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.

• Zone-I, R.T.O.-II, Karachi vs Messrs I.P.P., Karachi2019 PTD (Trib.) 542 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-12-06Read full judgment →
• Zohra Bibi and another vs Haji Sultan Mahmood and others2019 SCP 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-06
  succession certificaterevocation of succession certificateinheritance rightsfraud and misrepresentationlimitation periodprocedural technicalitiesShari shares
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court judgment that set aside the revocation of a succession certificate obtained by Respondent No. 1, who had concealed the existence of other legal heirs. The core legal questions concerned whether the revocation application was time-barred and whether procedural technicalities, such as defects in a power of attorney, could defeat the substantive inheritance rights of legal heirs. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by prioritizing hyper-technicalities over the administration of justice. The Court affirmed that inheritance opens upon death, and legal heirs are entitled to their Shari shares. It ruled that where a succession certificate is obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, the limitation period for seeking revocation commences from the date of knowledge, not the date of issuance. Furthermore, the Court established that procedural defects in representation do not disentitle rightful heirs from their legacy. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the trial court's order, emphasizing that courts must avoid technical obstacles when substantive rights are at stake and directed proceedings against the respondent for fraud.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for seeking the revocation of a succession certificate run from the date of its issuance or the date of knowledge of the fraud?
  • Can a court dismiss an application for the revocation of a succession certificate based on procedural technicalities regarding the signing of a power of attorney?
  • Is a legal heir entitled to their share of inheritance if they were not joined in the original application for a succession certificate?
  • Does the concealment of other legal heirs during the application for a succession certificate constitute fraud sufficient to warrant revocation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ziaullah vs The State and another2020 KLR Criminal Cases 133, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1258, 2019 MLD 1931 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-09
  narcoticschain of custodysafe custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, for an offense under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant was convicted for the possession of poppy flowers (Doda). The core legal question before the Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and safe transmission of the narcotic sample to the Chemical Examiner. Upon review, the Court found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence: the police witnesses testified that one constable delivered the sample, whereas the Chemical Examiner's report indicated it was delivered by a different individual who was not cited as a witness. Furthermore, the report showed the sample was dispatched by the Excise and Taxation Officer, with no evidence explaining how or why the sample reached that office or its custody status therein. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove the unbroken chain of safe custody, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in narcotics cases, the prosecution must prove the safe custody and transmission of samples beyond reasonable doubt, as any gap in this chain vitiates the reliability of the chemical report.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the prosecution's witness testimony regarding the delivery of a narcotic sample and the Chemical Examiner's report regarding the actual deliverer vitiate the conviction?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove an unbroken chain of safe custody for narcotic samples to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to explain how a sample parcel came into the possession of an official not involved in the initial recovery or transmission?
  Read full judgment →
• Ziaullah vs State etc.PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1258 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-09
  criminal appealControl of Narcotic Substances Actsafe custody of samplechain of custodyChemical Examiner reportbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was apprehended while harvesting poppy plants and recovering 'Doda'. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the unbroken chain of safe custody and safe transmission of the sample parcel to the Chemical Examiner. The High Court observed glaring discrepancies: while police witnesses testified that Constable Muhammad Ali delivered the sample parcel, the Chemical Examiner's report reflected receipt from Constable Asif Ali (who was neither produced nor cited as a witness) and dispatch by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala, without any explanation or evidence of safe custody. Holding that safe custody and transmission were not proved, and reiterating that a single doubt entitles the accused to acquittal, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of safe custody and safe transmission of sample parcels vitiate the Chemical Examiner's report in narcotics cases?
  • Can a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained when the witness who delivered the sample parcel to the Chemical Examiner is not produced during trial?
  • Whether discrepancy between police evidence and the Chemical Examiner's report regarding the carrier and dispatching authority creates reasonable doubt entitling the accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia-Ul-Hassan Lanjar vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and 14 others2019 PLD Sindh 163 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-09Read full judgment →
• Zia-ul-Haq etc vs Abdul Ghafoor2019 PLD Peshawar 176, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 160, 2019 PHC 28 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Zia Shahid Waseer vs Bank Al-Habib and others2019 CLD 696 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07Read full judgment →
• Zeshan Iftikhar Butt vs Mst. Maria Asif and others2019 CLC 777 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-06Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Shahid vs The Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2020 P C T L R 863, 2019 PTD 1996 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Majeed vs Govt.2020 PLC (C.S.) 1025, 2019 PHC 414 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21
  constitutional petitionvires of statutesurplus poolcontractual serviceregular employeesstatutory interpretationpresumption of constitutionality
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court challenging the vires of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tourism Act, 2019, specifically sections 8 and 32, on the grounds of being arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional, particularly regarding apprehensions that regular employees would be converted to contract employees. The core legal questions revolved around the constitutionality of the enactment and the interpretation of the statutory provisions concerning the service status of existing employees. The Court held that the petitioners failed to provide valid legal grounds for declaring the legislation unconstitutional, relying on established principles regarding the presumption of constitutionality. The Court interpreted sections 8 and 32 of the Act, holding that the statutory provisions adequately protected the rights of existing regular employees by placing them in a surplus pool with safeguarded benefits, and that section 32 applies only to future hirings rather than existing regular employees. The key principles laid down include the presumption of constitutionality of statutes, the rules for judicial review of legislative enactments, and the principles of statutory interpretation to ascertain legislative intent.

  Questions settled

  • What are the established principles for declaring a legislative enactment unconstitutional?
  • Whether the provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tourism Act, 2019 convert the regular service of existing employees into contractual service?
  • Does section 32 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tourism Act, 2019 apply to the existing regular employees of the respondent authority or only to future hirings?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Javed and 6 others vs Province of Sindh and others2019 MLD 368 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-15
  educational institutioncancellation of admissiondiscriminatory treatmentacademic probationfair hearingconstitutional petitionuniversity regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by students of NED University of Engineering and Technology challenging the cancellation of their admissions due to failure to maintain a 2.0 Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA). The core legal question was whether the university acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily by cancelling the petitioners' admissions without providing a fair hearing or an opportunity to improve their grades, while simultaneously granting such relief to other similarly situated students. The Court held that the university’s action was discriminatory and lacked legal basis, as it failed to apply its own relaxation policies consistently across the student body. The Court emphasized that while educational institutions possess the authority to set academic standards and admission criteria, such policies must be applied fairly and transparently. The holding established that students should be granted reasonable opportunities to rectify academic shortfalls within the maximum prescribed degree duration, rather than facing immediate, harsh cancellation. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned cancellation letters, directing the university to allow the petitioners to continue their studies and pursue grade improvement in accordance with the university's regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a university cancel a student's admission for failing to meet CGPA requirements without providing a fair opportunity to improve?
  • Does the discriminatory application of relaxation policies regarding academic probation violate the rights of students?
  • Is an educational institution required to consider the full scope of its prospectus, including maximum degree completion periods, before cancelling an admission?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan alias Sani and others vs State and another2019 YLR 2547, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 577 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-11
  murderself-defenseappreciation of evidenceacquittalstatement under section 342 CrPCdying declarationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Zeeshan alias Sani, under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Sajawal Pervez. The trial court had convicted the appellant while acquitting his co-accused, prompting cross-appeals by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence and challenging the acquittals. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s conviction could be maintained when the prosecution evidence was found to be unreliable, and whether the trial court correctly relied upon the appellant’s statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to secure a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the complainant’s presence was doubtful and the purported dying declaration was medically unsupported. The Court established that where prosecution evidence is unreliable, a conviction cannot be based on the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as such statements must be accepted or rejected in their entirety. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the statement of an accused recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution evidence is found unreliable?
  • Must a statement of an accused recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
  • Is a dying declaration reliable if the medical evidence indicates the deceased was not in a fit condition to make a statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan alias Manna vs The State2019 YLR 59 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-25
  murder convictionabsconding accusedSection 512 CrPCadmissibility of evidenceocular testimonymedical evidenceburden of proofjuvenile justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Ishaq. The core legal question concerned the admissibility of prosecution evidence recorded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of the appellant, who had absconded, particularly when the witnesses died prior to the subsequent trial. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was soundly based on consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence. The Court affirmed that statements recorded under Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, are admissible as evidence against an accused upon their arrest if the deponent has since died. Furthermore, the Court established that the burden of proving a specific defense plea, such as an alternative theory of the crime, rests upon the accused under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court also reiterated that the testimony of related witnesses is not inherently unreliable if they are natural witnesses and their accounts remain consistent.

  Questions settled

  • Can statements recorded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of an absconding accused be used as evidence against him if the witnesses have died?
  • Does the burden of proving a specific defense plea, such as the involvement of unknown third parties, lie with the accused under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is the testimony of related witnesses inherently unreliable in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Zartan Khan vs The Collector of Customs/(Appeals), Peshawar2019 PTD (Trib.) 125 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-02-19Read full judgment →
• Zarar A. Nasir (Pvt.) Limited vs Commissioner (Insurance), Securities2021 P C T L R 560, 2019 CLD 59 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2018-09-19Read full judgment →
• Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd through President and 2 others vs Masood2020 P C T L R 1008, 2019 CLD 1248 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Zarab Khan vs The State2019 LHC 51, 2019 P Cr. L J 544, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 739 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-10
  narcotic substancesrepresentative samplingsafe transmissionforensic reportcriminal appealpossession of narcoticschain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal questions concern the validity of representative sampling when narcotics are recovered in multiple pieces and the necessity of proving the safe transmission of samples to the forensic laboratory. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the representative nature of the samples taken from the bulk quantity, as the weight and number of individual pieces were not clarified. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to produce the official responsible for transporting the samples to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, thereby failing to prove safe custody and transmission. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 9(c) and modified it to convictions under Sections 9(a) and 9(b), basing the sentences solely on the weight of the samples confirmed by the forensic report. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of proof of safe transmission and representative sampling, a conviction can only be sustained for the quantity of narcotics actually analyzed and verified.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove the safe transmission of narcotic samples to a forensic laboratory render the forensic report inadmissible?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained based on the weight of samples when the representative nature of those samples from the bulk quantity is not established?
  • Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove the weight and number of individual pieces when narcotics are recovered in multiple pieces to secure a conviction for the total bulk quantity?
  Read full judgment →
• Zameer Ahmad, etc vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 217 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-05
  test identification paradebenefit of doubtcapital punishmentcriminal appealjoint identification paradeevidentiary valuemurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of the test identification parade and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt, noting that the identification parade was conducted jointly for multiple accused, which is disapproved, and that witnesses had allegedly seen the accused at the police station prior to the parade. Furthermore, the court found the recovery of the weapon inconsequential due to the absence of matching crime empties. The court emphasized that identification without reference to specific roles played by the accused lacks evidentiary value. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, setting aside the trial court's judgment and answering the murder reference in the negative. The court reaffirmed the principle that if prosecution evidence is not confidence-inspiring or admits to reasonable doubt, the benefit must be extended to the accused, as it is better to acquit the guilty than convict the innocent.

  Questions settled

  • Does a joint test identification parade for multiple accused persons possess evidentiary value?
  • Is identification of an accused person without reference to the specific role played during the occurrence legally sufficient for conviction?
  • Does the prior display of an accused to witnesses at a police station invalidate a subsequent test identification parade?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the recovery of the weapon is not supported by matching crime empties?
  Read full judgment →
• Zameen & 2 others vs Mata Khan & 2 others2019 PLD Peshawar 188, 2020 PLJ Cr.C (Peshawar) 229, 2019 PHC 102 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-11Read full judgment →
• Zakir Khan and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 PLD Sindh 248 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
• Zainal-Abdin Morio & 02 others vs Province of Sindh & another2019 SHC 150 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-16
  seniority listterms and conditions of servicewrit jurisdictionservice tribunalcivil servantconstitutional petitionArticle 212 bar
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Assistant Engineers (BPS-17), filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a direction to the Works and Services Department to issue a final seniority list. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition regarding the seniority of civil servants, given that seniority constitutes a term and condition of service. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, dismissing it on the grounds that matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court emphasized that Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, creates a clear bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters. The key principle laid down is that seniority disputes are exclusively adjudicable by the Service Tribunal, and civil servants cannot bypass this forum by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, even when alleging discrimination or the violation of fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition regarding the seniority of a civil servant?
  • Can a civil servant bypass the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by alleging a violation of fundamental rights in a seniority dispute?
  • Does the determination of seniority fall within the definition of 'terms and conditions of service' for civil servants?
  • Can a consent order passed in a previous writ petition be cited as a binding precedent to establish the maintainability of a subsequent petition involving different parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Zain-ul-Abideen vs Additional Sessions Judge etc2019 LHC 3340 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-26Read full judgment →
• Zaigum Abbas through real paternal uncle and another vs Government2019 MLD 916 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-12-03Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Hussain Shah Hashmi vs Secretary Education Schools and 62019 PLJ AJ&K 5, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 119 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  civil servantwrit jurisdictionservice tribunalterms and conditions of servicemaintainabilitydismissal in liminealternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged an order passed by the Secretary Education Schools dismissing his departmental appeal regarding his removal from service on the grounds of being overage. The matter came before the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir via a writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition concerning the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant when an alternative forum, the Service Tribunal, is established. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, as the dispute squarely fell within the domain of the Service Tribunal. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that the High Court’s jurisdiction is barred under Article 47(2) of the Interim Constitution where an administrative tribunal exists. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, establishing the principle that matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of civil servants must be adjudicated by the Service Tribunal, rendering the writ jurisdiction of the High Court unavailable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable when an adequate alternative remedy exists before a Service Tribunal?
  • Does the establishment of a Service Tribunal bar the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah vs The State2019 MLD 1562 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-13
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidenceunnatural conduct of witnessesrecovery of weaponacquittalappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the ocular evidence appeared unnatural and the recovery of the weapon was contested. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court observed that the conduct of the eyewitnesses—who allegedly apprehended the armed appellant after he killed their relative yet left him unharmed—was highly unnatural. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the weapon from the appellant's conscious possession, and the lack of forensic analysis linking the weapon to the crime scene empties created significant doubt. The court reiterated the settled principle that the benefit of any doubt, however slight, must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, as the prosecution failed to substantiate the charge beyond a shadow of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to harm an assailant they have apprehended immediately after a murder render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove that the recovered weapon was in the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused?
  • Does medical evidence alone serve as sufficient corroboration to establish the identity of an accused in a criminal case?
  • Is the benefit of doubt required to be extended to an accused when the prosecution's narrative of events is inconsistent with prudent human conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah vs The state etc2020 YLR 2683, 2019 PHC 371 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-03Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah vs Ayaz Ali etc2020 P Cr.L J 387, 2019 PHC 234 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-27
  dying declarationmurderabscondencesingle accusedsubstitution of accusedprompt FIReyewitness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, alongside a connected criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the deceased victim's dying declaration, the credibility of ocular testimony by related witnesses in a case involving a single accused, the significance of prompt reporting, and the corroborative value of the appellant's long-term abscondence. The Peshawar High Court dismissed both the appeal and the revision, holding that the prompt dying declaration made by a conscious injured person, corroborated by consistent eyewitness accounts and the appellant's prolonged abscondence, sufficiently proved the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. The court laid down that substitution of a single accused is a rare phenomenon in criminal jurisprudence, that a prompt report to the police eliminates the possibility of consultation or concoction, and that a dying declaration made in extremity carries high evidentiary value even though the injured survives for several days before succumbing to injuries.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be safely based on a dying declaration when the injured person survived for several days after recording the report?
  • Whether substitution of an innocent person for a single accused is a probable phenomenon in murder cases?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of an accused's long-term abscondence in corroborating direct and circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the absence or weakness of a motive adversely affect an otherwise proven prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah alias Shat vs The State through Advocate-General, Khuber Pakhtunkhwa2019 SCMR 2004 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-02
  Narcotic substancesDrug recoveryChain of custodyForensic evidenceGovernment Analyst reportConviction set asideAppealSafe transmissionSafe custodyControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns an appeal against the conviction and sentence of the appellant for possessing 10 kilograms of charas, registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and section 489-B, P.P.C. The core legal question addressed was whether the prosecution had satisfactorily established the safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered drug from the spot of recovery to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Supreme Court observed that the police constable who delivered the sealed parcel to the laboratory was not produced by the prosecution, a fact conceded by the learned law officer. The Court reiterated its established principle that an unbroken, unsuspicious, safe, and secure chain of custody is fundamental, as the Government Analyst's report constitutes the main evidence for conviction. Any break in this chain impairs and vitiates the conclusiveness and reliability of the report, rendering it insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside, with an order for immediate release.

  Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah alias Shat vs State through Advocate General, KPKPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  narcotics recoverychain of custodyforensic science laboratorycriminal appealillegal possession of charas
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which had been upheld by the High Court following a narcotics recovery of 10 kilograms of charas. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a break in the chain of custody regarding the transmission of the recovered narcotics to the forensic laboratory vitiates the conviction based on the Government Analyst's report. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of the drug since the police constable who delivered the sealed parcel to the Forensic Science Laboratory was not produced. The key principle laid down is that an unbroken, unsuspicious, safe, and secure chain of custody is fundamental in narcotics cases, and any break therein impairs the reliability of the Government Analyst's report, rendering it incapable of sustaining a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unbroken chain of custody is mandatory for sustaining a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Does the failure to produce the official who transmitted the parcel to the forensic laboratory vitiate the Government Analyst's report?
  • What is the legal effect of a break in the safe custody and transmission of recovered narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahida Tahira vs Javed Iqbal etc2019 YLR 785, 2019 LHC 150 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-25Read full judgment →
• Zahida Parveen alias Gooma and another vs The State etc2019 PCr.LJ 1491, 2019 LHC 1548 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-14
  narcoticssafe custody of case propertysample parcelsbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the unbroken chain of safe custody of the recovered contraband and the safe transmission of samples to the forensic laboratory. The Lahore High Court held that the police officers had improperly unsealed the case property to separate sample parcels after the initial recovery without court permission, and that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that proving an unbroken chain of safe custody of the recovered substance and safe transmission of samples is mandatory in narcotics cases, and failure to do so is fatal to the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unsealing of case property by police officials to separate sample parcels without court permission vitiates the recovery?
  • Is the proof of an unbroken chain of safe custody of recovered narcotics and sample parcels mandatory for securing a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • What are the legal consequences when the prosecution fails to establish safe transmission of samples to the forensic science agency?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Sultan vs State & another2019 YLR 2798, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 709 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-08
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancessearch warrantjurisdictional errorfurther inquiryprocedural illegality
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the recovery of 3437 grams of charas and a .30 bore pistol from his residential room. The core legal questions were whether the search conducted by the police was legally valid given the expiration of the search warrant and the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing Magistrate, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court observed that the search warrant, issued under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, had expired by the time of the raid. Furthermore, the Court held that a Judicial Magistrate lacks the jurisdiction to issue search warrants for cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, as such authority is exclusively vested in the Special Court under Section 20 of that Act. Additionally, the absence of an FSL report and the lack of independent witnesses rendered the prosecution's case subject to further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing that procedural violations regarding search warrants and jurisdictional errors by Magistrates in narcotic cases constitute valid grounds for bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Judicial Magistrate have the authority to issue a search warrant for cases registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does a search warrant issued under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, remain valid after the expiration of the time limit specified therein?
  • Is the absence of an FSL report a relevant factor when considering a bail petition in a narcotics case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Naseem and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2019 CLC 830, 2020 PLD Islamabad 130, 2019 IHC 28 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-18Read full judgment →
• Zahid Mehmood vs Member (Judicial-VII), Board of Revenue, etc2019 LHC 4062 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-27Read full judgment →
• Zahid Islam vs Mst. Rehmat Bibi , etc2020 CLC 54, 2019 LHC 2455 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-24Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs The State etc2020 P Cr.L J 1630, 2019 LHC 3369 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-18
  pre-arrest bailgamblingprocedural violationsearch and seizuremalafidetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from an FIR registered against the petitioner for alleged involvement in gambling and operating a gambling house. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the evidentiary material and the procedural legality of the police raid. The Court observed that the prosecution's narrative regarding the petitioner's escape from a single-entry room in the presence of seven armed police officers was implausible. Furthermore, the Court found that the investigating agency failed to establish the petitioner's ownership or tenancy of the premises. Crucially, the Court held that the raid was conducted in violation of the mandatory procedural requirements stipulated in Section 8 of the Punjab Prevention of Gambling Ordinance, 1978, which governs the power to enter and search premises suspected of being used as common gaming houses. Finding the allegations potentially malafide and noting that incarceration would cause irreparable harm to the petitioner's reputation, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that procedural non-compliance in search operations undermines the prosecution's case at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does a raid conducted in violation of the procedural requirements of Section 8 of the Punjab Prevention of Gambling Ordinance 1978 entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • Can the court grant pre-arrest bail if the prosecution fails to establish a nexus between the accused and the premises where the alleged offence occurred?
  • Is the failure of police to follow mandatory search procedures a valid ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs Mst. Farhana2019 MLD 720 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-21Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain Qureshi vs Government of Sindh through Secretary and 42019 CLC 1568 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-17Read full judgment →
• Zahid Abbas, Exlangri PB. Highway Patrol vs Aig_Administration, Punjab, CPO Office, Lahore and another2019 KLR L&S Cases 93, 2019 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 1 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  dismissal from servicehabitual absenteemedical certificatesproportionality of penaltyservice appealcondonation of delayreformatory punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an employee proceeded against departmentally under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 for absence from duty, challenged the major penalty of dismissal from service awarded by the competent authority and the subsequent rejection of his departmental appeal. The core legal question before the Punjab Service Tribunal was whether the penalty of dismissal was sustainable when medical certificates submitted by the appellant were neither verified nor considered, and whether the penalty was proportionate to the charge. The Tribunal held that the inquiry conducted in a perfunctory manner without verifying the medical certificates was flawed, and that the extreme penalty of dismissal was disproportionate and harsh for the nature of the absence, particularly given the reformatory concept of punishment in service matters. The Tribunal laid down the principle that punishing authorities must verify medical certificates submitted by civil servants rather than ignoring them, and that extreme penalties should not be imposed for minor acts of absence, as punishment in service matters should be reformatory.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inquiry officer is bound to verify or consider medical certificates submitted by a civil servant facing disciplinary proceedings for absence?
  • Does the penalty of dismissal from service commensurate with the charge of absence from duty when mitigating circumstances and medical grounds are presented?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to condone delay in filing a service appeal under the applicable limitation framework?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafrullah Khan vs Taj Ali & the State2019 PHC 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Zaffar Mahmood Khan and 5 others vs Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu2019 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 44, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1058 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-20Read full judgment →
• Zaffar Iqbal Khan Ecg Technician CMH, Rawalakot and 52 others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and 6 others2019 PLC (CS.) 995 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-05
  service rulespromotionvested rightvires of rulesservice tribunal jurisdictiongovernment prerogativecivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellants' petition against the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Health Department (Paramedics and Medical Assistants Dying Cadre (4 tiers formula) Service Rules, 2015. The appellants, employees of the Health Department, contended that the new rules curtailed their promotion opportunities by favoring diploma holders over degree holders, alleging mala fide intent. The core legal question was whether the government’s rule-making power could be challenged on the basis that it adversely affected the promotion prospects of civil servants. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the framing of service rules is the exclusive prerogative of the government. The Court affirmed that civil servants possess no vested right to demand specific promotion criteria or rule structures. Furthermore, rules can only be declared ultra vires if they conflict with the parent Act or the Constitution, which the appellants failed to demonstrate. While the Court corrected the Tribunal's erroneous finding regarding its own jurisdiction to determine the vires of rules, it upheld the dismissal of the appeal on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to have service rules framed in a manner that ensures their promotion?
  • Can the Service Tribunal determine the vires of service rules?
  • On what grounds can service rules framed by the government be declared illegal or ultra vires?
  • Is the framing of service rules considered the exclusive prerogative of the government?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1096, 2019 YLR 1916, 2019 LHC 1514 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-23
  narcotics controlchemical examiner reportrule 6 compliancerepresentative samplebenefit of doubtcriminal appealcharas recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession and transportation of a large quantity of charas. The core legal question revolves around whether a consolidated chemical examiner's report that fails to separately analyze each sample and provide full test protocols, coupled with a failure by the investigator to link individual samples to their respective recovered packets, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that non-compliance with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001—which mandates separate analysis and full test protocols for each sample—renders the chemical report inconclusive and unreliable. The key principles laid down are that the prosecution must establish the exact quantity and nature of the recovered narcotic substance beyond a shadow of doubt, that severe punishments require strict standards of proof, and that any reasonable doubt arising from investigative or analytical flaws must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a consolidated chemical examiner report failing to separately analyze each sample meets the legal requirements under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Is the prosecution's failure to link individual sample parcels to their specific packets of origin fatal to a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 render a chemical report inconclusive and untrustworthy?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the foundational evidence regarding the chemical composition and exact quantity of the recovered narcotic is burdened with reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal Khan, Ecg Technician, CMH, Rawalakot and 52 others vs Azad2019 P.S.C. 1150 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service rulespromotionvires of rulesservice tribunal jurisdictiongovernment prerogativecivil servantmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment of the Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellants' petition against the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Health Department (Paramedics and Medical Assistants Dying Cadre (4 tiers formula) Service Rules, 2015. The appellants, permanent employees of the Health Department, contended that these rules curtailed their promotion opportunities by favoring diploma holders over degree holders, alleging mala fide intent. The core legal question was whether the government's framing of these service rules was ultra vires or inconsistent with the Constitution or parent statutes. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the framing of service rules is the exclusive prerogative of the government. It found that the appellants failed to demonstrate any conflict between the new rules and the Constitution or parent statutes, nor did they substantiate claims of mala fide. The Court affirmed that civil servants possess no vested right to have promotion rules framed according to their personal preference. While clarifying that the Service Tribunal does possess jurisdiction to adjudicate the vires of service rules, the Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the vires of service rules?
  • Can a civil servant claim a vested right to have promotion rules framed in a specific manner?
  • Under what circumstances can service rules framed by the government be declared illegal or ultra vires?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Akbar vs Fed. of Pakistan and Ors2019 SHC 396 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-26
  promotionsupersessioncivil servantwrit jurisdictionservice rulesdepartmental representation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was instituted before the Sindh High Court to challenge the non-promotion of the petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC), and to question the appointment of a private respondent to a higher post. The core legal question centered on whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can interfere with departmental promotion matters and subjective performance evaluations, and whether the appointment of the private respondent suffered from inherent disqualification. The Court held that promotion is not a vested right, that courts will not sit in judgment over subjective performance evaluations unless objective criteria are violated, and that the petitioner, having been superseded due to average appraisal ratings, must avail appropriate remedies against the decision rendered on his departmental representation. The key principle laid down is that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to compel authorities to promote an employee, and the assessment of fitness for promotion involves subjective evaluation by reporting officers based on established objective frameworks which are generally immune to judicial interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with the subjective evaluation of a civil servant's fitness for promotion in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does an employee have a vested or fundamental right to claim promotion to a higher rank?
  • Whether supersession on the basis of average Confidential Reports constitutes a valid ground for refusing promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Zabeen Kousar vs Abdul Waheed2019 SC AJK 106 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-08Read full judgment →
• Yousuf Ali vs Muhammad Fayyaz and 2 others2019 YLR 1317 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-30Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Islam vs The State2020 YLR 317, 2019 PHC 176 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
• Younas vs The StatePLJ 2019 Cr.c. 1670, 2019 P Cr. LJ 1592 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-17
  dacoityfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of doubtnon-compoundable offencescriminal appealacquittalcorroborationmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for dacoity and receiving stolen property. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant’s conviction can be maintained when the prosecution’s evidence was disbelieved regarding five co-accused who were acquitted, and when the complainant attempted to compromise the matter with those co-accused despite the offences being non-compoundable. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, noting that the trial court improperly acquitted the co-accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for non-compoundable offences. The Court emphasized the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, ruling that evidence disbelieved against acquitted co-accused cannot be relied upon to convict the remaining appellant without strong, independent corroboration. Finding the complainant’s testimony unreliable and lacking such corroboration, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt. This judgment reaffirms that trial courts cannot permit the compounding of non-compoundable offences and that evidence must be consistent across all accused to support a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for a non-compoundable offence based on a compromise?
  • Does the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' prevent the conviction of an accused based on evidence that was disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused?
  • Is independent corroboration required to maintain a conviction when the sole ocular witness's testimony is found unreliable regarding co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasmin Haider vs CDA, etc2020 [M] C L R 156, 2019 PLD Islamabad 558, 2019 IHC 108 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-05Read full judgment →
• Yasmin Haider vs Capital Development Authority through Chairman2019 PLD Islamabad 558 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-05Read full judgment →
• Yasir Bashir vs Saba Yasir and others2019 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 9 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-01-10Read full judgment →
• Yasir Bashir and others vs Saba Yasir and others2019 P.S.C. 443 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Yasir Ayyaz vs The State2019 LHC 88 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-30
  rapedigital evidenceconsentdelay in FIRelectronic crimesforensic analysiscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for rape and offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act. The core legal questions concern the impact of a 15-day delay in reporting the incident and the admissibility of video footage capturing the assault. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the trial court's judgment. The Court held that delay in reporting sexual assault is not fatal to the prosecution's case, as victims often experience profound psychological trauma and fear of social stigma. Regarding the video evidence, the Court affirmed its admissibility under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, noting that digital evidence, when verified by forensic analysis, provides reliable proof of culpability. Furthermore, the Court established that consent cannot be inferred from a victim's submission or quiescence under duress; submission under fear or terror is legally distinct from voluntary consent. The judgment emphasizes that the virtue of a woman is not determined by her anatomy, and forensic corroboration is unnecessary when ocular testimony is confidence-inspiring.

  Questions settled

  • Is a delay in reporting a rape case fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can video footage of a crime be admitted as evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What is the legal distinction between consent and submission in the context of a rape charge?
  • Does the absence of seminal stains in forensic reports invalidate a rape conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasin Khan vs Additional District Judge No.VII, Islamabad and others2019 IHC 102 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-06-10Read full judgment →
• Yasin Khan vs Additional District Judge No.VII, District Judge West, Islamabad and 2 others2020 [M] C L R 329, 2019 YLR 2894 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-08-02Read full judgment →
• Yasin Baig and others vs State through Advocate General, Aj&K and others2019 YLR 2746 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-14Read full judgment →
• Yaseen Khan vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-29
  murderdeath sentence mitigationdeaf and dumb accusedright to fair trialunproven motivestrangulationconviction upheldsentence reduced to life imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his sister-in-law under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of ocular and medical evidence, the impact of an unproven motive on the quantum of sentence, and whether a fair trial was compromised given the appellant's condition as a deaf and dumb person. The Sindh High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through natural eyewitness and medical corroboration. However, concerning the sentence, the court held that an unproven motive and the appellant's disability—specifically being deaf and dumb without adequate capacity to communicate with state-provided counsel throughout the trial—constituted mitigating circumstances warranting leniency. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal as to conviction but partly allowed it regarding the sentence, converting the death penalty to imprisonment for life while maintaining the compensation order with a modification as to simple imprisonment in default.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive serves as a mitigating circumstance for converting a death sentence into imprisonment for life?
  • Does the trial of an accused who is deaf and dumb without continuous assistance for effective communication violate the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can medical and ocular evidence successfully corroborate a murder charge even when the motive set up by the prosecution remains unproven?
  Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad and another vs The State2019 YLR 2078 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-23
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionconcealment of evidenceheinous offencerule of consistencytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal bail applications filed by the accused applicants seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants, who were nominated in the FIR with specific roles of concealing the murder, providing false information regarding the cause of death, and attempting to hurriedly bury the deceased, were entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly on the grounds of further inquiry and the rule of consistency. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail applications, holding that the material on record prima facie connected the applicants to a heinous offence carrying capital punishment, that they had shared a common intention with the principal offender to conceal the evidence, and that the rule of consistency did not apply since a co-accused had been granted bail purely on medical grounds. The key principle laid down is that persons who unite with a common purpose to conceal a crime and assist in the completion of a criminal object are equally prima facie culpable, and deeper appreciation of evidence is to be avoided at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when a co-accused has been granted bail solely on medical grounds?
  • Can accused persons who attempt to conceal a murder and facilitate a cover-up be denied post-arrest bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the concealment of a firearm injury and misrepresentation of the cause of death prima facie connect accessories to the main offence under common intention?
  Read full judgment →
• Yaqub Ali Khan vs Federal Public Service Commission through Chairman and another2019 PLC (C.S.) 484, 2019 PLJ SC 182, 2019 P.S.C. 1091, 2019 SCMR 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-12-19
  leave to appealpublic service commissionrequisite experienceemployment qualificationcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Islamabad High Court dismissing the petitioner's challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 2 to the post of Divisional Forest Officer (BS-18) by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). The core legal question concerns whether respondent No. 2 possessed the requisite five years of experience in the relevant field for the advertised post. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the High Court and the FPSC regarding the sufficiency and relevance of the respondent's experience were well-founded, noting that the respondent's verified government service, his association with a recognized joint venture project, and the two-year experience credit for holding an M.Phil degree collectively exceeded the required threshold. The court laid down the principle that factual determinations regarding candidate qualifications and experience, verified through proper departmental inquiries and supported by record, do not warrant interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution in the absence of any legal, procedural, or jurisdictional error.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Public Service Commission's verification of a candidate's experience through relevant departmental authorities is legally sustainable?
  • Can a candidate claim experience credit for holding an M.Phil degree towards the minimum experience requirement for a public post?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings regarding candidate qualifications under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Yameen vs The State2019 YLR 422 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-01
  illegal weapon possessionbenefit of doubtrecovery proceedingsindependent witnessescriminal appealSection 103 Cr.P.C.Sindh Arms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for the alleged illegal possession of a firearm. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the necessity of associating independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the impact of material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused. It emphasized that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is mandatory, and the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area, without justification, creates significant doubt. Furthermore, the Court highlighted material contradictions, such as discrepancies between the recovery memo and the Forensic Science Laboratory report, and the impossible timeline regarding the investigation's commencement. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Is the association of independent witnesses mandatory under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during recovery proceedings in a populated area?
  • Does the Sindh Arms Act 2013 completely exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Yameen Khan vs Inspector General of Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PLC (C.S.) 1511 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-03
  constitutional petitionpolice constable recruitmentappointment ordersselection board recommendationslachessimilarly placed candidates
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioners seeking directions for the issuance of their appointment orders as Police Constables in District Kohistan on the analogy of similarly placed candidates. The core legal question was whether qualified candidates, duly recommended for appointment by the Selection Board against available vacancies, could be arbitrarily denied appointment by the respondents. The Peshawar High Court held that once candidates successfully complete the selection process and are recommended by the competent board, a vested right accrues to them, and denying appointment without plausible reasons or despite the availability of vacancies is illegal and malafide. The court laid down the principle that similarly placed candidates who have qualified the recruitment process are entitled to consistent treatment, and the defense of laches cannot be invoked where valid vacancies existed and previous coordinate petitions were accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether candidates who have qualified the NTS test and interview for public office can be denied appointment despite recommendations by the Selection Board?
  • Does the principle of laches apply when qualified candidates are ignored for appointment while vacancies remain available?
  • Are similarly placed candidates entitled to the same treatment and relief granted in earlier judgments of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• World Call Cable (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & another2020 CLC 534, 2019 SHC 472 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Wisal Kamal Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs Commissioner Inland2019 PTD 1077 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-05Read full judgment →
• Willayat Ali vs Naheed Hussain and others2019 PLD Sindh 18 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-04Read full judgment →
• Waziristan Khan etc vs The State etc2020 YLR 827, 2019 LHC 4080 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-25
  murder appealcapital punishmentrigor mortismedical jurisprudencechance witnessmotivebenefit of the doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences of the appellants under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony of chance witnesses, the contradiction between the medical evidence regarding the time of death (rigor mortis) and the prosecution's stated timeline, and the sufficiency of the prosecution's proof regarding motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the time of occurrence, rendering the medical evidence inconsistent with the ocular account, and that the eyewitnesses were unreliable chance witnesses whose presence was unproven. The court acquitted the appellants, laying down the principle that medical evidence regarding rigor mortis in sudden deaths of healthy individuals must be evaluated against scientific treatises, and that material discrepancies regarding the time of occurrence and uncorroborated chance witnesses demolish the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether medical opinion regarding the time of death based on rigor mortis can override contradictory ocular testimony?
  • Can the testimony of uncorroborated chance witnesses be relied upon to sustain a conviction for capital murder?
  • What is the evidentiary value of motive when the primary ocular account has been disbelieved?
  • Does a failure by the prosecution to establish the exact time of occurrence in the FIR damage the root of its case?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazir vs The State & another2019 PLJ SC Cr.C. 416, 2019 SCP 176, 2019 SCMR 1297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-29
  criminal appealconfessional statementabduction for ransommedical evidencebenefit of doubtre-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under anti-terrorism laws for abduction for ransom resulting in murder, where the High Court had altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether the appellant's conviction could be sustained primarily on the basis of an elaborate confessional statement that conflicted with medical evidence and had been disbelieved regarding co-accused. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that an un-natural and detailed confessional statement contradicted by medical findings and discarded against co-accused cannot form a safe basis for conviction. The key principle laid down is that a tainted or partially disbelieved confessional statement cannot be used piecemeal to sustain the conviction of an accused without independent, reliable corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an elaborate confessional statement that conflicts with medical evidence can be relied upon to sustain a conviction?
  • Can a confessional statement disbelieved qua the majority of co-accused be used as a basis to convict another co-accused?
  • Whether non-compliance with the procedural requirements of recording confessions under the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiates its voluntariness?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazir Khan vs Nazar Jaffar and others2019 IHC 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-04Read full judgment →
• Water and Sanitation Agency, Lahore vs Lotte Akhtar Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore etc2019 SCMR 1160, 2019 SCP 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-07-02
  water conservationwater cessflow metersNational Bank of Pakistanenvironmental protectionnatural resourcesindustrial water usage
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns proceedings before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the conservation and regulation of water resources, specifically focusing on the implementation of a uniform water cess, the installation of flow meters at industrial units, and the proper management and investment of collected water cess funds. The core legal question revolves around establishing regulatory mechanisms for groundwater and surface water usage, ensuring accountability through flow meters, and directing the investment of collected funds into secure treasury instruments under judicial oversight. The Court held that provincial governments and the Islamabad Capital Territory must deposit water cess funds into a designated 'Water Conservation Account' at the National Bank of Pakistan for onward investment in treasury bills, install required flow meters and CCTV cameras within stipulated timelines, and draft uniform legislation targeting industrial users initially. The key principles laid down include judicial supervision of environmental and natural resource funds, the necessity of mandatory flow meter installations for industrial water consumers, and the formulation of uniform provincial legislation for water conservation.

  Questions settled

  • How should water cess funds collected by provincial governments and the Islamabad Capital Territory be deposited and invested?
  • What directives can the Court issue regarding the installation of flow meters and monitoring equipment at industrial water consumption units?
  • Can the court mandate the framing of regulations for installing push-button faucets at public and commercial water supply points?
  Read full judgment →
• Water & Sanitation Agency, Lahore through its M.D vs Lottee Akhtar2019 SCMR 1146, 2019 SCP 218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-23
  judicial proprietywater tariffjudicial comityparallel proceedingsimplementation benchwater conservationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to the water tariff levied by the Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA) pursuant to a notification issued under the LDA Act, 1975, which was implemented in compliance with Supreme Court directions in SMC No. 26 of 2018 regarding water conservation. The core legal question was whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition challenging a notification issued in direct compliance with Supreme Court orders, while the implementation of those orders remained sub judice before a specialized Implementation Bench of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in assuming jurisdiction over a matter already pending before the Supreme Court, thereby violating judicial propriety and comity. The Court suspended the High Court's interim injunctive order, stayed the pending writ petitions, and directed that all objections regarding the water tariff must be filed exclusively before the Supreme Court. The judgment establishes the principle that parties cannot bypass the hierarchy of judicial fora or initiate parallel proceedings to challenge actions taken in compliance with Supreme Court mandates, which must be addressed solely within the established implementation proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court entertain a challenge to a notification issued in compliance with a Supreme Court order while the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court?
  • Does the filing of a writ petition to challenge actions taken under Supreme Court directions constitute an attempt to undermine the judicial process?
  • Where must objections regarding the implementation of Supreme Court directions on water tariff collection be filed?
  Read full judgment →
• Wateen Telecom Ltd. through Authorized Attorney vs Sindh through The Secretary of Ministry of Finance Government of Sindh, Karachi and 2 others2019 PTD 1030 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-09
  tax auditSindh Sales Tax on Services Actselection for auditreasons for auditdiscretionary poweraudit at taxpayer premisesinterim injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction was brought by Wateen Telecom Ltd. challenging a notice dated 25.06.2018 issued under Section 28(2) of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 ('Sindh Act'), whereby the plaintiff was selected for tax audit for tax year 2014 and directed to permit a designated audit team to visit its business premises. The plaintiff sought to restrain any further action under the notice. The core legal questions were whether an officer under the Sindh Act can select a registered taxpayer for audit under Section 28 without recording and communicating cogent reasons based on an examination of tax returns, and whether the Sindh Act authorizes conducting audit proceedings directly at the office or business premises of the taxpayer. The High Court granted an injunction, holding that discretionary statutory powers must be exercised reasonably and non-arbitrarily. The Court held that selecting a taxpayer for audit requires a tentative examination of returns and recorded reasons in the notice, and that conducting an audit at the taxpayer's premises is unauthorized under the Sindh Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 28 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 require tax authorities to record and provide reasons when selecting a taxpayer for audit?
  • Can tax authorities under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 conduct an audit at the business premises of a taxpayer without express statutory authority?
  • Is a tax audit selection notice issued without specifying valid reasons or tentative grounds legally enforceable?
  Read full judgment →
• Wateen Telecom Limited: In the matter of vs Not2021 PCTLR 1455, 2019 CLD 188 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2018-11-20Read full judgment →
• Waseem-Ur-Rehman & another vs Qari Fathat Ullah & others2019 CLC 1817, 2019 PHC 144 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• Waseem Riaz and 119 others vs Ministry of Capital Administration and Development (Cadd) through Secretary and another2019 PLC (C.S.) 403 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-06
  regularization of servicedaily wage employeescivil servantinitial appointmenttransparency in recruitmentultra viresvested rightsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the non-implementation of a 2013 notification regarding the regularization of daily wage employees in the Federal Directorate of Education. The core legal questions concerned whether the Cabinet Sub-Committee’s regularization policy was legally valid, whether the petitioners acquired vested rights through their daily wage service, and whether regularization could bypass the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The Court held that the regularization of daily wage employees constitutes an initial appointment, which must strictly adhere to the statutory framework. Finding that the 2013 notification and the Cabinet Sub-Committee's policy were ultra vires the Act of 1973 and the APT Rules, the Court dismissed the petition. It established that policies cannot override primary legislation, and appointments made without transparent, competitive processes are void. The Court emphasized that public appointments are a sacred trust requiring merit-based selection, and illegal appointments cannot be regularized to create vested rights or legitimate expectations, as doing so would violate the fundamental rights of qualified candidates and the public interest.

  Questions settled

  • Can a policy of the Federal Government override the provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973?
  • Does the regularization of daily wage employees constitute an initial appointment under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can an appointment made without observing the principles of transparency and competitive process create a vested right for regularization?
  • Is the Cabinet Sub-Committee on regularization empowered to bypass statutory requirements for the appointment of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Waseem Ijaz vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and another2019 [M] C.L.R. 1649 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-18Read full judgment →
• Waseem Ijaz vs Additional District Judge, Lahore & another2019 CLC 1516, 2019 PLJ Lahore 359 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-18Read full judgment →
• Waseem Akram vs The Secretary and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1299 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-20
  contract appointmentsadministrative committeeboard of managementmedical institutiondiscriminatory treatmentcolorable exercise of powerconstitutional rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenges a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby writ petitions against the recall of the appellants' contract appointments at Sheikh Zayed Medical College/Hospital, Rahimyar Khan, were dismissed. The core legal question concerned the legality of the Administrative Committee's decision to withdraw the contract and ad hoc appointments made during a period when the Board of Management was non-functional. The Lahore High Court held that running the institution's affairs through an Administrative Committee without constituting the Board of Management since 2015 is against the spirit of the Punjab Medical and Health Institutions Act, 2003, and that the withdrawal of the appellants' appointments was colorable, discriminatory, and without lawful authority. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned notification, and directed the respondents to establish the Board of Management and place the appellants' cases before the competent authority in accordance with the law, ensuring rights guaranteed under Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Administrative Committee can permanently substitute the Board of Management under the Punjab Medical and Health Institutions Act, 2003?
  • Can employees be prejudiced or victimized for administrative omissions or lack of a functional Board of Management on the part of the Government?
  • Whether the withdrawal of contract appointments without providing a valid, reasoned basis and treating similar categories of employees differently is legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Waris vs The State2019 YLR 2381 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-20
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtunlicensed weaponrecovery evidencesafe administration of criminal justiceballistic reportpolice witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and ten-year sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 23(i) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for the alleged possession of an unlicensed 7MM rifle. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of the weapon beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of procedural lapses and the absence of independent corroboration. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to the failure to produce police departure and arrival entries, the lack of independent witnesses despite prior intelligence, and an unexplained six-day delay in transmitting the weapon for ballistic analysis. Furthermore, the trial court failed to properly put the ballistic report to the accused during his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to meet the strict standard of proof required for criminal conviction, and extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, emphasizing that the harsher the sentence, the stricter the standard of proof required for safe administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce police departure and arrival entries in a recovery case create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to explain a significant delay in sending a recovered weapon for ballistic analysis?
  • Does the failure to put the ballistic expert report to the accused during his statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiate the conviction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of police witnesses when there are material contradictions and no independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqas Khan vs Dr. Seema Hanif2019 PLD Peshawar 180, 2019 PHC 98 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-25Read full judgment →
• Waqar Haider and Ors vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2019 SHC 322 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-30
  writ jurisdictionconstitutional petitionfactual controversydismissal in limineservice matterssuperannuationmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a constitutional petition seeking the removal of the Principal of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Model School and Colleges, Karachi, alleging that she had reached the age of superannuation and suffered from mental incapacity. The petitioners further contended that her re-employment violated the Civil Aviation Authority’s policy and relevant service regulations. The core legal question was whether the High Court, under its constitutional jurisdiction, could adjudicate upon factual allegations regarding the mental capacity and employment status of an official in a semi-government entity. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable because the allegations were bald, lacked concrete proof, and involved factual controversies that could not be resolved through writ jurisdiction without evidence. The Court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is not the appropriate forum for determining disputed questions of fact or conducting inquiries into the mental capacity or conduct of individuals in such administrative roles. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, with the petitioners granted liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies elsewhere.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court adjudicate upon disputed factual allegations regarding the mental capacity of a school principal in writ jurisdiction?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when the underlying dispute requires the examination of evidence and resolution of factual controversies?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 to remove an official based on allegations of mental incapacity and improper re-employment without prior evidentiary proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmed Siddiqui and 3 others vs Mst. Shehnaz Parveen2019 CLC 369 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-06Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmad vs Ahmad Hussain2019 CLC 1632, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 140, 2019 PHC 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-15Read full judgment →
• Waqar A. Shamsi vs The State2019 SCP 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-14
  circumstantial evidenceabduction for ransomhomicidecriminal appeallast seen evidenceterrorism chargeconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by convicts against their convictions for abduction for ransom, terrorism, and homicide. The core legal question was whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the charges of abduction for ransom and terrorism, given the circumstantial nature of the evidence. The Supreme Court held that while the prosecution successfully established a chain of circumstances linking the appellants to the homicide—including last-seen evidence, exclusive knowledge of the crime scene, and recovery of incriminating items—it failed to produce concrete evidence linking the appellants to the ransom demand or the specific act of abduction for ransom. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions for homicide under Section 302(b) but acquitted the appellants of charges under Section 365-A and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The key principle laid down is that while convictions may be sustained on circumstantial evidence if a complete chain is established, charges requiring specific proof, such as ransom demands, cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or insufficient data.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for homicide be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Is a conviction for abduction for ransom sustainable without proof linking the accused to the specific ransom demand?
  • Does the failure to prove a ransom demand necessitate acquittal for charges under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court modify sentences and acquit on specific charges while upholding convictions for other offenses in the same trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqar A. Shamsi and another vs The State2019 SCMR 2039 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-14
  murderabduction for ransomcircumstantial evidencelast seen evidencecriminal appealacquittalSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the convictions of the appellants for murder, abduction for ransom, and terrorism in relation to the kidnapping and killing of an eighteen-year-old student whose body was recovered following a disclosure by one of the appellants. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—including last seen evidence, exclusive knowledge, and recovery of incriminating material—was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the chain of circumstances conclusively established the appellants' guilt for murder, the prosecution failed to provide positive proof linking them to the ransom call or the charge of abduction for ransom, as the calls originated from a public calling booth without subscriber verification. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but acquitted the appellants of the charges under section 365-A of the Code and section 7(e) of the relevant anti-terrorism law. The key principle laid down is that in circumstantial evidence cases, a complete and unbreakable chain pointing directly to the accused is required for murder, and mere suspicion or unverified anonymous communications are insufficient to sustain a charge of abduction for ransom.

  Questions settled

  • Whether circumstantial evidence consisting of last seen and exclusive knowledge is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction?
  • Can a conviction for abduction for ransom be sustained solely on the basis of an anonymous phone call without proof of the caller's identity?
  • Whether the failure to prove ransom transaction warrants acquittal under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Director Legal, WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and 2 others2019 KLR Supreme Court 355 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• WAPDA through Director Legal WAPDA, Lahore and another vs Fehmida2019 P.S.C. 680 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• WAPDA through Director Legal WAPDA and another vs Fahmida Begum and 7 others2019 MLD 1329 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-11-28Read full judgment →
• Wang Xing vs The State through Customs Department SRDP Sost2019 MLD 1252 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-11-19
  post-arrest bailsmugglingcustoms actfurther inquirycontraband
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Wang Xing, Managing Director of an importing company, who was implicated in FIR No. 05 of 2018 registered at Custom S.R.D.P. Sost regarding the recovery of concealed liquor in an imported plywood consignment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of immediate evidence establishing his conscious involvement and the absence of a pre-FIR notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as the petitioner's conscious knowledge and the implications of non-service of notice required deeper appreciation of evidence at trial. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where tentative assessment reveals arguable points regarding the accused's conscious involvement and procedural compliance such as statutory notice, the case warrants the concession of further inquiry and bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-service of a mandatory notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969 before lodging an FIR brings a bail case within the scope of further inquiry?
  • Can a Managing Director be denied post-arrest bail without establishing direct conscious involvement in the concealment of contraband items during importation?
  • Whether deeper appreciation of evidence is permissible while deciding a post-arrest bail application under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Returning Officer and 18 others2019 PLD Balochistan 68, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 8 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-18Read full judgment →
• Walayat Hussain vs Watershed Management Officer, Mirpur & 3 others2019 PLJ AJ&K 101 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-12Read full judgment →
• Wakeel Akhtar vs Shahzad Alam2019 SHC 456, 2021 CLC 54 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-29Read full judgment →
• Wajid Khan and others vs The State etc2020 P Cr.L J 454, 2019 PHC 298 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-22
  quashment of FIRspecial law vs general lawmineral sector governancelicensing authoritystatutory interpretationcognizable offenceprocedural compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions seeking the quashment of FIRs registered against the petitioners for alleged violations of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Mineral Sector Governance Act, 2016. The core legal question was whether an FIR for offences under the Act could be registered by a person other than the 'Licensing Authority' or an officer authorized by it, given the specific reporting requirements stipulated in Section 83 of the Act. The Court held that the FIRs were registered in violation of the law because the reporting was not initiated by the designated authority. The Court emphasized that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act to be performed, it must be strictly followed. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the principle that in cases of conflict between a special law and a general law, the special law prevails. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned FIRs, ruling that the general provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, must be read in conjunction with, and effectively limited by, the specific requirements of the special statute.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR for offences under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Mineral Sector Governance Act, 2016 be registered by a person other than the Licensing Authority or an authorized officer?
  • Does a special law prevail over the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding the registration of an FIR?
  • Is the requirement that an act be done in a particular manner under a statute a mere technicality?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajeeh-Ul-Hassan vs The State2020 PSC (Crl.) 50, 2019 SCMR 1994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-25
  blasphemycapital punishmentextrajudicial confessionhandwriting expertbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealabsconsion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the death sentence of the appellant, Wajeeh-ul-Hassan, convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge under sections 295-A, 295-C, and 298-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for allegedly sending blasphemous letters to an advocate. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the evidence, including an extrajudicial confession, handwriting expert comparison, and absconsion, to sustain a capital conviction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt. The Court held that capital punishment requires the highest degree of caution, that weak pieces of evidence cannot corroborate one another, that extrajudicial confessions are inherently weak, and that a criminal charge must be established on positive proof rather than surmise or perception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extrajudicial confession and a handwriting expert's report constitute sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain the death penalty in a blasphemy case?
  • Can one weak piece of prosecution evidence corroborate another weak piece of evidence?
  • Does absconsion alone serve as conclusive proof of guilt?
  • Is a criminal charge to be settled on positive proof rather than perceptional or optical paradigms?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajahat vs Gul Daraz & another2019 SCMR 1451, 2019 PLJ SC Cr.C. 419, 2019 SCP 140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-30
  murder convictioncircumstantial evidenceabsconsionburden of proofadverse presumptionadversarial trialspousal homicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code for the homicidal death of his wife in their home. The trial court's conviction and life sentence were affirmed by the High Court, primarily based on the appellant's failure to explain the circumstances of his wife's death under his roof and his subsequent absconsion. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether such presumptions and failure to explain could legally sustain a conviction in the absence of positive proof. The Court held that the prosecution must prove its case on its own strength and cannot rely on the weakness of the defense. The appellant's failure to explain the incident under Article 121 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, or his absconsion, does not equate to evidentiary certainty or an adverse presumption of guilt. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the appellant's release.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted of murder solely on the basis of presumptions or a failure to explain the circumstances of a death occurring within their household?
  • Does the absconsion of an accused from the law equate to an admission or proof of guilt?
  • Whether an accused's failure to explain how a spouse died under the same roof creates an adverse presumption under Article 121 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, sufficient to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Wahid Khan son of Shamshi Khan vs The State etc2019 PHC 300 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07
  Qatl-e-Amdcircumstantial evidencematrimonial homeburden of proofabscondencesentence enhancementcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for the Qatl-e-Amd of his wife. The core legal question concerns whether circumstantial evidence, specifically the death of the deceased within the matrimonial home and the appellant’s subsequent abscondence, suffices to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the sentence warrants enhancement. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstances. It affirmed the conviction, ruling that when a spouse is murdered within the shared matrimonial residence, the husband bears a legal burden to provide a plausible explanation for the unnatural death. The appellant’s failure to offer such an explanation, combined with his unexplained abscondence and the medical evidence of torture, created a strong inference of guilt. The Court dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement, noting that the interests of the surviving children were best served by maintaining the life sentence rather than imposing capital punishment. The judgment reinforces the principle that exclusive access to the crime scene and subsequent flight constitute significant incriminating evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of a wife within the matrimonial home shift the burden of proof to the husband to explain the circumstances of her death?
  • Can willful abscondence of an accused following the death of his spouse be considered a strong incriminating circumstance?
  • Is a complainant entitled to file an appeal against the acquittal of an accused under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act 2013?
  Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bux alias Wahidoo vs The State2020 KLR Criminal Cases 265, 2019 MLD 810 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-13
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionfatal injuryprohibitory clausepolice opinion in challanocular and medical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from the dismissal of post-arrest bail for the applicant-accused, Wahid Bux alias Wahidoo, who was nominated along with four others for murder and other offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in Crime No. 02/2015. The core legal questions involved whether the absence of motive in the FIR, the attribution of injury to a non-vital part of the body, and the police declaring certain co-accused innocent during investigation constitute grounds for further inquiry warranting post-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that specific roles assigned in the FIR, supported by eyewitness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, medical evidence, and the application of common intention principles under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, disentitled the accused to bail. The court laid down the principle that when armed assailants attack a victim jointly, the precise attribution of a fatal injury is immaterial at the bail stage, and police opinions regarding innocence in challans are not binding on courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to attribute a fatal injury to a specific accused on a vital body part constitutes a ground for post-arrest bail in a murder case involving multiple armed assailants?
  • Does the police opinion declaring certain co-accused innocent in the challan bind the court or strengthen the bail case of another co-accused?
  • Is the absence of a stated motive in the First Information Report sufficient to make the prosecution case a matter of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the effect of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on the liability of individual co-accused persons when an unarmed victim is attacked by multiple armed persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bukhsh vs Multan Electric Power Oompany, Khanewal Road, Multan through Chief Executive and others2019 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 59 · Labour Appellate Tribunal
  compulsory retirementgrievance petitionestoppelshow-cause noticepensionary benefitslabour lawlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Punjab Labour Court No. VIII, Bahawalpur, which dismissed the appellant's grievance petition against his compulsory retirement from service. The appellant, a former employee of the Multan Electric Power Company, was retired following allegations of illegal tubewell installation. The core legal questions were whether a regular inquiry was mandatory despite the appellant's admission of guilt, and whether the appellant was estopped from challenging his retirement after voluntarily accepting pensionary benefits. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the dismissal of the grievance petition was correct. The Tribunal ruled that where an employee admits to the charges in response to a show-cause notice, a formal inquiry is unnecessary. Furthermore, the Court found that the appellant’s acceptance of pensionary benefits created an estoppel, preventing him from subsequently challenging the retirement order. Additionally, the Court noted that the appellant's alleged departmental appeal was time-barred. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that the penalty was imposed in accordance with the law and the grievance petition was meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Is a regular inquiry mandatory when an employee admits guilt in response to a show-cause notice?
  • Does the acceptance of pensionary benefits after compulsory retirement create an estoppel against challenging the retirement order?
  • Can a grievance petition be maintained if the underlying departmental appeal is time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Waheed Shahzad Butt vs The Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2019 PTD 141 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2018-10-18Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ali vs Province of Sindh and others2019 SHC 336 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-04Read full judgment →
• Vijay Pervaiz vs The State2019 YLR 2540 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-23
  acid attackanti-terrorismvictim testimonymedical evidencecriminal appealdisfigurementconfession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 336(B) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for throwing acid on the victims and sentencing him to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment with a fine and property confiscation. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt through direct, medical, and circumstantial evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the testimonies of the injured victims, corroborated by medical evidence, the shopkeeper's identification regarding the sale of acid, and the appellant's disclosure statement establishing motive, conclusively proved the guilt of the appellant. The court laid down the principle that the unimpeachable and confidence-inspiring testimonies of victim-eyewitnesses of an acid attack, resulting in permanent disfigurement, are sufficient to sustain a conviction without requiring further corroborative evidence, and that a simple denial by the accused carries no weight against solid prosecution proof.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sole testimony of injured victims in an acid attack case is sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroborative evidence?
  • Does a mere denial by the accused suffice to rebut reliable and consistent prosecution evidence in heinous crimes?
  • Whether the disclosure statement of an accused leading to the discovery of motive and purchase of the weapon of offense strengthens the circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →