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.

• Aftab Gil etc vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1721 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-11
  criminal appealmurder convictiondishonest improvementswitness credibilityacquittalcorroborative evidenceprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, a revision petition for sentence enhancement, and a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on a sole eye-witness who made significant, dishonest improvements to his testimony compared to the initial FIR. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The sole eye-witness’s testimony was deemed unreliable due to material contradictions and dishonest improvements. Furthermore, the absence of crucial corroborative evidence, such as crime empties and blood-stained clothing, and the failure to prove the alleged motive, created fatal gaps in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence, dismissed the revision petition, and upheld the trial court's acquittal of the respondents, emphasizing that an acquittal should not be disturbed unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in filing a private complaint without a plausible explanation cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the sole eye-witness makes dishonest improvements to their testimony during trial?
  • What is the legal criteria for interfering with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  • Does the failure to recover crime empties and blood-stained clothing undermine the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed Khan vs The State2020 YLR 1331 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-08
  post-arrest bailanti-terrorismineffective firingfurther inquirypolice witnessescriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant, Aftab Ahmed Khan, seeking bail in Crime No. 423 of 2018 registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 324, 34, 186, 427, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question involved whether the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the delayed arrest, lack of recovery, misidentification in the FIR, and ineffective firing where no injuries were sustained. The court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail as investigation was complete, no incriminating recovery was made, the witnesses were police officials with no risk of evidence tampering, and the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that liberty cannot be curtailed without lawful justification, and where statutory conditions and evidentiary gaps point towards further inquiry, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the case involves ineffective firing and no injuries are sustained by any party?
  • Does the absence of independent mashirs and non-recovery of incriminating material entitle an accused to further inquiry under criminal law?
  • Can an accused be kept in further detention when investigation is complete and all prosecution witnesses are police officials?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad and others vs Water & Power Development Authority, and others2020 KLR Civil Cases 414 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-04
  contractual employmenttermination of serviceaudi alteram partemnatural justiceright to livelihoodrecruitment processshow cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the termination of contract employees by the Water and Power Development Authority (MEPCO) following a previous High Court judgment that declared their initial recruitment process illegal. The core legal question was whether the authority could summarily terminate these employees without providing a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing, despite the prior judicial invalidation of the recruitment process. The Court held that the termination orders were unsustainable because they violated the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem. Although the initial recruitment was found to be flawed, the Court ruled that the authority was legally obligated to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 3(e) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The key principle laid down is that the right to livelihood is a protected interest, and public authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice and statutory disciplinary procedures before terminating employment, regardless of whether the underlying recruitment process was previously declared invalid by a court. The impugned termination orders were set aside, and the authority was directed to proceed according to law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer terminate a contract employee without a show-cause notice even if the initial recruitment process was declared illegal by a court?
  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to the termination of contract employees whose recruitment was previously set aside?
  • Is the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 the mandatory procedure for terminating employees appointed on extraneous grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Afshan Anwer and another vs Women University Of Azad Jammu And Kashmir, Bagh through Vice Chancellor and others2020 PLJ AJ&K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Afsar Khan vs The State2021 MLD 272, 2020 PHC 230 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-06Read full judgment →
• Afsar Ali vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 705, 2020 PHC 492 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-22
  criminal appealmurdercommon intentionvicarious liabilityocular testimonyabscondencerelated witnessfirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 302(b), 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, the corroborative value of prolonged abscondence, and the application of vicarious or joint criminal liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 where multiple accused fire at a deceased. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, recoveries, and established common intention. The key legal principles laid down are that the statement of a related witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of relationship if their presence is established, prolonged abscondence without reasonable explanation serves as a corroborative piece of evidence, and under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, once a common intention is proved, the specific injury inflicted by a particular accused becomes immaterial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eyewitness can be disbelieved solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Does prolonged abscondence by an accused without a reasonable explanation serve as a valid corroborative piece of evidence of guilt?
  • Is it necessary to determine whose specific shot proved fatal when multiple accused act with a common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the necessary ingredients for the applicability of vicarious or joint criminal liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Afraz Gul vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 912 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-09-28
  post-arrest bailmurderfresh groundshostile witnessdeeper appreciation of evidenceabatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Afraz Gul, seeking bail in case FIR No. 29/2018 registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Juglote Gilgit. The core legal question revolves around whether the retraction of a prosecution witness at trial constitutes a fresh ground for granting post-arrest bail when a previous bail petition on similar grounds was dismissed on merits. The court held that since the trial is at its concluding stage, evaluating the evidentiary value of the hostile witness would amount to deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition while directing the trial court to conclude the trial within three months. The key principle laid down is that the turning hostile of a witness during an ongoing trial nearing its conclusion does not automatically furnish a fresh ground for bail if deeper appreciation of evidence is required.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the turning hostile of a prosecution witness during an ongoing trial constitutes a fresh ground for post-arrest bail?
  • Can a court undertake deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage when the trial is near its conclusion?
  • Whether a second post-arrest bail petition is maintainable on grounds already agitated in a previously dismissed bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Afaq-ul-Islam Qureshi vs Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu & Kashmir2020 P SC 160 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Afaq Ahmed vs The State2020 YLR 676 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-15
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubteyewitness testimonyidentification parademurderanti-terrorismhearsay evidenceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of a police constable. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on a sole eyewitness whose testimony was inconsistent and contradicted by medical evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt, finding the eyewitness testimony unreliable, the identification parade procedurally defective, and the ballistic evidence inconclusive due to unexplained delays. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, and if any single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace. Furthermore, it emphasizes that hearsay evidence cannot substitute for sworn testimony, and that identification parades must strictly comply with legal procedures to possess evidentiary value.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness whose conduct and statements are inconsistent with the medical evidence?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered empties for ballistic examination render the forensic report unreliable?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • What are the consequences of procedural defects in an identification parade on the admissibility of the identification evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Aehsun M.H. Shaikh Chairman Azgard Nine Ltd. and 6 others vs Appellate2020 PLJ Islamabad 85 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aehsun M.H. Shaikh and others vs Appellate Bench No. IV, Securities &2020 PCTLR 1 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Adnan Zar vs Mst. Khadeeja Khanum and 2 others2020 MLD 1147 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-17Read full judgment →
• Adnan Khursheed Assistant Director vs Azad Jammu And Kashmir2020 PLJ AJ&K 49, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 380 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-11-14
  writ jurisdictionproject employmentcontractual appointmentsalary claimexecutive prerogativeill-gotten gainsstatus quo order
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, by a petitioner seeking to be treated as a permanent Assistant Director (B-17) and for the release of salary for the period between July 2014 and May 2015. The petitioner, initially appointed on a project basis, argued that his post should be shifted to the normal budget. The core legal question was whether a temporary project employee has a vested right to permanent induction or salary payment after the project's expiration. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's appointment was strictly time-bound and expired upon the project's conclusion on June 30, 2014. The Court ruled that the decision to launch, continue, or shift government schemes is the exclusive prerogative of the Executive, and courts cannot interfere absent proof of mala fide or illegality. Furthermore, the Court established that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to protect ill-gotten gains or to enforce salary claims for unauthorized service rendered after the legal termination of an appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appointment made for a specific project confer a right to permanent induction upon the project's expiry?
  • Can the High Court issue a writ to compel the government to shift a project post to the normal budget?
  • Is an employee entitled to salary for services rendered after the expiration of their contract period?
  • Can writ jurisdiction be invoked to protect gains derived from unauthorized service?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Khan vs The State & another2020 P Cr. L J 1001, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1336, 2020 PHC 26 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-02
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationcompromisedishonestly issuing a chequecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent on the basis of a compromise in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail can be made conditional upon terms set in a private compromise deed and whether the prerogative to seek bail cancellation can be delegated to the complainant by mutual agreement. The Peshawar High Court held that the provisions of Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be made subservient to the consent or will of the complainant, and the court's prerogative to cancel bail cannot be shifted to a private individual through a compromise deed. The court established that conditional bail agreements alien to statutory criminal administration of justice cannot override the law, and in the absence of misuse of bail concession or tampering with evidence, a petition for bail cancellation based on a breach of private compromise terms is not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be made conditional upon terms stipulated in a private compromise deed between the parties?
  • Whether the court's prerogative to cancel bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be shifted to the complainant based on mutual agreement?
  • Does the failure to honor a private compromise condition automatically warrant the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Khan vs Govtt: of KPK through Secretary & others2020 PHC 518, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 550 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-29
  constitutional petitiondomicile certificateprimary school teacherfactual controversywrit jurisdictionappointment policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court challenging the appointment of respondents No. 6 and 7 as Primary School Teachers (PST) in District Dir Lower on the ground that they originally belonged to District Mardan and allegedly obtained domiciles of District Dir Lower unlawfully. The core legal question revolved around the validity of the private respondents' domiciles and whether disputed questions of fact regarding permanent residence could be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction. The court held that since the competent authorities had duly issued domiciles for District Dir Lower and cancelled the prior domiciles of District Mardan before the cut-off date, and both CNICs and domiciles verified their status, the appointments were lawful. Furthermore, the court held that factual controversies regarding a person's permanent abode cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction and must be agitated before a civil court. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court determine disputed questions of fact regarding a candidate's permanent residence and domicile in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether a domicile certificate can be substituted or acquired subsequently under the law?
  • Does a primary school teacher appointment require the candidate to belong to the same union council or district based on their CNIC and domicile?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Iqbal vs Matiullah Jan, etc2020 IHC 128 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-15Read full judgment →
• Adnan Ali vs Rent Controller, Multan Cantt and 2 others2020 MLD 1689 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-17Read full judgment →
• Administrator Municipal Corporation, Peshawar vs Taimoor Hussain Amin2020 PLJ SC 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil revisionburden of prooflimitation periodpublic propertysale mutationnecessary partylocal government
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts decreeing a property suit filed by respondents seeking ownership and possession of land claimed by the Municipal Corporation, Peshawar. The core legal questions involved whether plaintiffs established valid title without joining necessary parties, and whether the suit was barred by limitation and contrary to the burden of proof. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the lower courts misallocated the burden of proof, ignored the lack of title evidence and non-joinder of necessary parties, and failed to notice that the suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act 1908. The Court laid down that plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their own case, that anyone alleging ownership of property possessed by another must prove it, and emphasized the mandatory statutory duties of local governments to conduct annual stocktaking of public properties and enforce personal liability for any waste or loss.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof lie on the plaintiff to establish ownership and title when the defendant corporation is in actual physical possession and receiving rent from the property?
  • Can a civil court decree a suit that is visibly barred by the period of limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act 1908 even if limitation is not specifically pleaded as a defense?
  • Whether concurrent findings of subordinate courts can be set aside in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when they suffer from material irregularities and misplacement of the burden of proof?
  • What are the statutory obligations of local governments regarding the annual stocktaking and protection of public properties under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act 2013?
  Read full judgment →
• Administrator Municipal Corporation Peshawar vs Taimur Hussain Amin2020 SCP 226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-18
  local government electionspublic property disclosuretransparencyconstitutional mandateadministrative accountabilitydevolution of power
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the failure of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial government to comply with statutory mandates regarding the disclosure of public property and the failure to hold local government elections. The core legal questions involve the government's obligation to maintain transparency regarding public assets under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013, and the constitutional duty to hold local government elections. The Court held that the government's submission of voluminous, irrelevant documentation was an inadequate substitute for the required transparency. It directed the Chief Secretary and relevant authorities to ensure digital, public disclosure of immovable properties and valuable assets, warning of potential action under the Act for non-compliance. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the absence of elected local representatives since August 2019 constitutes a grave violation of Article 140A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court reaffirmed that compliance with constitutional and statutory duties regarding local governance is mandatory, not optional, and ordered immediate steps to rectify the democratic deficit and ensure transparency in public property management.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to hold local government elections violate the constitutional mandate under Article 140A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Is the government legally obligated to disclose particulars of public properties in an accessible digital format under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013?
  • Can the government be held accountable for the failure to maintain transparency regarding public assets and the resulting risk of pilferage?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil Serwar alias Muhammad Adil vs The State2020 PLD Sindh 32 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-06
  appellate jurisdictionremand of caseexamination of witnessesprosecution lacunacriminal revisioncourt witnessestrial procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an appellate court's order that remanded a case to the trial court with directions to examine additional witnesses after the prosecution had already closed its side. The core legal question was whether an appellate court possesses the jurisdiction to suo motu order the examination of specific witnesses to fill lacunas in the prosecution's case, absent any application from the parties. The High Court held that while Section 423(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allows for retrials, the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the examination of witnesses when neither the prosecution nor the defense had requested such evidence. The Court emphasized that Section 265-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants parties the prerogative to manage their own evidence, and while Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allows for court-witnesses, this power is generally reserved for the trial stage to ensure a just decision. Consequently, the appellate court's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision based on the existing record.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have the jurisdiction to suo motu order the examination of additional witnesses to fill gaps in the prosecution's case?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case to the trial court for the examination of specific witnesses without an application from the parties?
  • Is the power to summon court-witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 available to an appellate court in the same manner as a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil Rashid vs Federation Of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Ports2020 PLC (C.S.) 717 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31
  service terminationillegal appointmentPort Qasim Authorityconstitutional petitionre-employment of ex-servicemenprobationary periodstatutory regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner’s services as Director (Environment and Safety) BPS-20 at the Port Qasim Authority (PQA). The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner’s appointment, made during a period when the Supreme Court had prohibited such recruitment, was valid, and whether the subsequent termination was lawful. The court held that the petition was meritless, finding that the petitioner’s appointment was illegal as it violated explicit Supreme Court directives and failed to meet the mandatory qualification and experience criteria stipulated in the advertisement. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the appointment lacked the requisite approval from the Federal Government as mandated by the Port Qasim Authority Employees Service Regulations, 2011. The court affirmed that as the initial appointment was fundamentally flawed and void ab initio, the petitioner possessed no vested right to reinstatement. The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory bodies must strictly adhere to service regulations and judicial directives, and that appointments made in contravention of such legal mandates are liable to be set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appointment made in violation of a Supreme Court directive prohibiting recruitment be considered valid?
  • Does a probationer have a vested right to reinstatement if the initial appointment was found to be illegal?
  • Are appointments to BPS-20 posts in the Port Qasim Authority subject to Federal Government approval under the Port Qasim Authority Employees Service Regulations 2011?
  • Is an appointment void if the appointee fails to possess the mandatory educational and experience qualifications specified in the advertisement?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil Bacha son of Gulzar Bahadur, r/o Panjpir District Swabi vs The State2020 YLR 2094, 2020 PHC 396 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-02Read full judgment →
• Adeel-u-ddin vs Syed akram shah and others2020 SHC 26 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-13Read full judgment →
• Additional Director, Directorate of Intelligence vs Inam Khan, Taj Ali and Rizwan Khan2020 SHC 932 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-09Read full judgment →
• Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd vs Muhammad Ramzan, etc2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 354, 2020 P C T L R 1377, PLD 2020 Supreme · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-02
  Insurance TribunalConstitutional JurisdictionInterlocutory OrdersStatutory AppealInsurance OrdinanceWrit PetitionRight of Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the scope of the right of appeal under Section 124 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, specifically regarding whether interlocutory orders passed by an Insurance Tribunal are subject to statutory appeal. The core legal question is whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 remains available to challenge miscellaneous orders of the Tribunal, given that the Ordinance only provides for appeals against final decisions on claims or penalties. The Supreme Court held that Section 124(2) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, is restricted to final adjudications of insurance claims or penalties and does not encompass miscellaneous interlocutory orders. Consequently, such orders are not appealable under the Ordinance, and the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 can be invoked to challenge them. The Court affirmed the principle that sub-constitutional legislation cannot curtail or abridge the jurisdiction of a constitutional court. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the petitioner to file its written statement before the Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 124 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, provide a right of appeal against miscellaneous interlocutory orders passed by an Insurance Tribunal?
  • Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be invoked to challenge interlocutory orders of an Insurance Tribunal?
  • Does sub-constitutional legislation have the authority to curtail or abridge the jurisdiction of a constitutional court?
  Read full judgment →
• Adam Securities Limited vs Commissioner, Securities Market Division, SECP2020 CLD 789 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2020-01-17Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan vs Abdul Khaliq and another2020 P Cr. L J 124 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-24
  criminal acquittal appealright of self-defencedacoitydouble presumption of innocencehearsay evidencetrespasserprivate defence of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondent of charges under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the respondent's actions, resulting in the death of the deceased during an exchange of fire, constituted a valid exercise of the right of self-defence against an attempted dacoity. The Court found that the prosecution's evidence was entirely hearsay and failed to establish the charge. Conversely, the record indicated that the deceased had entered the respondent's jewelry shop armed with an unlicensed pistol, evidencing malicious intent. The Court held that the acquittal was justified, as the respondent acted in self-defence of his person and property against an intruder. The key principle laid down is that the law recognizes the right of an occupant of property to expel an intruder or trespasser, and this right of self-defence is fortified when the trespasser enters for illicit purposes, extending even to causing death if the danger is imminent and the intruder does not retreat.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right of self-defence extend to causing the death of an intruder who enters a property for illicit purposes?
  • Is an acquittal order subject to interference if it is based on a proper appreciation of evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious?
  • Can a person be convicted when the prosecution's case rests entirely on hearsay evidence without direct or circumstantial support?
  • Does the presence of an unlicensed weapon on a deceased intruder support a plea of self-defence by the property owner?
  Read full judgment →
• Accused X vs The State of Maharashtra2020 P SC (Crl.) 541 · Supreme Court of India
  death penaltypre-sentence hearingpost-conviction mental illnesscommutation of sentencerarest of rare casessentencing guidelinescriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition challenged a death sentence, raising two primary issues: procedural non-compliance with Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 regarding pre-sentence hearings, and the impact of post-conviction mental illness on sentencing. The Court held that Section 235(2) does not mandate a separate date for pre-sentence hearings; rather, it requires a "meaningful opportunity" for the accused to present mitigating circumstances. Procedural irregularities can be remedied by the appellate court. Regarding mental illness, the Court established that post-conviction severe mental illness is a relevant supervening circumstance for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court laid down a "test of severity," requiring that the illness must be serious enough to prevent the convict from understanding the nature and purpose of the punishment. Balancing the brutality of the crime against the petitioner's mental condition, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of the petitioner's life without the possibility of remission, emphasizing the state's duty to provide care under the Mental Healthcare Act 2017.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to conduct a pre-sentence hearing on a separate date from the conviction violate Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973?
  • Can post-conviction mental illness serve as a mitigating factor to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • What is the test of severity for determining if a convict's mental illness warrants commutation of a death sentence?
  • Can an appellate court remedy a trial court's failure to comply with the pre-sentence hearing requirements of Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Abubakar Sadique vs The State2021 MLD 31, 2020 PHC 366 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-10
  post-arrest bailunnatural offencesodomyjuvenile offenderprohibitory clausemedical reportnon-compoundable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by the accused-petitioner Abubakar Sadique seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 380 dated 9.6.2020 registered under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 53 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act 2010 at Police Station Katlang, District Mardan, on charges of committing an unnatural offence with a minor. The core legal questions involve whether the absence of an FSL report at the bail stage, the alleged juvenility of the accused, and a compromise by the complainant warrant the grant of bail in a heinous offence. The Peshawar High Court held that the medical report prima facie connects the accused to the heinous crime falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that juvenility is not a license to commit such offences, and that a compromise is immaterial since the offence is non-compoundable. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, establishing that heinous offences against minors disentitle an accused to bail despite juvenility or lack of an FSL report at the preliminary stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-availability of an FSL report at the bail stage entitle an accused to post-arrest bail in a case of sodomy?
  • Whether juvenility by itself serves as a ground for the grant of bail in heinous offences?
  • Can a compromise between the complainant and the accused form the basis for granting bail in a non-compoundable offence?
  • Does an offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid vs The State and others2020 MLD 1750 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clauseunnominated accusedidentification paraderecovery of currency
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in respect of case FIR No. 194 dated 17.05.2018 registered under Sections 394, 337-A(i), 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was not nominated in the FIR, whose identification parade did not attribute any active role of entering the premises or causing injuries, and from whom a disputed recovery of currency and a weapon was made, is entitled to post-arrest bail. The court held that the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly as the offence under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of evidence is to be made at the bail stage, recovery of general currency notes of doubtful identity requires deeper appreciation at trial, and bail in offences outside the prohibitory clause is the rule while refusal is an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unnominated accused whose role in an identification parade is limited to remaining outside on watch is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the recovery of currency notes of a general pattern without established identity connect an accused to a dacoity for the purpose of bail?
  • Is bail a rule and refusal an exception in offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Mahmood son of Mushtaq Hussain, r/o Rawli, Tehsil Harighal, District2020 SC AJK 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Rukhsana Munir and others2020 YLR 1533 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-22
  habeas corpuschild custodyforeign judgmentillegal custodyparental authorityminor childrenvisitation rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the custody of his two minor daughters, alleging they were in the illegal custody of their mother (respondent No.1) who had removed them from the Netherlands to Pakistan in violation of a foreign divorce decree and parenting plan. The core legal question was whether the father was entitled to the custody of the minors based on the foreign custody orders and joint parental authority, despite a delay in filing the petition. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted custody of the minors to the father, holding that the mother had removed the children without consent and that the foreign court's orders regarding custody and parental authority must be respected, while ensuring visitation rights for the mother.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable for the recovery of minors removed in violation of a foreign custody order?
  • Does a delay in approaching the court disentitle a parent from seeking custody of abducted minors through habeas corpus?
  • Can custody of minor children be granted to a foreign national father based on parenting plans and judgments of foreign courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Member (Judicial-v), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore2020 YLR 1921 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain and others vs The State and others2020 MLD 1785 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-10
  murdercontradiction between ocular and medical evidencebenefit of the doubtfair trialexculpatory evidenceweapon recoveryappeal against acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment decides a jail appeal against conviction for murder, a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence, and an appeal against acquittal. The core legal questions involved the presence of contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the weapon used, the failure of the investigating officer to probe the exculpatory first version of the accused, and the effect of inconclusive forensic reports on weapon recoveries. The Islamabad High Court held that material contradictions between the medical evidence showing a fatal blunt weapon injury and the ocular account attributing a sharp weapon blow, coupled with the investigating officer's failure to investigate the accused's version regarding stones thrown from a rooftop, created serious doubts in the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that the failure of an investigating officer to probe exculpatory evidence violates the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, and that when eyewitness testimony is disbelieved regarding one co-accused, it must be disbelieved in totality. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an investigating officer to probe exculpatory evidence violate the constitutional right to a fair trial?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when medical evidence contradicts the ocular account regarding the weapon used?
  • Can eyewitness testimony disbelieved with respect to an acquitted co-accused still be relied upon against another co-accused?
  • Does an inconclusive forensic report regarding bloodstains on an alleged weapon of offence render the recovery ineffective?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Gaddi vs The State2020 SHC 548 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali vs Government of Punjab and others2020 YLR 1859 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Abid Alam vs Govt. of Pakistan & others2020 PHC 52 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs The State2020 YLR 1751 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-09-03
  counterfeit currencycriminal appealconscious possessionforged notesburden of proofacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Gilgit, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for possessing counterfeit currency notes. The core legal question was whether mere possession of forged currency notes is sufficient for conviction under Section 489-C without proving conscious knowledge and intent to use them as genuine, and in the absence of expert verification from the State Bank of Pakistan. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence, as there was no reliable evidence showing the appellant's conscious knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the notes, nor any expert report from the State Bank of Pakistan, since police officials are not competent to provide such an opinion. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere possession of forged currency notes is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a report from the currency officer of the State Bank of Pakistan necessary to substantiate a charge of possessing counterfeit notes?
  • Are police officials competent to give an expert opinion that recovered currency notes are forged?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq vs Irfan Ahmad etc2020 PHC 152 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid through Legal Heirs vs Syed Fida-Ur-Reham Shah through Legal Heirs and others2020 YLR 975 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim through L.Rs vs Muhammad Shafa and another2020 YLR 2654 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State2020 MLD 794 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-05
  narcotics controlchain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtdeath sentence referencesecondary evidencecontradictions in evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, alongside a connected capital sentence reference. The prosecution alleged the recovery of a large quantity of charas from a vehicle intercepted by motorway police, subsequently handed over to Anti-Narcotics Force officials at a base camp. The core legal questions involved the establishment of an unbroken chain of custody, the legality of secondary evidence regarding the delivery receipt, the admissibility and conclusiveness of the Chemical Examiner's report, and the existence of material contradictions in witness testimony. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered contraband, pointed out fatal flaws in the chemical examiner's report, and noted significant discrepancies in the evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant and acquitting him. The key principle laid down is that any break or lapse in the chain of custody of narcotics samples, or a legally defective report by the Government Analyst, vitiates the reliability of the prosecution case and entitles the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break or lapse in the chain of custody of narcotic samples vitiate the conclusiveness and reliability of the report of the Government Analyst?
  • Can secondary evidence of a document be tendered without proving that the original has been destroyed or lost and without taking prior permission of the court?
  • Whether material contradictions and improvements in the testimony of prosecution witnesses require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction in a capital case?
  • Is a Chemical Examiner's report legally sustainable if it fails to comply with statutory requirements regarding signatures and testing protocols?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Umar vs The State2020 PLD Balochistan 106 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-30
  anti-terrorismplea of guiltlimitation periodcondonation of delaycriminal appealrevision petitionproscribed organizationfundraising
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Quetta, under Sections 11F(1), (2), (5), and (6) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, after the appellant pleaded guilty to collecting funds for a proscribed organization. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a revision petition against an Anti-Terrorism Court judgment, the scope of appeal upon a plea of guilt, and whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to appeals filed under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Balochistan High Court held that revisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are inconsistent with the special procedure of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, that an accused who pleads guilty can only challenge the legality of the sentence rather than the conviction itself, and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to extend the strict limitation period prescribed under Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as both time-barred and devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal revision petition is maintainable against a judgment or order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Can an accused person who has pleaded guilty to a charge maintain an appeal against their conviction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What is the extent of a convict's right of appeal when they have pleaded guilty before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Shoukat vs Federation of Pakistan & another2020 SHC 264 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-31Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan vs Abdullah2020 YLR 2484 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Abdullah @ Shah Wali s/o Shulam Nabi vs The State2020 SHC 446 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-19
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryrobberydiscrepancy in investigationcriminal procedurebail as rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from a criminal case where the applicant sought post-arrest bail for an alleged robbery under Section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged the applicant was apprehended at the scene with weapons and stolen property following a robbery. The applicant contended that the case was fabricated due to a dispute over unpaid wages for cleaning services, resulting in him being beaten by the complainant and his associates. The core legal question was whether, given the discrepancies in the prosecution's documentation—specifically regarding the identity of the complainant in the FIR versus the challan and the witnesses to the recovery memo—the applicant was entitled to bail. The Court held that the case required further inquiry due to these material contradictions in the investigation record. Emphasizing that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment and that unjustified incarceration cannot be adequately compensated, the Court granted bail, noting that the applicant had no prior criminal record and the prosecution's case lacked sufficient consistency at this stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material discrepancy between the complainant named in the FIR and the complainant named in the challan constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is the grant of bail permissible when the investigation record contains significant inconsistencies regarding the recovery memo and witness statements?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment prior to the conclusion of a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wali through Special Attorney vs State Bank of Pakistan through Director Banking Conduct and Consumer Protection Department and 4 others2020 CLD 147 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wali Khan & others vs Govt: of KPK & others2021 PLC (C.S. ) 473, 2020 PHC 266 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-03
  Patwari recruitmentvested rightsservice rules amendmentconstitutional jurisdictionseniority listrecruitment policyLand Record Manual
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who had passed the Patwar examination and were on the seniority list for appointment as Patwaris, challenged a government notification and subsequent advertisement requiring appointments to be made via test and interview rather than strictly by seniority. They contended that the Land Record Manual mandated seniority-based appointments and that the amendment to service rules could not retrospectively divest them of their vested rights. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the government possesses the authority to amend service rules to prescribe new recruitment criteria. The Court clarified that the previous judgment relied upon by the petitioners was based on rules prevalent at that time, which had since been validly amended. Furthermore, the Court ruled that mere inclusion in a list of qualified candidates does not confer a vested right to appointment, nor does it preclude the government from changing the selection methodology. Consequently, the Court upheld the validity of the amended service rules, affirming that appointments must be made in accordance with the current recruitment policy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inclusion of a candidate's name in a seniority list for appointment confer a vested right to be appointed?
  • Can the government amend service rules to change the method of recruitment from seniority-based to test and interview-based?
  • Does the Land Record Manual provide an all-inclusive procedure for the appointment of Patwaris that overrides subsequent service rule amendments?
  • Is a previous court judgment holding a recruitment process illegal binding if the underlying service rules have been subsequently amended?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wali and 2 others vs The State2020 PLJ Cr.C (Quetta) 953, 2020 YLR 256 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-18
  criminal revisiondacoitybenefit of the doubtidentification paradedelayed FIRcontradictory statementsflawed recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the judgments of the lower courts convicting and sentencing the petitioners under Section 392/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular evidence, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in witness statements, flawed identification parade procedures, and defective recovery proceedings. The Balochistan High Court held that unexplained delay in reporting, material improvements by the complainant, lack of jurisdiction of the police station, failure to prove exclusive possession of the premises from where the alleged recovery was made, and violation of established norms in holding an identification parade cast serious doubts on the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court established that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, granting the benefit of the doubt to the accused. The criminal revision petition was accepted, the lower courts' judgments were set aside, and the petitioners were acquitted of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR cast a sufficient doubt on the prosecution story to warrant an acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses make material improvements and contradictions regarding the place of occurrence and the identity of the accused?
  • What is the legal sanctity of an identification parade where the accused has remained exposed to police custody and view?
  • Whether the failure to associate private witnesses and prove exclusive possession during a recovery of case property vitiates the recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wakeel vs The State through Additional Advocate General Khyber2020 YLR 2402 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-18
  arms licenseconfiscation of case propertyunauthorized possessionreturn of case propertyacquittalKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Swat, insofar as it omitted to order the return of a seized SMG rifle following the appellant's acquittal under Section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act. The core legal question was whether an informal authorization to possess arms, granted by military or police officers during a period of insurgency, constitutes a lawful license under the Arms Act entitling the holder to the return of the weapon upon acquittal. The Peshawar High Court held that the officers who granted the permission were not competent authorities notified under the Arms Act to issue licenses, and therefore the possession was not backed by law. The Court ruled that criminal courts are not under a compulsion to return seized property upon acquittal, and discretionary disposal—including confiscation to the State—is permissible where possession itself is unauthorized. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an informal authorization to keep arms granted by local military or police officers during insurgency constitutes a valid license under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act 2013?
  • Is a criminal court under a legal compulsion to return seized property to the accused upon acquittal?
  • Can a weapon held without a valid statutory license be returned to the accused after an acquittal under the Arms Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wakeel vs The State & another2020 P Cr.L J 1668, 2020 LHC 1847 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-10
  post-arrest bailcross-versionfurther inquirysuppression of injuriescriminal procedureburden of proofbail
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arising from a cross-version case involving offences under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a situation where both parties sustained injuries and filed cross-versions of the same incident. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, determining that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established that in cross-version cases, determining the aggressor is a matter for the trial court after evidence evaluation. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the prosecution's failure to explain the firearm injuries sustained by the accused party—constituting suppression of facts—provides strong grounds for granting bail, as it casts doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's version and necessitates deeper judicial scrutiny at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a cross-version case, where both parties sustained injuries in the same incident, generally qualify for post-arrest bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Is the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused in the prosecution's version a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Can the determination of which party was the aggressor in a cross-version case be made at the bail stage, or is it reserved for the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wakeel vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways Lahore and others2020 PLJ Tr.C (Services) 35 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2019-01-11
  service appealrule of consistencyex parte inquiryreinstatementback benefitsdepartmental inquirynegligence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Fireman with Pakistan Railways, challenged his removal from service following a train accident that occurred in 1990. The core legal question was whether the appellant's removal was justified given his honourable acquittal in the related criminal proceedings and the reinstatement of the train driver involved in the same incident. The Federal Service Tribunal observed that the criminal appellate court had acquitted the appellant, finding the accident was an unforeseen occurrence caused by mechanical brake failure rather than negligence. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the departmental inquiry against the appellant was conducted ex parte while he was in custody, without adhering to proper procedure. Applying the principle of consistency, the Tribunal held that since the principal accused (the train driver) had already been reinstated, the appellant was entitled to the same relief. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the removal orders and directed the appellant's reinstatement in service with all back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of consistency apply when a co-accused in the same incident has been reinstated in service?
  • Can a departmental inquiry conducted ex parte while the employee is in custody be sustained if proper procedures were not followed?
  • Does an honourable acquittal in criminal proceedings regarding the same incident warrant setting aside a removal order from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wajid and 10 others vs Tehsil Municipal Administration and others2020 CLC 1279 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs M/s. Mediterranean Shipping Company S.a, & another2020 SHC 140 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs M/s. Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.a and another2020 SHC 1142 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid and others vs Government and others2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 177 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-08
  master and servantmaintainability of writ petitionstatutory rulesemployment statuscolony boarddissolution of board
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, claiming to be regular employees of Telephone Industries of Pakistan (TIP) or associated entities like the T&T Colony Board, challenged the management's stance treating them as employees of the Colony Board rather than TIP, following steps taken toward the Board's dissolution. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were employees of TIP or the Colony Board, whether the matter was barred by past and closed transactions, and whether the writ petitions were maintainable given the absence of statutory service rules. The Peshawar High Court held that the T&T Colony Board was a distinct, charitable entity separate from TIP, that the employment of the petitioners was not governed by statutory rules thereby invoking the master-and-servant principle, and that previous judicial determinations by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal had attained finality. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as non-maintainable, while noting that a mutually agreed compensation and adjustment package offered by the stakeholders was fair and equitable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees whose services are not governed by statutory rules can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
  • Does an employee of a non-profit colony board established by multiple independent entities qualify as an employee of a private limited manufacturing company operating in the same compound?
  • Can a past and closed transaction concerning employment status that has attained finality through competent labour courts be reopened in subsequent constitutional proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid and another vs The State2020 SHC 422 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 198, 2020 PHC 480, 2022 MLD 448 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Baloch vs UBL2020 PLJ Tr.C. (NIRC) 65 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-01-08
  grievance petitionunfair labour practicetermination of servicemisconductadmissibility of evidencegrievance noticeindustrial dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This grievance petition was filed under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act 2012 and Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, by a bank employee challenging his termination. The petitioner alleged victimization due to his trade union activities and sought reinstatement with back benefits. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the grievance notice served on the bank's President and whether the petitioner had proven his case through admissible evidence. The Commission held that the grievance notice was invalid as it was served on an authority not empowered to act as the appointing or appellate authority. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the petitioner failed to formally exhibit his documents in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and NIRC (P&F) Regulations 2016, rendering them inadmissible. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Commission affirming that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving his allegations of victimization or illegality in the termination process, which was based on proven misconduct of unauthorized absence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a grievance notice served on the President of a bank valid if the President is not the appointing or appellate authority?
  • Can documents not formally exhibited in evidence be considered by the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  • Is it mandatory for an employer to provide a copy of the inquiry report to an employee who participated in the inquiry proceedings?
  • Does unauthorized absence from duty for more than ten days constitute misconduct justifying termination?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab and another vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 556 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-06
  National Accountability Ordinancetransfer of casecognizance of offenceAccountability Court jurisdictionlegislative intentper incuriamspeedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the jurisdictional validity of an Accountability Court's judgment in a case transferred under Section 16(A) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO). The core legal question was whether cases transferred to an Accountability Court under Section 16(A) required the Chairman, NAB to re-file the case as a formal reference under Section 18(g) for the court to take cognizance under Section 18(a), particularly for cases transferred prior to the 2002 amendment. The court held that the Accountability Court possessed jurisdiction to try such transferred cases without the necessity of a fresh reference. The bench reasoned that the legislative intent, even before the 2002 amendment, was to allow transferred cases to proceed without re-recording evidence or recalling witnesses, as the original court had already taken cognizance. The key principle laid down is that Section 16(A) of the NAO operates as a distinct mechanism for transfer, and the subsequent amendment deeming such cases as references was merely clarificatory of the original legislative intent to ensure speedy trials and avoid procedural absurdity.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case transferred under Section 16(A) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 require the Chairman, NAB to file a new reference under Section 18(g) before an Accountability Court can take cognizance?
  • Was the amendment to Section 16(A) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which deemed transferred cases as references, a retrospective change or a clarification of existing legislative intent?
  • Can an Accountability Court proceed with a transferred case without re-recording evidence or recalling witnesses?
  • What constitutes a judgment passed per incuriam in the context of binding statutory interpretation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Abbasi & Others vs P.O.Sindh & Others2020 SHC 562 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Subhan Solangi vs National Bank of Pakistan2020 SHC 74 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs Allama Iqbal Open University through Vice-Chancellor2020 PLC (C.S.) 1050 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-09
  writ petitionservice matterseniority listpromotionalternative remedystatutory ruleslocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by an Additional Controller (BS-19) of the Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad, impugning an advertisement inviting direct recruitment applications for the post of Registrar (BS-20) and seeking a direction to consider the petitioner for promotion to that post. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was the senior-most eligible officer, whether an alternative remedy barred the petition, and whether the University's service statutes were statutory in nature. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner, having failed to challenge the final seniority list showing another officer as senior, was not an aggrieved person under Article 199 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court held that the petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under Section 31 of the Allama Iqbal Open University Act, 1974, and because the Allama Iqbal Open University (General Conditions of Service) Statutes, 1978 are non-statutory rules. The key principle laid down is that university service statutes approved by the Federal Minister rather than the Federal Government are non-statutory, rendering a writ petition for their enforcement non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who has not challenged a final seniority list can claim to be the senior-most officer for promotion?
  • Does the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 31 of the Allama Iqbal Open University Act, 1974 bar a writ petition?
  • Are the Allama Iqbal Open University (General Conditions of Service) Statutes, 1978 statutory in nature?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained for the enforcement of non-statutory service rules of a university?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar through Legal Heirs and another vs Muhammad Azeem and 22020 MLD 1718 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Shaikh vs Adeel Zahoor Malik and others2020 CLC 984 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 511 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-04
  narcoticscharasforensic reportevidentiary valueburden of proofbenefit of doubtacquittalControl of Narcotic Substances Actcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing 1450 grams of charas. The core legal question revolved around the evidentiary value of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency's report (Exh.PE), which the appellant contended lacked full protocols and details of the tests applied. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that a forensic report failing to describe the full protocols and tests applied is inconclusive, unreliable, and insufficient to meet the evidentiary presumption under Section 36(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, read with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. The Court found the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, extended the benefit of doubt, and consequently allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a forensic report under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, require full protocols and details of tests applied to be considered reliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, if the forensic report lacks details of the tests and protocols?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a Government Analyst's report that fails to mention the full protocols and tests applied?
  • Is the benefit of doubt to be extended to an accused as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt about their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam Khatri vs DG ML&C and another2020 SHC 10 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs State etc.PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 404 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-11
  post-arrest bailemigration fraudfurther inquirydocumentary evidencestatutory grounds for bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through which the petitioner, Abdul Rehman, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 548 registered under Section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 at Police Station FIA Faisalabad. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where the monetary amount was allegedly paid to a co-accused, no incriminating material was recovered during physical remand, and the prosecution's case rested entirely on documentary evidence already in its possession. The Lahore High Court held that the case fell within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the petitioner was no longer required for investigation and continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose. The petition was consequently allowed, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to surety bonds, laying down the principle that tentative assessment at the bail stage warrants relief where evidence is documentary, recovery is complete, and a co-accused has already been granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the entire documentary evidence is already in possession of the prosecution and no tampering is likely?
  • Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no incriminating evidence is recovered during physical remand?
  • Whether a petitioner is entitled to bail on the rule of consistency when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs District Education Officer & others2020 SC AJK 82 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-05-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Najam and 43 others vs Technical Education2020 P Cr. L J 105 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-28
  educational institutionde-affiliationstudent registrationconstitutional petitionTEVTAcorruptionNational Accountability Bureau
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by students of Allama Iqbal College of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, seeking a direction to the Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority (TEVTA) and the Punjab Board of Technical Education to issue roll number slips and allow them to appear in examinations. The core legal question was whether students admitted to an institution after its registration/affiliation had been formally regretted or cancelled by the regulatory authority are entitled to relief from the court to appear in examinations. The court held that the petition was meritless and dismissed it. The holding was based on the finding that the college had admitted the students after its registration had already been refused by TEVTA due to inadequate facilities, and the college had failed to rectify these deficiencies despite opportunities. The court established the principle that an educational institution cannot legally admit students once its affiliation or registration has been withdrawn or refused, and students admitted under such circumstances cannot claim a right to appear in examinations based on the college's unauthorized actions.

  Questions settled

  • Can students claim a right to appear in examinations if they were admitted to an institution after its registration/affiliation was withdrawn by the regulatory authority?
  • Does the admission of students by an institution after the refusal of its registration constitute a deceptive practice actionable under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is a college administration liable for cheating under Section 415 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when it admits students despite lacking valid registration?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Malik vs Synthia D. Ritchie, Americans National and others2020 SCMR 2037 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-30
  registration of FIRJustice of Peacecognizable offencefunctional immunityequality before lawpolice investigationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Islamabad High Court remitting a matter to the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for a fresh decision regarding the registration of a criminal case. The respondent, a U.S. blogger, alleged that the petitioner, a former Federal Minister and current Senator, had sexually assaulted her in 2011. The petitioner challenged the High Court's direction, arguing that the police had already conducted a factual inquiry and found the allegations to be dubious and delayed by a decade. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Rule 24.4 of the Police Rules, 1934, and Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. The Court held that the police are generally under a statutory duty to record an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offence. It clarified that Rule 24.4 does not empower an officer to terminate a prosecution before its inception based on subjective belief; rather, investigation should follow registration to discover the truth. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that no public official, regardless of status, enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for acts outside official functions. The petition was dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman etc. vs State, etc.PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 431 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-04
  circumstantial evidencelast seen togetherjoint recoverybenefit of doubtmurderabductioncriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302(b)/34, 364, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a trial court judgment based on circumstantial evidence involving the alleged abduction and murder of the complainant's son. The core legal questions involve the reliability of 'last seen' evidence, the admissibility of joint recoveries of dead bodies, and the application of the benefit of doubt where co-accused similarly placed have been acquitted. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, noting an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the inherent improbability of the complainant allowing the deceased to accompany accused persons suspected of a motive, the inadmissibility of joint recoveries, and the absence of a recovery memo. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants of the charges. The key principle laid down is that circumstantial evidence, particularly the 'last seen' theory and joint discoveries, must be scrutinized strictly and form an unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused, failing which the benefit of doubt must be extended.

  Questions settled

  • Is the evidence of 'last seen' sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction for murder without corroborative independent evidence?
  • Whether a joint recovery of a dead body pointing to multiple accused is admissible in evidence under Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can accused persons be convicted on circumstantial evidence when there are missing links in the chain of events?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused persons on the same set of evidence entitle other similarly placed appellants to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and others vs The State and others2020 MLD 342 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-04
  circumstantial evidencelast seen theoryjoint recoveryfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuscriminal appealbenefit of doubtmurder convictionadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and abduction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt based solely on circumstantial evidence, specifically the "last seen" theory and the recovery of the deceased's body. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence. The Court ruled that the "last seen" evidence was weak and lacked independent corroboration, and the alleged joint recovery of the dead body was inadmissible in evidence. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, noting that since co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence, the appellants were entitled to the same treatment. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must be incompatible with innocence and leave no scope for alternative hypotheses. The judgment reaffirms that the benefit of doubt in criminal cases is an inherent right of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is the last seen together theory sufficient by itself to sustain a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Is a joint recovery of a dead body admissible in evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus apply when co-accused are acquitted on the same set of evidence?
  • What are the essential requirements for a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman & Others vs The State2020 SHC 518 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07
  pre-arrest bailsurety papersacquittalbail bondcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the return of surety papers following the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case. The applicants had previously been granted pre-arrest bail by the Sindh High Court in connection with Crime No. 29 of 2019 registered at Police Station Chalgari, Hyderabad. The core legal question before the Court was whether the surety papers, furnished as security for the applicants' pre-arrest bail, should be returned to the surety upon the final disposal of the case and the subsequent acquittal of the accused by the learned Trial Court. The Court, noting that the trial had concluded with a judgment of acquittal dated 18.02.2020, and observing that the Assistant Prosecutor General had no objection to the request, allowed the application. The Court held that once the criminal proceedings have terminated in an acquittal, the purpose of the bail bond is fulfilled, and the surety is entitled to the return of the surety papers. The Court directed the office to return the documents to the surety after proper verification and identification, ensuring a copy of the surety's C.N.I.C. is retained on the record.

  Questions settled

  • Is a surety entitled to the return of surety papers after the accused has been acquitted by the trial court?
  • What procedure must be followed by the court office before returning surety papers to a surety?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaque vs The State2020 SHC 110 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-31
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausedelayed FIRcriminal breach of trustbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Razzaque, who was accused of issuing a dishonoured cheque in violation of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delayed registration of the FIR and the nature of the offence. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the investigation was complete, the case had been challaned, and the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that in such circumstances, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Furthermore, the Court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within 45 working days, noting that the observations made were tentative and should not prejudice the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the investigation is complete?
  • Can a trial court cancel bail without reference to the High Court if the accused misuses the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaque @ Papoo vs The State2020 SHC 1132 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1683 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-08
  murder trialbenefit of doubtocular accountimprovements in testimonyforensic evidencemotivecriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the complainant's son, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony, the corroborative value of delayed forensic recovery of weapons and empties, and the establishment of motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material improvements by eye-witnesses, doubtful presence at the crime scene, a disproven motive, and delayed transmission of crime empties rendering forensic reports inconsequential. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant on the benefit of the doubt and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key principles laid down include that deliberate improvements by eye-witnesses destroy their credibility, and sending crime empties to the forensic laboratory after the arrest of the accused or alongside the weapon strips the positive report of its evidentiary value.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses who make deliberate and material improvements from their police statements remains reliable?
  • Does a positive report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency retain evidentiary value when the crime empty and the recovered weapon are sent to the laboratory together after the arrest of the accused?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the alleged motive and the ocular account is in conflict with the circumstances?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution case when subsequent eye-witnesses are introduced whose names were omitted from the initial first information report?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs State and 2 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 823 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-16
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionkidnapping for ransombenefit of doubtcapital sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court for kidnapping for ransom and murder. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, an alleged extra-judicial confession, recovery of a skull and ransom money, and Call Data Records. The Lahore High Court examined whether this evidence formed a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances sufficient to prove guilt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of evidence, noting that the last-seen testimony lacked proximity in time and space, the extra-judicial confession was inherently improbable and lacked corroboration, and the recovery proceedings were riddled with procedural contradictions. Furthermore, the forensic DNA report and ransom money recovery were deemed unreliable due to significant evidentiary conflicts. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, holding that when circumstantial evidence is weak and contradictory, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. The death sentence was not confirmed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is incomplete?
  • Does the doctrine of last seen together apply if there is a significant time gap between the sighting and the occurrence?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient for conviction without strong, independent corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a DNA report when the recovery of the sample is procedurally flawed?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq and another vs The State2020 MLD 1921 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-02
  foreign exchange regulationillegal raidsearch warrantmandatory procedurerecovery proceedingscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Foreign Exchange Tribunal/Sessions Judge, Quetta, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The core legal question revolves around the legality of a search and raid conducted by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) without complying with the mandatory statutory procedures, specifically the requirement of a written complaint supported by a statement on oath and a search warrant issued by a competent magistrate under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The Balochistan High Court held that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be performed accordingly, and failure to obtain proper search warrants or associate independent witnesses renders the entire recovery proceedings doubtful and illegal. The court laid down the principle that mandatory pre-requisites under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 are fundamental, and non-compliance vitiates the trial and conviction ab initio, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a raid and search conducted by the FIA without a search warrant from a magistrate under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 is lawful?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses and local police during a recovery proceeding vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • What are the mandatory pre-requisites under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 before initiating search and seizure proceedings?
  • Does non-compliance with statutory procedural requirements render a trial and subsequent conviction under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 unsustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq vs Abdul Ghaffar and others2020 SCMR 202, 2020 P SC 980 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-20
  suit for declarationregistered power of attorneynecessary partypresumption of registrationlimitationpleadings as evidencespecific relief act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a Suit for Declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, filed by Respondent No. 1 seeking to declare a registered General Power of Attorney, subsequent agreement to sell, and transfer of a municipal plot invalid and forged. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Appellate Court reversed, and the High Court affirmed the decree in civil revision. The core legal questions pertained to the burden of proof, the necessity of parties in challenging registered documents, the presumption attached to registered deeds, and the period of limitation. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, restoring the Trial Court's dismissal. The Court held that pleadings alone do not constitute evidence if a party fails to testify regarding them. Furthermore, challenging a registered deed requires impleading the registering authority and attesting witnesses as necessary parties. Presumptions of genuineness under Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 must be properly rebutted, and suits seeking to challenge registered deeds must comply with Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Can pleadings be treated as evidence if the plaintiff fails to testify on the specific subject in their oral evidence?
  • Are the registering officer, attesting witnesses, and identifier necessary parties in a suit challenging a registered document?
  • What standard of proof is required to rebut the legal presumption attached to a registered document under Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908?
  • What is the limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for filing a suit to challenge a registered power of attorney?
  • Can a declaratory decree under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 create a new right in favour of the plaintiff?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Election Commission of Pakistan and Others2020 CLC 2063, 2020 SHC 218 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf Gujjar vs Judge Atc-III, Lahore and others2020 P Cr. L J 1259 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-20
  criminal revisionadjournment sine dieprosecution powersstatutory interpretationtrial court procedureanti-terrorism courtstay of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, which adjourned a trial sine die upon the request of the Deputy Prosecutor General, citing Section 10(3)(f) of the Prosecution Act, 2006, due to the unavailability of a star witness. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly applied the statutory provisions for staying proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was illegal and void. The Court clarified that under Section 10(3)(f), the decision to stay proceedings requires formal approval from the 'Cabinet' (the Government), not merely a request from a prosecutor. The statute mandates that the Prosecutor General or an authorized prosecutor must present written reasons and evidence of the Government's decision to the court. Since the Deputy Prosecutor General failed to demonstrate any such Cabinet approval or authorization, the trial court’s reliance on the prosecutor’s statement was erroneous. Consequently, the High Court set aside the adjournment order and directed the trial court to resume proceedings from the stage where the case was adjourned.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential legal requirements for staying criminal proceedings under Section 10(3)(f) of the Prosecution Act 2006?
  • Does the term 'Government' in the context of the Prosecution Act 2006 refer to individual prosecutors or the Cabinet?
  • Can a trial court adjourn a case sine die based solely on the oral request of a Deputy Prosecutor General regarding the unavailability of a witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Shaikh vs M/s. National Refinery Ltd. & another2020 KLR Civil Cases 341 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raheem and 2 others vs The State2020 PLD Sindh 473 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-18
  retracted confessionjudicial confessionanti-terrorismextortionbenefit of doubtforensic evidencechain of custodycorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the convictions of three appellants for murder and extortion under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of a retracted judicial confession, the sufficiency of evidence for co-accused persons, and the reliability of forensic evidence regarding weapon recovery. The Court held that a retracted judicial confession is admissible if it is voluntary, truthful, and fits the prosecution's case, even if minor procedural irregularities occurred during recording. Regarding the appellants, the Court upheld the conviction of the primary accused, Abdul Raheem, based on his confession and CCTV identification. However, the Court acquitted the co-accused, Anwar Baloch, due to a lack of independent corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the Court acquitted Ahmed Hassan of the murder and extortion charges, ruling that a seven-month delay in sending recovered empties for forensic analysis without proof of safe custody rendered the forensic report unreliable, though his conviction for illegal weapon possession was maintained. The judgment reaffirms that while confessions can ground convictions, corroboration remains essential for co-accused, and forensic evidence requires strict chain-of-custody compliance to be admissible.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis for a criminal conviction?
  • Does a delay in the safe custody of recovered crime scene evidence invalidate a forensic report?
  • Is independent corroborative evidence required to convict a co-accused based solely on a confession of a principal offender?
  • Do procedural irregularities in recording a judicial confession automatically render it inadmissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudus Alvi vs The Ned University of Engineering and Technology through Registrar and 2 others2020 CLC 377 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudoos vs P.O Sindh & others2020 SHC 254 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudoos Shaikh vs Province of Sindh and 10 others2020 SHC 228 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum and another vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2020 P Cr. L J 960 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-18
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderconstitutional petitionjudicial reviewliberty of a citizenobjective satisfaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenging the preventive detention of the petitioner under section 3(1) of the Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal question was whether the subjective satisfaction of the Government for ordering preventive detention based on general and unsubstantiated grounds meets the legal threshold required under the law. The Balochistan High Court held that the satisfaction of the Government under section 3(1) of the Ordinance must be objective in nature and supported by sufficient material, rather than being based on whims, caprices, or general allegations. The court laid down the principle that executive authorities cannot deprive a citizen of liberty without sufficient cause and robust material, and that preventive detention orders lacking such material are void and open to judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court examine the validity of a detention order passed under section 3(1) of the Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is the satisfaction of the Government for ordering preventive detention under section 3(1) of the Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 subjective or objective in nature?
  • Can general and unsubstantiated grounds justify the preventive detention of a citizen under the Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum vs Federation of Pakistan & others2020 SHC 1384 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayoom Solangi and another vs Province of Sindh through Chief2020 PLC (C.S.) 50 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-25
  civil servantabsorptionsurplus employeedefunct organizationcadrerepatriationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought to declare an order issued by the respondent authorities regarding their repatriation and absorption as illegal and without lawful authority. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were surplus employees entitled to absorption under Rule 9-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, and whether non-civil servants from defunct autonomous bodies could be absorbed into a regular government cadre such as the Excise and Taxation Department in violation of established parameters. The court held that the absorption of non-civil servants from defunct organizations into a distinct government cadre without fulfilling prescribed legal conditions and rules is not sustainable in law, particularly in light of binding judgments of the Supreme Court. The court disposed of the petitions, directing the competent authority to determine the petitioners' initial appointment status and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with Rule 9-A and the dictum laid down in the Ali Azhar Khan Baloch case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a non-civil servant from a defunct autonomous body can be absorbed into a regular government cadre under Rule 9-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974?
  • Can a department abolish a post and transfer an employee without the concurrence of the Services, General Administration and Coordination Department (SGA&CD)?
  • Whether an employee's initial appointment status from a defunct organization must be conclusively determined before considering regular absorption?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qahar Khan Wadan vs Zamarak Khan Achakzai and 12 others2020 PLD Balochistan 47 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs The State & 4 others2020 LHC 3120 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs Mrs. Ameer Zadi and 8 others2020 MLD 213 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer vs Mst. Nazima Shaheen and others2020 PHC 218, 2021 PLD Peshawar 22, 2022 [M] CLR 785, 2022 PCTLR 654 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer vs Government Of Balochistan through Secretary Public2020 CLC 1942 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nafey vs The State2020 YLR 1311 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-11
  criminal appealmurdersolitary eye-witnessrelated witnessmedical corroborationmotiveappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the testimony of a solitary, related eye-witness, when corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to sustain a capital conviction. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, affirming that a conviction can legally rest on the testimony of a solitary, related eye-witness if their evidence is confidence-inspiring, rings true, and is supported by medical and circumstantial evidence. The High Court laid down the principle that the mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not discredit their testimony in the absence of enmity, and that motive is not a necessary component of a crime when direct ocular evidence is strong and consistent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness who is a relative of the deceased?
  • Whether the absence or weakness of motive is sufficient to warrant an acquittal when direct ocular and medical evidence is available?
  • Does the relationship of an eye-witness to the victim render their testimony inadmissible or inherently untrustworthy?
  • Is medical evidence alone sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused in a murder trial without an ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 880 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-05
  juvenile justicedetermination of ageossification testmedical reportbirth certificatecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision challenges an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing an application filed by the applicant under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance to declare him a juvenile. The core legal question concerns the proper procedure for the determination of the age of an accused claiming to be a minor, specifically the weight to be attached to birth and educational certificates versus a medical board report. The Sindh High Court held that while an inquiry into age is mandatory and should consider documentary and oral evidence, a medical report including an ossification test is a statutory requirement and a valuable aid that must be included unless strong reasons exist to dispense with it. The court found that the birth certificate relied upon by the applicant was procured belatedly after the incident, and the medical board report correctly assessed his age as between 19 and 20 years. The revision was accordingly dismissed, upholding the trial court's order.

  Questions settled

  • What is the procedure for the determination of age of an accused claiming to be a minor under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
  • Is a medical report mandatory for the determination of age under section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
  • Can a belatedly entered birth certificate override the findings of a medical board regarding the age of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nabi Sasoli vs Government Of Balochistan, through Secretary2020 PLC (C.S.) 759 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-17
  transfer and postingcivil servantconstitutional petitionjurisdiction of high courtterms and conditions of servicepolicy matterseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a notification regarding the premature transfer of the petitioner from the post of Controller, Balochistan Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BBISE), Quetta. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant has an enforceable right to hold a particular posting, whether an officer in BPS-17 is eligible to hold a higher post in BPS-19, and the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction regarding terms and conditions of service when the service tribunal is non-functional. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition, holding that transfer and posting are policy decisions within the domain of the executive government, a civil servant has no vested right to claim a posting against a particular post, and an officer in BPS-17 is ineligible to hold a post upgraded to BPS-19. The court laid down the principle that the executive remains the best judge in policy matters unless an action is arbitrary or an abuse of the process of law, and that relief not specifically prayed for cannot be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to claim posting against a particular post?
  • Whether the High Court can exercise constitutional jurisdiction in service matters when the service tribunal is not functioning?
  • Can an officer in BPS-17 claim eligibility to hold a higher post in BPS-19?
  • Are transfer and posting matters policy decisions exclusively within the domain of the executive government?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mateen vs The State2020 PHC 106, 2022 MLD 464 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan and another vs The State2020 MLD 1477 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-12-30
  benefit of doubtmurder convictionappreciation of evidenceocular evidencemedical evidencecriminal appealreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the ocular evidence and the medical report. The Court observed that the complainant's claim of being an eyewitness was undermined by the fact that the appellant, rather than the complainant, transported the deceased to the hospital. Furthermore, the medical evidence suggested the deceased died from an accidental discharge of his own firearm during a vehicle collision, contradicting the prosecution's theory of a targeted attack. The Court found the prosecution's narrative unreliable, citing unexplained delays in recording witness statements and the absence of independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, not grace, even if only a single reasonable doubt exists regarding the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that an accused transported the victim to the hospital undermine the credibility of an eyewitness who claims to be the victim's relative?
  • Is the accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution's case contains a single reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's theory of the cause of death?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce independent witnesses or corroborate the ocular account with forensic evidence entitle the accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →