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.

• Abdul Majeed vs The State2020 SHC 736 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-31
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscharas recoveryfurther inquiryspeedy trialprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, relating to the alleged recovery of 2000 grams of charas. The core legal questions involved whether non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding independent witnesses, an unexplained twenty-day delay in sending the recovered contraband to the Chemical Examiner, and the delay in the commencement of the trial made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the applicant successfully made out a case for further inquiry and admitted him to post-arrest bail. The key principles laid down include that failure to associate private witnesses from a thickly populated area in a spy-information case creates a reasonable doubt warranting bail, and that prolonged incarceration without trial violates the fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does failure to associate private witnesses in a thickly populated area for a narcotics recovery make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in sending recovered contraband to the Chemical Examiner justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can prolonged incarceration without commencement of trial entitle an accused to bail on the ground of a speedy trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 508 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-28
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysupplementary statementDNA reporttest identification paraderapeSection 497 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose from FIR No. 485/19 registered under Section 376(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shahar Sultan, Muzaffargarh. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where he was not nominated in the initial FIR, no identification parade was held, DNA evidence yielded a negative result, and the primary named accused had been discharged. The Lahore High Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The Court held that the case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because the petitioner was implicated via an uncorroborated supplementary statement without disclosing any source of information, the negative PFSA DNA report failed to link him to the crime, no identification parade was conducted after his arrest, and trial proceedings had not progressed since submission of the challan, rendering indefinite detention unjustified.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under Section 497(2) CrPC when an accused is implicated only through a supplementary statement without a source of information disclosed?
  • Whether a negative DNA report and lack of a test identification parade entitle an accused to post-arrest bail in a rape case?
  • Can an accused be kept in custody indefinitely when trial progress has stalled following the submission of the report under Section 173 CrPC?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed alias Mocha, etc vs State, etc.PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 362 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-23
  criminal appealanti-terrorismidentification paradebenefit of doubtdelayed police statementdoubtful recoverynight occurrenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involve the credibility of an uncorroborated ocular account of a night-time occurrence by unknown assailants, the evidentiary value of a joint test identification parade conducted while the accused were in police custody, and the reliability of delayed statements and doubtful recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the culprits beyond a reasonable doubt due to lack of a reliable source of light, flawed and tainted identification procedures, delayed statements of witnesses, and unverified recoveries. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether joint test identification parade of accused persons conducted while in police custody holds any legal sanctity?
  • Does a belated statement of an injured witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of a night-time occurrence where the source of light is doubtful and unproven?
  • What is the evidentiary value of joint recoveries of incriminating articles at the instance of multiple accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Akhtar vs Muhammad Zeeshan Shoukat2020 PLJ Lahore 412 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed (deceased) through his Legal Heirs, etc vs Muhammad2020 [M] C L R 874 · Lahore High Court · 2010-03-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs The State2020 SHC 618 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1439 · Lahore High Court · 2020-07-28
  post-arrest bailillegal gratificationprohibitory clausefurther inquirycorruption casetainted money
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioner, a government servant, in a case involving allegations of illegal gratification under Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the statutory provisions involved. The Court observed that the raiding party failed to witness the actual passing of tainted money or hear the conversation between the complainant and the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Finding that the evidence was documentary and already in prosecution custody, and that the petitioner's further detention would serve no useful purpose, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases where the alleged offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a failure by the raiding party to witness the passing of tainted money constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should bail be granted when the prosecution evidence is purely documentary and already in the possession of the state?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kuddus vs Union of India and others2020 P SC 645 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-05-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique vs The StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 189, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 492, 2020 SCMR 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-08-22
  leave to appealmurderdelay in FIRocular evidencemedical evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibuslife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal case in which petitioner Abdul Khalique and a co-accused were convicted under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the co-accused based on the benefit of doubt but upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence. The petitioner challenged his conviction before the Supreme Court, contending that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and that the prosecution evidence disbelieved against the acquitted co-accused should not have been relied upon against him. The Supreme Court observed that the delay in lodging the FIR was reasonably explained because the complainant side prioritized saving the victim's life and had promptly approached the police for a medical referral letter. Furthermore, the court held that the ocular account regarding the petitioner's specific role in inflicting dagger blows was consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and supported by weapon recovery, whereas the acquitted co-accused was empty-handed. Finding the guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution case when the complainant side prioritizes providing medical treatment to the injured victim?
  • Can the testimony of an eye-witness who was declared hostile be relied upon to support the prosecution case against a co-accused?
  • Whether the acquittal of a co-accused who was empty-handed invalidates the conviction of a co-accused assigned specific overt acts of inflicting injuries based on the same set of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique vs Shahbaz Ahmed and another2020 MLD 1803 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-21
  dishonest issuance of chequecriminal acquittal appealstop paymentcivil disputemiscarriage of justiceburden of proofSection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondent of an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the dishonour of a cheque, where payment was stopped by the drawer due to a pre-existing civil dispute, constitutes the offence of dishonest issuance of a cheque under Section 489-F. The court held that the acquittal was proper because the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of dishonesty. The evidence indicated the cheque was returned due to a 'stop payment' instruction rather than insufficient funds, and the complainant failed to provide documentary proof of the underlying business transaction or the delivery of goods. Furthermore, a civil suit for settlement of accounts was already pending between the parties, suggesting the criminal complaint was a retaliatory measure. The court affirmed that an acquittal should not be overturned merely because a different view is possible, unless the trial court's view is perverse or results in a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dishonour of a cheque due to a 'stop payment' instruction automatically satisfy the elements of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an acquittal be set aside solely because a different view of the evidence is possible?
  • Is the existence of a prior pending civil suit for settlement of accounts relevant to determining the bona fides of a criminal complaint under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique vs Ld. Session Judge Jamshoro2020 SHC 1074 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Additional District Judge-v, Quetta, and another2020 [M] C L R 766, 2020 MLD 1118, 2020 CLC 320 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Quetta and 22020 [M] C L R 1627 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and another vs The State and another2020 YLR 1278 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-12
  murderbenefit of the doubtchance witnessesmedical evidence contradictiondelayed FIRabscondencemotive as a double-edged weaponcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected criminal revision challenge the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302(b)/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by the trial court, alongside a prayer for sentence enhancement. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence, and corroborative circumstances, despite significant delays in FIR registration and material contradictions among witnesses. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, finding the eye-witnesses to be chance and interested witnesses whose testimonies conflicted with medical evidence regarding firing distances and blackening. The Court emphasized that abscondence and motive cannot substitute for missing or doubtful substantive evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, the appellants were acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and the revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can abscondence alone serve as a substitute for direct and convincing evidence to uphold a conviction?
  • Does the presence of blackening on bullet wounds override the ocular account when witnesses state a firing distance inconsistent with medical jurisprudence?
  • Whether material contradictions and an unexplained delay in reporting the crime render eyewitness testimony unreliable for sustaining a murder conviction?
  • How does the existence of a prior blood feud impact the evidentiary value of an alleged motive in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Nasir Salim Baig and others2020 P SC 959, 2020 SCMR 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-22
  amenity plotsmaster planillegal constructionurban planningSBCAcommercial conversionpublic parksencroachment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the unauthorized conversion of amenity plots, parks, and playgrounds in Karachi into commercial sites, including marriage halls, petrol pumps, and shopping plazas. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the failure of the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA) to preserve the city's original Master Plan. The Court held that there is a complete, immediate ban on the conversion of any residential or amenity land for commercial use across Karachi, including cantonment areas. The Court directed the DG SBCA to demolish illegal constructions on amenity plots, specifically citing Jam Sadiq Ali Park and KW&SB land, and to restore these sites to their original intended use. Furthermore, the Court ordered a review of all previous conversions and illegal building approvals, mandating that the SBCA identify solutions for demolition and provide compensation or alternate accommodation to affected occupants. The principle laid down is that state authorities are strictly prohibited from deviating from the original Master Plan, and the preservation of public amenities is a mandatory state obligation for the welfare of citizens.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Sindh Building Control Authority or other government bodies authorize the conversion of amenity plots and residential land for commercial use?
  • Is the conversion of land originally designated for parks and playgrounds in the Master Plan permissible?
  • Does the ban on the conversion of land use apply to cantonment areas within Karachi?
  • Are authorities required to demolish illegal constructions on amenity plots and restore the land to its original purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and others vs Secretary Health Department Government Of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and others2020 PLJ Quetta 65 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and others vs Secretary Health Department Government Of Balochistan and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 927 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-05
  constitutional petitioncancellation of appointmentdue processnatural justiceshow-cause noticecontractual employmentback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the cancellation of appointments and the non-payment of salaries to employees recruited by the Health Department, Government of Balochistan, for the Vector Borne Disease (VBD) Control Program. The core legal question was whether the respondents could unilaterally cancel appointments and withhold salaries without providing a show-cause notice or assigning valid reasons, particularly after the petitioners had been duly selected through a competitive process. The Court held that the cancellation of appointments via the impugned letter was unlawful, arbitrary, and violated the principles of natural justice, as no show-cause notice was issued. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that employees cannot be penalized for administrative failures or the department's inability to allocate funds. The ratio established is that the state cannot take detrimental action against individuals without due process of law, and administrative authorities are duty-bound to honor employment contracts and ensure the payment of salaries for services rendered or available, upholding the constitutional rights to be treated in accordance with the law and the elimination of exploitation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department cancel appointments of duly selected employees without issuing a show-cause notice?
  • Is an employee entitled to salary if the department fails to post them or allocate funds despite a valid appointment letter?
  • Does the cancellation of an appointment without assigning reasons violate the constitutional right to be dealt with in accordance with law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kabeer vs The State2020 MLD 1267 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-11
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencedelayed FIRchance witnessesacquittalburden of proofprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in the ocular testimony, and procedural irregularities regarding the timing of the investigation. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with discrepancies, including evidence that the investigation commenced prior to the formal registration of the FIR, the presence of 'chance witnesses' whose testimony lacked credibility, and the failure to send forensic evidence for analysis. Emphasizing the established principle that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and that any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms that the 'golden rule' of the benefit of doubt is a fundamental principle of criminal justice that cannot be ignored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the investigation into a cognizable offense is initiated prior to the registration of the FIR?
  • Is it safe to rely on the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create sufficient suspicion to warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove its case with confidence-inspiring evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs Muhammad Afzal HaquePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1535 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09
  illegal dispossessioncriminal revisionforcible dispossessionproperty grabbersland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant/complainant filed a criminal revision application impugning the order of the Sessions Judge, Ghotki, whereby his direct complaint under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the direct complaint on the ground that the respondents were in long-standing possession, disregarding allegations of forcible dispossession and supporting revenue and police reports. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint without proper consideration of the specific allegations of recent forcible dispossession and supporting official reports. The revision application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court to decide on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 applies when a complainant alleges forcible dispossession by private respondents?
  • Can a trial court dismiss a direct complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 without considering official revenue and police reports supporting the complainant's possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs Mohammad Shafique, etc.2020 [M] C L R 846 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar etc. vs Sardar Khan Rind and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 521 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-21
  pre-arrest bailbail confirmationsupplementary statementfurther inquiryanti-terrorismabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application was filed before the Balochistan High Court seeking to set aside an order passed by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Quetta, which confirmed the pre-arrest bail of the private respondent, and to send the respondent behind bars. The core legal question was whether the trial court committed a wrong exercise of discretion in confirming the pre-arrest bail of an accused who was not nominated in the initial FIR but was subsequently implicated through a belated supplementary statement, and where the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The High Court dismissed the application in limine, holding that the respondent's implication via a supplementary statement without prior nomination in the FIR warranted confirmation of pre-arrest bail, as the trial court had provided valid reasons. The court laid down the principle that the scope of further inquiry, alongside facts and circumstances of each case, can form a valid basis for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when an accused is not nominated in the initial FIR but is subsequently implicated through a supplementary statement?
  • Does the scope of further inquiry constitute a valid ground for the grant or confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether the confirmation of pre-arrest bail by a trial court can be interfered with if it is based on valid reasons and sound exercise of discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Bhatti vs Oil and Gas Development Company Limited and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1067, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 72 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-04
  pensionary benefitsbogus educational certificatesuperannuationretirement benefitsdiscretionary reliefwrit jurisdictioncorporation employee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired employee of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (O.G.D.C.L.), filed a writ petition seeking directions for the release of his pension and retirement benefits after O.G.D.C.L. withheld them following reports that his Intermediate educational certificate was bogus and his failure to provide his original Matriculation certificate for verification. The core legal questions involved whether a statutory corporation can withhold pensionary benefits on the grounds of allegedly bogus educational testimonials and whether disciplinary proceedings or inquiries can be initiated or continued against an employee after retirement. The Islamabad High Court held that while retired employees cannot be proceeded against for misconduct under the 1994 Regulations since they cease to be 'corporation servants', the petitioner's inequitable conduct—including failing to challenge the adverse board report regarding his bogus certificate and refusing to submit his original matriculation certificate—disentitled him to discretionary constitutional relief. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that equitable relief under writ jurisdiction will be denied to petitioners with unclean hands.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of a statutory corporation can be proceeded against for misconduct after retirement upon attaining the age of superannuation?
  • Can pensionary benefits be withheld by an employer corporation on the basis of unverified or alleged bogus educational certificates?
  • Does the non-adoption of Civil Service Regulations and Fundamental Rules by a statutory body make them automatically applicable to its employees?
  • Whether a petitioner with unclean hands who fails to cooperate with educational verification can invoke the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court for the release of pension?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar and another vs Sardar Khan Rind and another2020 YLR 1077 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-21
  pre-arrest bailbail confirmationsupplementary statementfurther inquiryanti-terrorismmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application was filed before the Balochistan High Court seeking to set aside an order dated 24.4.2019 passed by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I Quetta, whereby pre-arrest bail was confirmed in favour of the respondent-accused in a case registered under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its discretion correctly in confirming pre-arrest bail where the accused was not nominated in the initial FIR but was subsequently implicated through a delayed supplementary statement. The High Court dismissed the application in limine, holding that since the accused was not named in the FIR and there was no record showing he was aware of his implication via the supplementary statement, the grant of pre-arrest bail based on further inquiry did not constitute a wrong exercise of discretion. The key principle laid down is that apart from mala fide and ulterior motives, the scope of further inquiry can validly serve as a basis for the grant or confirmation of pre-arrest bail depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the confirmation of pre-arrest bail is sustainable when the accused is not nominated in the initial FIR and is subsequently implicated through a supplementary statement?
  • Can the scope of further inquiry serve as a valid basis for the grant or confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the mere delayed implication of an accused in a supplementary statement establish mala fide or justify setting aside a pre-arrest bail order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar and 4 others vs The State2020 YLR 2443 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-30
  dacoitycriminal appealreasonable doubtacquittalappreciation of evidencecontradictory testimonybenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of five appellants for dacoity and causing hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given significant contradictions in the evidence and the failure to examine key witnesses. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's judgment and acquitting the appellants. The court held that material contradictions between the FIR and the complainant's testimony regarding stolen items, the unexplained failure to examine a material eye-witness present at the scene, and the absence of independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a populated area rendered the prosecution's case inherently doubtful. The court reiterated the fundamental legal principle that the benefit of any reasonable doubt arising in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant contradiction between the FIR and the complainant's testimony regarding stolen items create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the failure of the prosecution to examine a material eye-witness fatal to the case?
  • Should the benefit of reasonable doubt be extended to the accused when the prosecution fails to produce independent witnesses in a populated area?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar alias Muhammad Iqbal vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 454 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-26
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailstatutory grounddelay in appealcriminal procedurebail pending appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant, Abdul Jabbar alias Muhammad Iqbal, seeking the suspension of his sentence and release on bail during the pendency of his main appeal. The applicant had been convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the suspension of his sentence on statutory grounds, given the delay in the adjudication of his appeal. The Lahore High Court observed that the applicant had been incarcerated for over two years since filing his appeal and had not contributed to the delay in its disposal. Relying on established judicial precedents, the Court held that the suspension of a sentence is the rule, while its refusal is an exception. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition on statutory grounds, suspending the applicant's sentence and granting him bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial).

  Questions settled

  • Is the suspension of a sentence during the pendency of an appeal considered a rule or an exception?
  • Can a sentence be suspended on statutory grounds when the appellant has not contributed to the delay in the appeal's disposal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hussain and 04 others vs Province of Sindh and 03 others2020 SHC 1150 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hayee vs Mst. Haleema and another2020 MLD 1523 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hayee & another vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 338 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-05
  benefit of doubtexplosive substancescriminal appealrecovery evidencenon-appealing co-accusedcomplete justiceforensic reportanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for the alleged possession of hand grenades and firearms. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the recovery of explosive materials. The Lahore High Court observed that the prosecution failed to provide specific details, such as batch numbers or factory markings, for the recovered hand grenades, rendering the forensic evidence inconclusive. Furthermore, the court noted significant contradictions in the prosecution's narrative and a lack of evidence linking the appellants to any proscribed organizations. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case and extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants. Applying the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal, the court set aside the convictions. Additionally, the court extended the benefit of this acquittal to a non-appealing co-accused to ensure complete justice, emphasizing that the court must not convict an innocent person based on suspicion.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of acquittal be extended to a non-appealing co-accused to ensure complete justice?
  • Is the absence of specific identification details, such as batch numbers, for recovered explosive materials sufficient to create reasonable doubt?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haseeb Yousaf vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 278, 2020 MLD 817, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 320 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-30
  anti-terrorismfund collectionproscribed organizationbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalinsufficient evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under sections 11-N and 6(2)(p) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for allegedly collecting funds for a proscribed organization and using a motorcycle with objectionable markings. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the nexus between the recovered items, the trust, and the banned organization beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence, such as a notification proving the trust was a subsidiary of the banned organization, call data records for the SIM cards, or proof of motorcycle ownership, and that tampering with a number plate falls under the Motor Registration Authority rather than anti-terrorism laws. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt, laying down the principle that conviction under anti-terrorism laws requires concrete, unassailable evidence connecting the accused to a proscribed organization.

  Questions settled

  • Whether collection of funds through receipts of a trust constitutes an offense under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 without proof that the trust is a subsidiary of a proscribed organization?
  • Can a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish a nexus between the accused and a banned organization?
  • Does tampering with a motorcycle number plate by writing prohibited words fall within the domain of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to verify the ownership of recovered items and SIM cards during a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq and others vs The StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 235, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 505, 2020 SCMR 116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-07
  abduction for ransombenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceinherent improbabilitywitness credibilitycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal petitions challenging the conviction and life imprisonment of the petitioners for the abduction of Abdul Rahim for ransom. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant contradictions in the abductee's testimony, the delay in reporting, and the admitted prior animosity between the parties. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was inherently improbable and riddled with doubt. The court noted that the abductee's testimony was inconsistent, he had massively improved upon his previous statements, and he failed to explain the delay in reporting or the circumstances of his return. Furthermore, the complainant did not implicate the petitioners, and the medical evidence regarding the abductee's injuries was inconclusive due to the delay in examination. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that a conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of superficial evidence when the prosecution's narrative is inherently improbable and the testimony of the star witness is unreliable and contradictory.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for abduction be sustained when the prosecution's case is inherently improbable and the abductee's testimony is inconsistent?
  • Does a significant delay in medical examination of an abductee render the medical evidence insufficient to prove captivity?
  • Is an identification parade reliable when the abductee admits to prior acquaintance and litigation with the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State2020 YLR 1094 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-22
  post-arrest bailillegal gratificationprohibitory clausefurther inquirycorruption casecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Hameed, who was charged under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, following allegations of demanding and accepting illegal gratification for a government job. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary status of the case. The Court held that the applicant should be released on bail, observing that the investigation was complete, the applicant was no longer required for further inquiry, and the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted the delay in the registration of the First Information Report and the necessity of scrutinizing the evidence of interested witnesses at trial. The key principle laid down is that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the bail statute, and the accused is a first-time offender, bail should generally be granted pending further probe at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
  • Is the evidence of police officials and interested witnesses subject to scrutiny at the trial stage for the purpose of a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Jahangir Khan2021 P SC 266, 2020 SCMR 2107, 2020 SCP 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-09
  specific performanceagreement to sellattestation of instrumentproof of documentLand Reforms Regulationtransfer of propertyconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a civil dispute concerning the specific performance of an agreement to sell land situated in Dera Ismail Khan, originally granted to the petitioner under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The petitioner denied the execution of the agreement and raised objections regarding defective attestation under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as well as statutory bars on alienation under Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, which was modified by the appellate court and subsequently restored by the High Court in civil revision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's civil petition and appeal, holding that the respondent had successfully proved the execution and contents of the agreement through consistent oral and documentary evidence, and that attestation and proof of a document are distinct requirements. The Court established that a mere simple denial by a defendant without initiating legal action against an allegedly fabricated document carries no weight, and that a sale in violation of regulatory restrictions is not void ab-initio once such restrictions have elapsed or proprietary rights are fully transferred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether attestation of an instrument under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the formal proof of a document under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 are distinct and independent requirements?
  • Does a simple denial of an agreement to sell in a written statement, without initiating legal proceedings against the alleged forgery, suffice to displace overwhelming affirmative evidence of execution?
  • Whether a sale of land in violation of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is rendered void ab-initio?
  • Can a party who enters into a genuine agreement to sell subsequently take advantage of statutory restrictions on alienation after proprietary rights have vested?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Government Of Pakistan through Ministry of Pakistan2020 MLD 1310 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem vs The State etc2020 PHC 294, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1408, 2022 YLR 1478 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem vs State and 4 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1408 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-22
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidenceQatl-i-Amdappellate jurisdictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of respondents in a murder case (Qatl-i-Amd) under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions, including an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and an implausible ocular account where witnesses claimed to be present during indiscriminate firing without sustaining any injuries. The Court affirmed that once the ocular account is disbelieved, no other evidence suffices for conviction. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court will only interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's findings are perverse, fanciful, or arbitrary. Furthermore, a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal, as the prosecution must prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does the existence of a single reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Is it possible to secure a conviction on a capital charge if the ocular account is disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem Hashmi and others vs Peshawar High Court, Peshawar2020 PLC (C.S.) 1100 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 2019-05-18
  judicial officersremoval from serviceefficiency and discipline rulescorruptionmisconductgeneral reputationdispensing with inquirycompulsory retirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses twelve consolidated service appeals filed by judicial officers challenging the major penalty of removal from service imposed upon them for corruption and conduct unbecoming, pursuant to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011. The core legal questions involved the competency of the initiating authority, the validity of dispensing with a regular inquiry in cases involving general reputation of corruption, and whether adverse annual confidential reports, inspection reports, and intelligence agency assessments constitute sufficient evidentiary basis. The Tribunal held that the Administration Committee of the High Court properly acted as the competent authority, that dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry is legally permissible under the rules where charges relate to general reputation and integrity rather than isolated disputed facts, and that judicial officers must maintain unimpeachable standards of integrity. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the departmental proceedings and findings of guilt, but modified the penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement on the principle of parity with similar cases. The key principles laid down emphasize that judicial officers are held to a much higher standard of integrity than ordinary civil servants, and that general reputation of corruption substantiated through PERs and official appraisals can lawfully form the basis of disciplinary action without a formal inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Administration Committee of the High Court constitutes the competent authority to initiate and finalize disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011?
  • Can a regular departmental inquiry be lawfully dispensed with under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 2011 when the charge against a judicial officer is a persistent general reputation of corruption?
  • Whether adverse entries in Annual Confidential Reports coupled with reports from Inspection Judges and intelligence agencies constitute sufficient material to establish corruption without recording oral testimony?
  • Does the standard of conduct and integrity required for judicial officers differ from that of ordinary civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez vs Mohammad Yousuf and others2020 MLD 7 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-20
  personal bona fide needejectmentlandlord and tenantburden of proofconstitutional petitionright to property
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition impugned an appellate order that had set aside an ejectment order passed against the respondent tenant. The core legal question involved the interpretation of personal bona fide need under rent laws, specifically whether a landlord seeking premises for use as a safe passage and entrance to the upper floor establishes a valid ground for eviction, and the burden of proof required to rebut the landlord's statement on oath. The Sindh High Court held that a landlord has an absolute right to deal with their property as best suited to them, and the initial burden of proving bona fide need is discharged when the landlord makes a consistent statement on oath that remains unshattered in cross-examination, which the tenant must rebut with strong evidence. The Court laid down that the criterion for 'occupation' is distinct from 'use' and that a landlord cannot be compelled to use an unsafe or inconvenient passage when seeking premises for personal occupation and safety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of premises by a landlord for use as a passage and entrance to the upper floor constitutes a valid personal bona fide need under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • How is the initial burden of proof discharged by a landlord claiming personal bona fide need for rented premises?
  • Can a landlord be compelled to use an inconvenient or unsafe back-street passage when front-side access requires vacating a rented shop?
  • What remedies are available to a tenant under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 if a landlord obtains possession for personal use but fails to utilize it for that purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez @ Umair and others vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1456 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-26
  test identification paradejoint identification paradebenefit of doubtcriminal appealterrorismballistic matchfinger print expertcapital sentence reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting and sentencing the appellants for terrorism, murder, and explosive substances offences arising out of a deadly attack on a trainee hostel in Lahore. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the joint test identification parade, the evidentiary value of belatedly dispatched crime empties and forensic reports, and whether the prosecution proved the appellants' identity and involvement beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt. The court held that a joint test identification parade conducted in one go with numerous dummies violates established procedures under Article 22 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and Lahore High Court Rules, that withholding crime empties for an extended period before forensic transmission renders weapon recoveries legally unacceptable, and that unconvincing identification coupled with the failure of injured witnesses to implicate the accused leaves grave doubt in the prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a joint test identification parade of multiple accused conducted with dummies in one go?
  • Does the unexplained and prolonged delay in sending crime empties to the forensic laboratory render the recovery of weapons and subsequent ballistic matching legally unacceptable?
  • Can a conviction for a heinous terrorist offense be sustained when injured eyewitnesses fail to identify or point out the accused during the trial?
  • What are the legal consequences when finger prints lifted from the crime scene on the day of the occurrence fail to match the finger prints of the arrested accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hadi vs The State2020 YLR 2161 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-18
  narcotics transportationcriminal appealpossession of narcoticsofficial witnessessafe custody of samplesquantum of sentenceControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the transportation of 10 kilograms of Charas. The appellant, apprehended while driving a vehicle containing the narcotics, contended that the recovery was illegal due to the absence of private witnesses, alleged delays in sending samples to the chemical examiner, and lack of safe custody. The core legal question was whether the appellant, as the driver, could be held liable for the narcotics found in the vehicle and whether the prosecution's case was sufficiently proved. The Court upheld the conviction, affirming the principle that a driver is in control of the vehicle and thus responsible for its contents, including narcotics. It further held that police officials are competent witnesses and that the mandatory requirement for private witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure is excluded in narcotics cases. While maintaining the conviction, the Court modified the sentence, reducing it from life imprisonment to twelve years and six months, as the quantity recovered did not exceed 10 kilograms.

  Questions settled

  • Is the driver of a vehicle legally responsible for narcotics found within that vehicle?
  • Does the requirement for private witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act?
  • Can the testimony of police officials be accepted as sufficient evidence in narcotics cases?
  • Does the recovery of exactly 10 kilograms of narcotics trigger the mandatory life imprisonment proviso under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1094 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-19
  acquittalcriminal appealnarcotics smugglingstatement of co-accusedfutile exercise
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant's application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Special Court (CNS) Peshawar. The core legal question revolves around whether an accused can be acquitted under Section 265-K without recording evidence when the sole incriminating material is an inadmissible statement of an acquitted co-accused. The Peshawar High Court held that where the only evidence against the accused is the police statement of a co-accused carrying no legal worth, there is no probability of conviction, rendering further proceedings a futile exercise. The court laid down the principle that an accused is entitled to acquittal under Section 265-K at any stage if there is no probability of conviction based on admissible evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be acquitted under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording evidence?
  • Is the statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible evidence to warrant a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs State through Prosecutor General PunjabPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1749 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-19
  suspension of sentenceshort sentencecriminal revisionpost-conviction bailPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner Abdul Ghafoor seeking suspension of his sentence awarded by the trial court under Sections 324, 337-A(i), and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was upheld with modification on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had made out a sufficient case for the suspension of his short sentence pending the final disposal of the main criminal revision petition. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was awarded a short sentence of five years, had already served about one year of imprisonment, and the main revision was not likely to be fixed for hearing in the near future, a case for suspension of sentence was made out. The court accordingly allowed the petition and directed the release of the petitioner on bail subject to furnishing surety bonds, laying down the principle that the delivery of a short sentence coupled with delays in hearing the main challenge can justify the suspension of a sentence and grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a convict undergoing a short sentence is entitled to suspension of sentence when the main revision petition is not likely to be heard in the near future?
  • Can the execution of a sentence of imprisonment be suspended pending the disposal of a criminal revision petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Gondal vs The State through P.G. Punjab and another2020 SCMR 861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-02-10
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequemala fideFIR delaycriminal procedurefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving an alleged offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from FIR No. 436/19. The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, arguing that the complainant's bank witness confirmed the signature on the cheque did not match the petitioner's bank records, and highlighting an inordinate five-year delay in lodging the FIR without explanation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the potential for mala fide intent and the evidentiary discrepancies. The Supreme Court observed that the complainant failed to controvert the petitioner's arguments regarding the signature mismatch and the unexplained delay. Holding that the case warranted further inquiry and acknowledging the risk of undue harassment and humiliation, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where an FIR is lodged with significant, unexplained delay and prima facie evidence suggests malicious intent or evidentiary weakness, the accused is entitled to the protection of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR?
  • Does a discrepancy in the signature on a cheque, as noted by a bank witness, constitute grounds for further inquiry in a case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the complainant fails to controvert the petitioner's claims regarding mala fide intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and others vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 1286 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-28
  criminal appealremandtrial court judgmentnon-compliancemandatory findingsmurder referenceprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal case involving murder and other offences. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s judgment, which failed to explicitly record findings regarding the acquittal or conviction of the accused on all charged offences, complied with mandatory statutory requirements. The High Court observed that despite a previous remand order specifically directing the trial court to rectify this exact omission, the trial court again failed to address the charges under sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), and 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in its second judgment. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned judgment violated the mandate of section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for a third time, with a strict directive to rewrite the judgment within fifteen days, ensuring a clear finding on each charge is provided. The death sentence was not confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court judgment that fails to record findings on all charged offences violate section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained if the trial court fails to address specific charges for which the accused was indicted?
  • Is the failure of a trial court to comply with a remand order regarding the writing of a judgment curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and another vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1512 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-18
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitydriver liabilitycontraband recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from the arrest of two individuals, Abdul Ghafoor and Sher Ahmed, following the recovery of 2 kilograms of Charas and 100 grams of heroin from a vehicle they were occupying. The applicants sought post-arrest bail after the trial court refused their initial request. The core legal question was whether both the driver and the passenger could be held equally liable for the possession of narcotics found in the vehicle. The Court held that the driver, Abdul Ghafoor, could not be absolved of liability as he was in control of the vehicle transporting the contraband, establishing a prima facie case against him, thus denying his bail. Conversely, the Court granted bail to the co-accused, Sher Ahmed, noting that he was merely a passenger and no narcotics were recovered from his exclusive possession, rendering his case one of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that while a driver is generally liable for contraband found in their vehicle, a passenger without exclusive possession may be entitled to bail pending further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is the driver of a vehicle liable for narcotics recovered from the vehicle during transit?
  • Can a passenger in a vehicle where narcotics are recovered be granted bail on the basis of further inquiry?
  • Does the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle create a prima facie case against the driver?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and 4 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 990 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-28
  criminal appealmurder referenceremandtrial court judgmentdefective judgmentprocedural irregularityconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal appeal and murder reference arising from a trial court judgment convicting five appellants for various offences, including murder, under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s judgment, which failed to address the conviction or acquittal of the accused regarding all charged offences despite a prior remand order for the same deficiency, was legally sustainable. The High Court held that the impugned judgment was defective and failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically regarding the necessity of a comprehensive judgment addressing all charges. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and remanded the case back to the trial court with a strict directive to re-write the judgment within fifteen days, ensuring specific findings on each charge against each accused. The key principle laid down is that a trial court judgment must be complete and address every charge framed against an accused; failure to do so constitutes a fatal illegality that necessitates a remand for a fresh, compliant decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court judgment that fails to record findings on all charges framed against an accused satisfy the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be upheld if the trial court ignores a previous appellate court direction to address specific charges in a re-written judgment?
  • Is a judgment that remains silent on the acquittal or conviction of an accused regarding specific charged offences legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor alias Muhammad Ghafoor and others vs The State and another2020 MLD 1046 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor & others vs Sabir Rehman & others2020 PHC 146, 2020 CLC 2055 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State and another2020 YLR 1553 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-02
  narcotics possessionbenefit of doubtmala fidespolice enmitycriminal appealburden of proofappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, resulting in a four-year sentence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of narcotics possession beyond reasonable doubt, particularly considering the appellant's specific defense of mala fides and prior enmity against the complainant police official. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that while police officials are competent witnesses, their testimony cannot be accepted as gospel truth if the defense raises a plausible plea of enmity or mala fides. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove its case to the hilt; the accused need only create a reasonable doubt. Where the defense substantiates a motive for false implication, the prosecution's credibility is undermined, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the accused successfully establishes a motive for false implication by the complainant police official?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused when a defense plea of mala fides is raised?
  • Is the testimony of police officials in a criminal trial to be accepted as gospel truth without considering the defense's plea of enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad through its2020 CLC 839, 2020 IHC 14 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar alias Iqbal vs The State2020 MLD 977 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-23
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substanceschemical examiner reportpresumption of innocenceindependent witnessescriminal recordfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns an accused charged with the possession of 1010 grams of chars under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of independent witnesses, the absence of a chemical examiner's report, and the accused's prior criminal record. The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, reasoning that the prosecution's case relied solely on police witnesses despite the incident occurring in a populated area, and the absence of a chemical report necessitated further inquiry into the nature of the recovered substance. Furthermore, the Court established that the mere pendency of other criminal cases is insufficient to deny bail in the absence of prior convictions, as the presumption of innocence prevails. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the observations made were tentative and would not prejudice the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a chemical examiner's report regarding the recovered substance constitute a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground that the accused has other pending criminal cases if no prior convictions are established?
  • Is the reliance solely on police witnesses in a populated area a valid ground for granting bail in a narcotics case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ellah Rehmani and 4 others vs Muhammad Khan and another2020 YLR 2382 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-06-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State2020 MLD 1202 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-25
  dying declarationbenefit of doubtstatement of accusedchemical examiner reportmurder trialappellate decision
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting from burn injuries. The core legal questions involved the credibility and evidentiary value of the alleged dying declaration, the failure of the prosecution to send recovered incriminating articles for chemical analysis, and the legal effect of omitting material evidence from examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the dying declaration was highly doubtful due to material contradictions among witnesses, lack of medical fitness certification, and the appellant's own demonstrable efforts to save the deceased by transporting her to multiple hospitals. The Court also reiterated that any incriminating circumstance or piece of evidence not put to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be used against him. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, establishing that reasonable doubt regarding prosecution evidence entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration be relied upon without medical corroboration of the victim's fitness and in the presence of material contradictions?
  • Whether a piece of evidence not put to the accused during his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be considered against him?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when multiple reasonable doubts exist in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basit son of Nawab Jan, r/o Damgari Siraj Khel, Takht-e-Nasrati,2020 PHC 352 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-16
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidencedishonest improvementabscondencecircumstantial evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the provided ocular and circumstantial evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses was riddled with material contradictions, dishonest improvements, and discrepancies regarding the sequence of events and the place of occurrence. The court observed that the witnesses were likely procured and their presence at the scene was doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a conviction must rest on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt. It establishes that when direct ocular testimony is disbelieved due to material improvements and inconsistencies, circumstantial evidence—such as the recovery of crime empties—cannot independently sustain a conviction, and mere abscondence of an accused is insufficient to establish guilt in the absence of other corroborative evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the direct ocular account is disbelieved?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused person constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction in the absence of other proof?
  • What is the legal effect of material improvements and contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses on the reliability of the prosecution's case?
  • Can a witness not named in the First Information Report be relied upon as an eyewitness?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari vs Amir Muhammad and 3 others2020 MLD 1798 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-16
  Section 540 Cr.P.C.summoning of witnessesfair trialIllegal Dispossession Actjudicial discretionmaterial witnesscriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing an application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought to summon a police officer to produce a document in a case filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to summon a witness whose evidence was deemed necessary by the petitioner. The High Court held that the trial court erred by focusing on potential delays rather than the statutory criteria of Section 540, which mandates summoning any person if their evidence is essential for a just decision. The court clarified that the power to summon witnesses under Section 540 is broad, exercisable at any stage, and not limited to witnesses listed in the initial challan or investigation statements. The key principle laid down is that the trial court must prioritize the necessity of evidence for a just decision over procedural convenience or concerns about trial delays, ensuring that the truth is effectively brought before the court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court summon a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 even if that witness was not included in the initial list of witnesses?
  • Does the power of the court to summon a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 depend on whether the witness's statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the potential for trial delay a valid ground for refusing an application to summon a material witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the two essential ingredients a court must consider when deciding an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Baqi vs Dawood and another2020 P Cr.L J 368, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (F.S.C.) 42 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-03-27
  appeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtabscondencecontradictory evidenceZina Ordinanceappreciation of evidencecorroborative piece of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417(2)(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta, acquitting the respondent of charges under Sections 11/16 of The Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of abduction and zina beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the trial court's acquittal order warranted interference by the appellate court. The Federal Shariat Court held that the ocular testimony and the conflicting statements of the alleged abductee and eye-witnesses were riddled with material contradictions, rendering them untrustworthy. Furthermore, the court held that abscondence of an accused is merely a corroborative piece of evidence and cannot be used in isolation to sustain a conviction when the substantive ocular evidence has been disbelieved. Emphasizing that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is narrow and that the double presumption of innocence operates in favor of the acquitted accused, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of the accused's abscondence when the substantive ocular evidence has been disbelieved?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an order of acquittal?
  • Whether material contradictions and inconsistencies between the statements of the eyewitness and the alleged abductee are sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  • Does abscondence by itself constitute a substantive piece of independent evidence of guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Baqi and another vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1488, 2020 P Cr. L J 321 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-28
  narcotics controlrecovery from vehiclesecret cavitiesconscious possessiondriver liabilitypassenger acquittalbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellants under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged transportation of 54 kilograms of heroin concealed in secret cavities of a vehicle. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence regarding the driver's responsibility and the standard of proof required to establish the conscious possession and knowledge of a co-accused sitting as a passenger in the vehicle. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case against the appellant who was driving the vehicle, as control and possession of the contraband are naturally attributed to the driver. However, regarding the passenger sitting on the front seat, the Court held that mere presence in a vehicle is insufficient to establish conscious knowledge of hidden compartments without cogent additional evidence. Consequently, the High Court maintained the conviction and life imprisonment of the driver while setting aside the conviction of the passenger and acquitting him of the charge. The key principle laid down is that while a driver is presumed responsible for contraband concealed in a vehicle, a passenger cannot be convicted of possession without independent proof of conscious knowledge or abetment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the driver of a vehicle can be held criminally responsible for narcotics recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle?
  • Does the mere presence of a passenger on the front seat of a vehicle containing concealed narcotics establish conscious knowledge and possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • What is the standard of proof required to connect a passenger sitting in a vehicle with contraband hidden in secret cavities?
  • Whether a slight variation in prosecution evidence is sufficient to discard the testimony of police witnesses in a narcotics case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Nooristani vs Shams-Ul-Mulk and 15 others2020 CLC 23 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Memon vs The StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 213, 2020 SCMR 313, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-26
  pre-arrest bailextraordinary remedyfraudforgerycriminal investigationbail refusalmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, Abdul Aziz Memon, seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered at Police Station Matyari. The petitioner was accused of defrauding the complainant of Rs.500,000 by providing a fake appointment letter for a Naib Qasid position in the Education Department, which the complainant discovered after serving for two years without pay. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting the dispute arose from a separate wheat crop transaction, but failed to provide evidence to support this defense. The Supreme Court observed that the incriminating circumstances, specifically the two-year service period and the forged appointment letter, pointed directly to the petitioner's culpability. The Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary equitable remedy intended to protect against the abuse of legal process, not a right to be granted in ordinary criminal cases where it might hinder investigation. Finding the High Court's refusal of bail to be legally sound, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail an absolute right in every criminal case?
  • Can a bald plea of mala fide suffice to grant pre-arrest bail when incriminating evidence exists?
  • Does the grant of pre-arrest bail extend to cases where it would hinder the investigative process?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and others vs Town Municipal Officer Hub through Administrator2020 CLC 1764 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and another vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 500, 2020 MLD 202, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 139 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-02
  narcotics possessionchemical examiner reportchain of custodysafe transmission of samplescriminal appealacquittalreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal questions were whether the chemical examiner's report met the mandatory statutory requirements and whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that the chemical examiner’s report was deficient because it failed to include the necessary test protocols, analysis details, and results as mandated by Section 36(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to produce the officials responsible for the custody and transmission of the samples, thereby failing to prove the chain of custody. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, establishing that a chemical report lacking detailed protocols is insufficient for conviction and that the chain of custody must be strictly proven.

  Questions settled

  • Does a chemical examiner's report that fails to detail the specific test protocols and results satisfy the requirements of Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is the failure to produce the official responsible for the safe transmission of narcotic samples to the laboratory a ground for acquittal?
  • Must the prosecution prove the safe custody and transmission of recovered narcotics through independent evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and 2 others vs Ch. Asghar Ali2020 PLD Lahore 831 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Azeem & others vs Rehmatullah & others2020 SHC 704 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Asif vs Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone (WHT), Rto-III, Karachi2020 PTD (Trib.) 1258 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-12-11
  Special Judicial Allowanceincome tax exemptionsalary incomejudicial independencetaxable perquisitesdeemed assessmentamendment of assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Private Secretary at the Sindh High Court, challenged tax assessments for the years 2011 and 2012, which disallowed the exemption of 'Special Judicial Allowance' from his taxable salary income. The core legal question was whether the Special Judicial Allowance granted to High Court staff constitutes a taxable component of salary under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, or is an exempt allowance under Section 12(2)(c) and Clause (39) of Part I of the Second Schedule. The Tribunal held that the Special Judicial Allowance, granted by the Chief Justice to ensure the independence of the judiciary and compensate for specific duties, falls within the exclusion provided by Section 12(2)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as an allowance expended in the performance of duties. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, ruling that such allowances are not chargeable to income tax, emphasizing that they are not part of taxable salary but are emoluments granted for the performance of official duties.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Special Judicial Allowance granted to High Court employees exempt from income tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does the Special Judicial Allowance fall within the definition of 'salary' under Section 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Are allowances expended in the performance of official duties excluded from the definition of salary under Section 12(2)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ali vs Mst. Sani and 3 others2020 MLD 1091 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ahad Alias Idress vs The State2020 PHC 522 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-23Read full judgment →
• Abbott Laboratories (Pakistan ) Ltd vs Pakistan & Ors2020 SHC 896 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-06Read full judgment →
• Abbas Raza vs The State through P.G. Punjab and othersPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 117, 2020 SCMR 1859, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 87, 2020 SCP 176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-15
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsprohibitory clausecriminal procedureappreciation of evidenceliberty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 1300 grams of opium. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the alleged discrepancy between the quantity of contraband and the large sum of cash seized. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution’s narrative—alleging the sale of narcotics at an odd hour in winter—lacked credibility and did not inspire confidence. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's plausible explanation regarding the seized cash being proceeds from a house sale. Holding that the prosecution's story appeared fabricated and that the petitioner's liberty is a precious constitutional right, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted post-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail should not be denied where the prosecution's case is open to serious doubt and lacks the requisite strength to establish guilt without a second thought.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a large sum of cash disproportionate to the quantity of recovered contraband create sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of bail?
  • Can a court grant bail when the prosecution's narrative regarding the circumstances of the arrest appears inherently improbable?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail if the prosecution's case is found to be potentially fabricated?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali and another vs The State2020 MLD 567 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-31
  jail appealcondonation of delaypauper prisonerocular testimonyblood-relation witnessidentification parademedical corroborationQatl-e-Amddacoity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased and under section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life and seven years respectively. The core legal questions involved the condonation of delay in filing a jail appeal by indigent prisoners, the reliability of natural eye-witnesses who are blood-relations of the deceased, and the legal effect of non-recovery of crime weapons and non-holding of an identification parade. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions, holding that the delay in filing the appeal was adequately explained by the appellants' incarceration and pauperism, that the ocular testimony of natural witnesses related to the deceased is reliable and corroborated by medical evidence, and that the absence of recovery or identification parade does not impair an otherwise confidence-inspiring prosecution case. The court laid down principles regarding the liberal condonation of delay for jail prisoners under section 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the evaluation of natural witness testimonies in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the delay in filing an appeal by an incarcerated and indigent prisoner due to poverty and lack of legal assistance should be condoned?
  • Can a conviction for murder and robbery be sustained solely on the testimony of natural eye-witnesses who are blood-relations of the deceased?
  • Does the failure to hold an identification parade vitiate the trial when the accused was named promptly in the FIR and identified by natural witnesses?
  • Is the non-recovery of incriminating articles or crime weapons fatal to the prosecution's case when the ocular and medical evidence are consistent and confidence-inspiring?
  Read full judgment →
• Ab and another vs Pridwin Preparatory School and others2020 SCMR 1523 · Constitutional Court of South Africa · 2020-06-17Read full judgment →
• Aashique Hussain vs The State2020 SHC 54 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-17
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesrecovery of charasindependent witnesseschemical examinationprohibitory clausefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Aashique Hussain, who was charged under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 1870 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the procedural lapses alleged by the defense. The Court observed that the police failed to associate independent witnesses despite the alleged recovery occurring in a public area, raising doubts about the prosecution's version. Furthermore, the Court noted that only a small sample was sent for chemical analysis rather than the entire recovered property, necessitating further probe into the veracity of the recovery. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for further inquiry and admitted him to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that the failure to associate independent witnesses in a public place and the failure to send the entire recovered narcotic substance for chemical examination can constitute sufficient grounds to grant bail, as false implication cannot be ruled out.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the police to associate independent witnesses during a recovery in a public place entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is it mandatory to send the entire recovered quantity of narcotics for chemical examination to establish a prima facie case?
  • Can an accused be granted bail if the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Siddique vs Additional Inspector General of Police PHP, Lahore and another2020 SCMR 1707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-12
  departmental proceedingsdismissal from servicepolice disciplineunauthorized absencedisciplinary inquiryservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the dismissal of a police officer from service due to unauthorized absence from duty. The core legal question concerns whether the departmental proceedings and subsequent dismissal were justified, particularly regarding the calculation of the period of absence and the inclusion of prior disciplinary records. The Supreme Court examined the inquiry report and noted that the petitioner had deliberately avoided disciplinary proceedings and failed to offer a defense for his absence. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had a history of 23 previous entries for similar misconduct. The Supreme Court held that as a member of a disciplined force, the petitioner's actions constituted a clear defiance of the code of conduct governing police officers. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment, determining that the disciplinary action was warranted given the petitioner's conduct and service record. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the disciplinary authority's decision to terminate the petitioner's employment for persistent unauthorized absence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police officer's dismissal from service justified when they deliberately avoid disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence?
  • Does a history of previous bad entries for similar misconduct justify a harsher penalty in departmental proceedings?
  • Can a member of a disciplined force challenge a dismissal order based on the calculation of the period of absence when they failed to offer a defense during the inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Shahzad and another vs The State and another2020 SCMR 1406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-10
  Drugs Act 1976unregistered drugsDrug Inspector authorityQuality Control Boardadmissibility of evidencesearch and seizurecriminal conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged their conviction and sentences by the Drug Court Islamabad for offences related to the sale of unregistered drugs and operating without a license under the Drugs Act, 1976. The core legal questions were whether the Drug Inspector possessed the legal authority to conduct the search and seizure, whether the prosecution was required to produce members of the Quality Control Board as witnesses, and whether the petitioners' written admissions before the Quality Control Board were admissible despite procedural objections. The Supreme Court held that the Drug Inspector acted within his statutory powers under the Drugs Act, 1976, to search and seize contraband. The Court further held that the Quality Control Board's functions are regulatory, and the prosecution is not obligated to produce its members as witnesses to prove the charge. The Court affirmed that voluntary admissions made by the petitioners before the Board were admissible, rejecting the argument that they required the procedural protections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Drug Inspector have the statutory authority to enter and search premises to seize unregistered drugs under the Drugs Act, 1976?
  • Is the prosecution required to produce members of the Quality Control Board as witnesses to prove an offence under the Drugs Act, 1976?
  • Are admissions made by an accused before the Quality Control Board subject to the procedural requirements of Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Mateen vs State, etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 852 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-16
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequebogus chequebail dismissalmala fidecriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Iqbal Town Lahore, on the allegation of issuing a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail for an offence of issuing a bogus cheque when prima facie material supported the prosecution's case and no mala fide was established regarding the intended arrest. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail, noting that pre-arrest bail is an equitable remedy and not a substitute for post-arrest bail, and cannot be invoked in every run-of-the-mill criminal case supported by incriminating material. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner was recalled, laying down that pre-arrest bail requires exceptional circumstances of mala fide and is not a routine alternative to post-arrest bail in documentary fraud cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be used as a substitute for post-arrest bail in criminal cases?
  • Does the issuance of a dishonoured cheque supported by a cheque return memo warrant the denial of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is it necessary to establish mala fide on the part of the investigating agency to obtain pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Iqbal Gill vs State Life Insurance Corporation Of Pakistan and others2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 404, 2020 P SC 1057, 2020 SCMR 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-02-18
  service regulationsstatutory ruleswrit petitionIntra Court AppealabatementState Life Insurance Corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a decision of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal regarding service grievances against the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner's challenge on two grounds: first, that service regulations of the respondent-corporation were non-statutory, and second, that a Federal Service Tribunal decision could only be challenged directly before the Supreme Court. The core legal questions were whether the service regulations of the State Life Insurance Corporation carry statutory effect and whether the petitioner could maintain a writ petition before the High Court after his earlier proceedings abated following precedent. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that both grounds relied upon by the High Court were erroneous. Relying on binding precedent, the Court held that the service regulations possessed statutory effect and that the abatement of proceedings following Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam permitted approaching the competent forum. The matter was remitted for decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Do the service regulations of the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan possess statutory effect?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained in the High Court regarding service terms following the abatement of proceedings under the rule in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Hanif and another vs The State and others2020 SCMR 675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-05
  Qatl-i-amdmurderous assaultappreciation of evidenceindependent witnesscriminal appealconvictionlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of his brother-in-law and murderous assault on an eyewitness. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of the eyewitness, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the lower courts. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution's case was established through consistent witness testimony, forensic evidence linking the weapon to the crime, and the prompt reporting of the incident. The Court rejected the defense's theory of substitution, noting that the convict had abandoned such pleas during his examination. Consequently, the Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-founded and declined to interfere with the conviction or the sentence of life imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is consistent, independent, and supported by forensic findings, and where the defense fails to substantiate claims of substitution, the conviction must be maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the defense fails to substantiate a plea of substitution during the examination of the accused?
  • Is the testimony of an injured witness, who is otherwise independent and has no motive to falsely implicate, sufficient to establish guilt?
  • Does the absence of empty casings at the crime scene necessarily undermine the prosecution's case when other forensic evidence, such as blood samples and weapon recovery, is present?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Hanif and another vs State etcPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-03-05
  Qatl-i-Amdmurderous assaultinjured witnessappreciation of evidencecriminal appealleave to appealquantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that maintained the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of his brother-in-law and murderous assault upon an eyewitness, while altering the death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of the injured eyewitness, and the validity of the conviction based on the prosecution's narrative of the incident. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the prompt reporting of the crime, the consistency of the medical evidence with the recovered weapon, and the reliability of the injured eyewitness. The Court rejected the defense's theory of substitution as unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal, affirming both the conviction and the quantum of sentence imposed by the High Court. The judgment reinforces the principle that where prosecution evidence is consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical and forensic reports, the courts below are justified in maintaining a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an injured eyewitness who has no motive to falsely implicate the accused can be considered a reliable witness?
  • Does the failure of the defense to substantiate a theory of substitution in cross-examination render the prosecution's case credible?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the medical evidence, including autopsy and injury reports, corroborates the eyewitness testimony and the recovery of the weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Aziz Ansari vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting & 3 others2020 IHC 150 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
• Aamir Aman and 21 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad2020 PLD Sindh 533 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-12Read full judgment →
• Aamer Shahzad Dhody vs Adamjee Insurance Co2020 CLD 1329 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
• Aameen and another vs The State2020 MLD 1218 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-10
  falsus in uno falsus in omnibusmurder trialeyewitness credibilitycontradictory statementbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns the evidentiary value and reliability of eyewitness testimony given by the complainant and key witnesses who contradicted their statements in a subsequent related trial regarding the identity of the accused. The court held that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies, and witnesses who resort to deliberate falsehood on material aspects cannot be relied upon. The holding establishes that contradictory and inconsistent testimonies of eyewitnesses in subsequent proceedings destroy the credibility of the prosecution case, entitling the accused to an acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of eyewitness testimony when the same witnesses depose contradictorily regarding the identity of the accused in a subsequent trial?
  • Whether the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies as an integral part of criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on testimony that has been materially contradicted by the same witnesses in parallel proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Aaam Log Ittehad & another vs The Election Commission of Pakistan &2020 PLD Sindh 616, 2020 SHC 392 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-12
  quo-warrantoElection Commission of Pakistanoffice of profitquasi-judicial officeconstitutional appointmentcooling-off periodjudicial reviewterritorial jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ of quo-warranto challenged the appointment of four members of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), including three retired High Court judges and one retired bureaucrat, alleging violations of Article 207(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan. The primary legal question was whether the office of a Member of the ECP constitutes a "judicial or quasi-judicial office," which would exempt retired judges from the mandatory two-year cooling-off period before holding an office of profit. The Court held that the ECP performs functions that are quasi-judicial in nature, as it is empowered to adjudicate election disputes, determine rights, and exercise powers akin to a court, such as summoning witnesses and recording evidence. Consequently, the Court ruled that the two-year bar under Article 207(2) is inapplicable to the appointment of retired judges as ECP members. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that quo-warranto petitions are maintainable by any person, are not strictly barred by laches, and that the High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction over federal appointments functioning nationwide. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the office of a Member of the Election Commission of Pakistan constitute a quasi-judicial office under Article 207(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Is a writ of quo-warranto maintainable against a public office holder who has retired during the pendency of the petition?
  • Does the High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ of quo-warranto against federal appointees who perform duties nationwide?
  • Are laches a valid ground for dismissing a writ of quo-warranto challenging the validity of a public appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• A.P. Moller Maersk and others vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue and othersPTCL 2021 CL. 285, 2020 PTD 1614 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• A.C/Sdm Saddar, Quetta and others vs Mehrullah Khan and others2021 KLR Revenue Cases 41, 2020 CLC 1680 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
• A. Collector of Customs vs M/s. Euro Tiles & Granites2020 SHC 886 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-19Read full judgment →
• A Collector of Customs vs Tafzeel Ahmed Shah2020 SHC 942 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-10Read full judgment →
• A Allied Industries Hub (Pvt) Ltd vs Collector of Customs2020 SHC 946 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
• (Shri) Ram Mandir Indore vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 125 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-02-27Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Tube Investments of India Ltd vs The Joint Commissioner of Income2020 PCTLR 275 · Madras High CourtRead full judgment →
• (M/s.) D.J. Malpani vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik2020 P SC 713, 2020 PCTLR 307 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Covansys (India) P. Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income2020 PCTLR 270 · Madras High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Messrs) Faiza Packages, Karachi vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-IV, Rto-III, Karachi2020 P C T L R 456 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-06-01Read full judgment →
• (Late) Major (Rtd.) Syed Tanvir Ali vs Syeda Rafat Eijaz2020 PLD Sindh 713 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-27Read full judgment →
• (Dr.) Muhammad Hamayun Professor & 31 others vs Chief Secretary govt.2020 KLR Criminal Cases 143 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 61 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-09
  post-arrest bailrapefurther inquiryDNA evidencedelay in FIRmedical corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged rape of his niece. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given significant evidentiary discrepancies, including a delay in lodging the FIR, a lack of medical corroboration regarding the alleged pregnancy and miscarriage, and a DNA report that failed to connect the petitioner to the crime. The Court held that these circumstances, particularly the conflict between the victim's statement and the medical evidence, warranted further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, noting that the petitioner had been incarcerated since June 2017, had joined the investigation, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is contradictory and lacks medical corroboration, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail to an accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a lack of seminal material in a DNA report in a rape case constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when there is a significant, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and medical evidence fails to corroborate the prosecution's allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Shah Mohammad and 2 others2019 P Cr. LJ 1669 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-02
  quashing of orderpolice reportcognizance of offenceB class cancellationinvestigating officerMagistrate powerscriminal miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate, which declined the police report recommending the cancellation of an FIR in "B" class and instead directed the submission of a final challan against the accused. The core legal question revolved around the scope of powers of an investigating officer versus a Magistrate regarding police reports under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the taking of cognizance under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the opinion of an investigating officer is not binding upon a Magistrate, and a Magistrate is fully competent to disagree with a police report recommending case cancellation if a prima facie case is disclosed from the available material. The court affirmed that taking cognizance is directed against the offence rather than the individual accused and does not prejudice the rights or presumption of innocence of the accused. Consequently, the application was dismissed, upholding the trial Magistrate's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the opinion of an investigating officer recommending the cancellation of a case in "B" class is binding upon a Magistrate?
  • Can a Magistrate take cognizance of an offence despite a police report concluding that the case is false?
  • What is the extent of a Magistrate's power under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon receiving a police report under section 173?
  • Does the taking of cognizance by a Magistrate prejudice the rights or the presumption of innocence of an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Imtiaz, etc2019 SCMR 1315, 2019 SCP 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-06-03
  Criminal AppealAcquittalBenefit of DoubtQatl-i-AmdAbductionPakistan Penal CodeCode of Criminal ProcedureOcular AccountUnwitnessed OccurrenceMiscarriage of Justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a judgment from the Lahore High Court, which acquitted two respondents, Imtiaz and Jehangir, from charges of Qatl-i-Amd and abduction. The respondents had initially been convicted under Section 302/34 and Section 364/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The High Court acquitted them by extending the benefit of the doubt, concluding that the occurrence was unwitnessed, citing discrepancies such as the absence of medico-legal reports supporting the witnesses' claim of bringing the deceased to the hospital in an injured condition, and the presence of other individuals who first found and transported the deceased. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the view taken by the learned Judge-in-Chamber was a possible view, structured in the evidence available on record, and thus not open to legitimate exception. The Court reiterated the principle that an acquittal, once granted, cannot be recalled merely on the possibility of a contrary view, unless the impugned view is found on the fringes of impossibility, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali etc vs Liaqat Ali etc2020 CLD 492, 2020 PLD Lahore 350, 2019 PLJ Lahore 609, 2019 LHC 2178 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-22Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Domki vs Province of Sindh & others2019 SHC 454 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-27Read full judgment →
• Zubair vs Sheraz and 2 others2019 MLD 831 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-09-13
  pre-arrest bailZinamala fiderevision petitionfurther inquirycriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the order of the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Dhirkot, which granted pre-arrest bail to the accused-respondents in a case involving allegations of Zina and theft. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of illicit relations and the questionable circumstances surrounding their marriage. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the trial court erred in granting pre-arrest bail. The High Court found that the accused failed to demonstrate mala fide or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant or the police, which are essential prerequisites for pre-arrest bail. Furthermore, the accused frustrated the investigation by failing to join it, preventing necessary medical examinations. Consequently, the Court recalled the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases where the prosecution is demonstrably motivated by malice or harassment, and it cannot be granted based on 'further inquiry' considerations alone in the absence of such established mala fides.

  Questions settled

  • Is the consideration of 'further inquiry' a valid ground for granting pre-arrest bail in the absence of established mala fide or ulterior motives?
  • Does the failure of an accused to join the investigation process justify the cancellation of pre-arrest bail?
  • What are the essential prerequisites for the grant of pre-arrest bail in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Be (Deceased) through L.Rs. Etc vs Raja Munir Ahmed Etc2019 PLJ Lahore 639, 2019 YLR 2347, 2019 LHC 1815 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-11Read full judgment →