Police Act 1861recruitment policyInspector General of Policestanding ordersprovincial government approvalson quotaservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two constitutional petitions filed by individuals seeking employment in the Sindh Police department under a 'son quota' based on Standing Order No. 279/2014, issued by the Inspector General of Police (IGP). The core legal question was whether the IGP possessed the authority to issue standing orders prescribing recruitment rules, specifically for quotas for children of retired or serving police officers, without the explicit approval of the provincial government. The petitioners argued that the mere submission of the standing order to the Home Department implied government approval. The Court held that the petitions were meritless, affirming that standing orders issued by the IGP without the explicit approval of the provincial government are illegal and void, as established by Supreme Court precedents. The Court clarified that Section 12 of the Police Act, 1861, does not grant the IGP the power to frame recruitment rules independently. The principle laid down is that recruitment policy is the prerogative of the provincial government, and silence or inaction by the government upon receiving a copy of an IGP's standing order does not constitute valid legal approval.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 12 of the Police Act 1861 empower the Inspector General of Police to independently frame recruitment rules?
  • Can the silence or inaction of the provincial government upon receiving a copy of a standing order be construed as implied approval?
  • Are standing orders issued by the Inspector General of Police without the approval of the provincial government legally valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmar Iqbal vs Ministry Of Energy (Petroleum Division) Islamabad and others2020 MLD 1849 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmar Altaf vs The State and another2020 YLR 2294 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-26
  post-arrest baildishonour of chequeprohibitory clausecriminal justicebail as rulenon-prohibitory offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Ahmar Altaf, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a case that did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting the eight-month delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the petitioner's continued incarceration was unnecessary for the investigation. The Court emphasized the established legal principle that in offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court further observed that advance punishment is contrary to the norms of criminal justice and that lower courts must adhere to Supreme Court directives regarding bail in non-prohibitory offences to prevent unnecessary congestion in the judicial system.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the incarceration of an accused for an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute advance punishment?
  • Are the observations of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the grant of bail in non-prohibitory offences binding on all courts in the country?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sultan vs State, etc2020 P Cr. L J 1543, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1241, 2020 PHC 58 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-17
  acquittal appealdelayed FIRbenefit of doubtfsl reportplanting of evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent-accused by the trial court in a murder and robbery case registered under Sections 302 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the assessment of inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report, the reliability of uncorroborated ocular and circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of delayed forensic dispatch of crime empties, and the strict standard required for interfering with an acquittal judgment. The Peshawar High Court held that the inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report against unknown persons, broken chain of information, material discrepancies in witness statements, planted recoveries, and delayed transmission of weapon and empties to the forensic laboratory rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and appellate interference is warranted only for compelling and substantial reasons. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report against unknown persons creates doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Can a delayed transmission of crime empties and weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory undermine the prosecution's forensic evidence?
  • What are the compelling and substantial reasons required for an appellate court to interfere with an acquittal judgment?
  • Is uncorroborated ocular testimony sufficient to sustain a conviction when the chain of events and recoveries are found to be doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nadeem Abbasi vs Chaudhry Muhammad Ishaq & others2020 [M] C L R 76 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-17Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain, etc vs Munawar Hussain, etc2020 [M] C L R 1615 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh (Deceased) through LRs vs Ameer Ali Khan2020 SCMR 873 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-03
  pre-emptionTalab-i-Ishhadco-sharercontradictions in evidencecivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit instituted by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants against a sale mutation dated 14.9.1999, claiming a superior right as a co-sharer. The trial court and appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the High Court reversed this decision upon finding contradictions and discrepancies in the plaintiff's evidence regarding the mandatory performance of Talabs under pre-emption law. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the plaintiff had validly and lawfully performed Talab-i-Ishhad and associated statutory requirements. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, holding that the testimonies of the plaintiff's witnesses were fraught with material contradictions and omissions regarding the time and manner of the Talabs, rendering them unreliable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that failure to establish proper performance of Talabs fatalizes a pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses regarding the performance of Talabs are fatal to a pre-emption suit?
  • Does the failure to properly prove Talab-i-Ishhad in accordance with the law warrant the dismissal of a pre-emption claim?
  • Is an appellate court justified in reversing concurrent findings of lower courts when the plaintiff's evidence on essential prerequisites is found to be unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 964 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-26
  murderdeath sentencechild witnessocular evidenceinterested witnesscriminal appealmurder referencecompetency of witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his two minor sons, alongside a Murder Reference for sentence confirmation. The core legal questions concerned the competency of a child witness, the reliability of ocular evidence provided by interested witnesses, and the sufficiency of proof regarding motive and recovery. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It affirmed that ocular evidence from close relatives is credible when consistent and coherent, especially when the defense fails to impeach it during cross-examination. Regarding the child witness, the Court established that competency under Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, depends on the child's capacity to understand and answer questions rationally, not on a specific age. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the prosecution is not obliged to produce every witness, but rather to present quality evidence. Consequently, the conviction was maintained, and the death sentence was confirmed, as the evidence of motive, medical reports, and weapon recovery corroborated the eyewitness accounts.

  Questions settled

  • Is a child witness competent to testify under Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, regardless of their specific age?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce all available witnesses invalidate the case if the evidence presented is otherwise sufficient?
  • Can the testimony of close relatives be accepted as reliable ocular evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahliyan-e-Plate/Gulshan Pir Alla-Ud--Din through Representatives vs2020 CLC 1112 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-11-01Read full judgment →
• Ahm Enterprises vs Pakistan & Ors2020 SHC 1292 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
• Agha Syed Muhammad vs Muhammad Anwar and 2 others2020 MLD 313 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-24Read full judgment →
• Agha Qurban Ali and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan2020 CLC 1 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-16
  election disqualificationoffice of profitservice of Pakistanlocal governmentbye-electionconstitutional petitionnomination paperselection tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the eligibility of candidates contesting a National Assembly bye-election, specifically questioning whether the office of Chairman of a local government council constitutes an 'office of profit in the service of Pakistan' under Article 63(1)(d) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, thereby disqualifying the holders. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that local government Chairmen are elected representatives rather than employees appointed by the government. Consequently, their positions do not fall within the definition of 'Service of Pakistan' under Article 260 of the Constitution. The Court established that for an office to be considered an 'office of profit in the service of Pakistan,' it must be controlled by the government, which must possess the authority to appoint and remove the holder. Since local government Chairmen are elected and removable only via no-confidence motions, they are not disqualified. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that High Court interference in election processes under Article 199 is restricted to instances of patent illegality or jurisdictional defects, which were not demonstrated in this matter.

  Questions settled

  • Does the office of Chairman of a local government council constitute an 'office of profit in the service of Pakistan' under Article 63(1)(d) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Are elected local government representatives considered to be in the 'Service of Pakistan' as defined by Article 260 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can the High Court invoke its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to interfere in an ongoing election process?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Massihuddin Khan Durrani and others vs Chairman, National2020 PLD Sindh 365 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-13Read full judgment →
• Agha Ali Haider vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 SHC 354 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-13Read full judgment →
• Afzal Ali vs The State2020 SHC 576 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10
  pre-arrest baildismissal for non-prosecutionbail recallcriminal bail applicationabsence of applicant
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was brought before the Sindh High Court for the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail, which had been previously granted to the applicant on April 27, 2020. Upon the date fixed for the hearing, neither the applicant nor any legal representative appeared on their behalf, and no intimation regarding their absence was provided to the Court. Observing the lack of attendance and the failure to pursue the matter, the Court inferred that the applicant had lost interest in the proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the criminal bail application for non-prosecution. As a direct result of this dismissal, the interim pre-arrest bail previously extended to the applicant was recalled. The Court further directed the office to transmit a copy of the order to the Station House Officer of the concerned police station and the trial court for immediate information and compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal bail application be dismissed for non-prosecution if the applicant fails to appear?
  • What is the effect of dismissing a pre-arrest bail application for non-prosecution on the interim relief previously granted?
  Read full judgment →