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.

• Vijay Mohan Singh vs State of Karnataka2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 644 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-04-10
  appeal against acquittaldying declarationdowry deathmurderre-appreciation of evidenceperverse judgmentappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka, which reversed the acquittal of the appellant-accused by the trial court and convicted him under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (and Indian equivalent provisions as cited in the judgment) for the murder of his wife, as well as under Section 498A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the scope and power of the appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal, the reliability of a dying declaration, and whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without explicitly addressing every reason given by the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in re-appreciating the evidence and reversing the acquittal because the trial court's approach was patently erroneous, its conclusions were wholly untenable, and it had wrongly discarded a trustworthy dying declaration proved by the Metropolitan Magistrate and medical officers. The key principle laid down is that while an appellate court should give due weight to an acquittal, it possesses wide powers to review the entire evidence and set aside an acquittal if the trial court's view is perverse or demonstrably unsustainable, and the appellate court's conviction will not be vitiated merely for failing to expressly refute each ground of the trial court if the appellate judgment itself is free from infirmities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can reverse an order of acquittal solely on re-appreciating the evidence when two reasonable views are possible?
  • Is the conviction of an accused vitiated merely because the High Court, while reversing an order of acquittal, did not explicitly address every individual reason given by the trial court?
  • Can a dying declaration recorded by a magistrate and supported by medical evidence as to the mental fitness of the declarant form the sole basis for a conviction?
  • What are the parameters for interfering with an order of acquittal in an appeal filed by the State?
  Read full judgment →
• Varun Pahwa vs Mrs. Renu Chaudhry2019 P.S.C. 913 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-03-01Read full judgment →
• Vaqar Ahson vs Zulfiqar Mohammad and another2019 CLC 475 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-19Read full judgment →
• V. Ravi Kumar vs State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 139 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• Uzma Sheikh vs Divisional Director (Female) Schools Elementary and Secondary Education Muzaffarabad Division Muzaffarabad2019 SC AJK 56 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-05Read full judgment →
• Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Regional2019 MLD 1124 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-26
  criminal acquittal appealcondonation of delaylimitation actdepartmental delaycriminal breach of trusttime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan against a trial court judgment acquitting the respondent of charges relating to criminal breach of trust and corruption after a full trial. The core legal question was whether the delay of twenty-three months in filing the criminal acquittal appeal could be condoned under the Limitation Act upon explanations of departmental processing time. The Sindh High Court held that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred as the appellant failed to explain the delay of each day, and that governmental or corporate departments cannot be treated differently from private litigants regarding the law of limitation. The court laid down the principle that departmental delays caused by routing files through higher authorities for administrative approval do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning prolonged delays in filing criminal appeals without accounting for every day's delay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether departmental delay caused by seeking administrative approval from higher authorities constitutes a sufficient ground for condoning a prolonged delay in filing a criminal acquittal appeal?
  • Must a defaulting party applying for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act account for and explain the delay of each day?
  • Can the government or a statutory corporation be treated differently from a private litigant on questions of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Ghani Muhammad Vohra and another vs Additional District2019 CLC 854 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-03Read full judgment →
• Usman and another vs The State2019 SHC 564 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
• Usman Ali Chhachhar vs Moula Buz Chachhar and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 34, 2020 P SC 181, 2019 SCMR 2043, 2019 SCP 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-17
  service tribunaldepartmental appeallimitationcondonation of delaycivil servantscompetency of appealper incuriamlarger bench
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal concerning a service dispute between employees of the Sindh Assembly Secretariat regarding the re-designation of a post. The core legal question addressed is whether an appeal before a Service Tribunal is ipso facto incompetent and must be dismissed if the underlying departmental appeal or representation was barred by limitation. Upon reviewing a divergent body of case law from the apex court, the two-member bench of the Supreme Court observed that the existing legal position is unsettled, contradictory, and fails to adequately consider the specific terms and ameliorative provisions of various statutory civil servant appeal rules. Holding that it would be inappropriate for a two-member bench to resolve such an important and recurring issue—and noting that foundational precedents may even be per incuriam—the court declined to decide the matter summarily. Consequently, the court ordered that the appeal be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench to settle the law with certainty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal before a Service Tribunal is ipso facto incompetent if the underlying departmental appeal was barred by limitation?
  • Does the disposal of a time-barred departmental representation on merits by an authority amount to an implied condonation of delay?
  • Are the statutory provisions governing departmental appeals across the federation and provinces to be treated uniformly regarding the condonability of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Usama Ahmad Mela vs Mohsin Nawaz Ranjha and others2019 MLD 294 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-19Read full judgment →
• Urva-tul-Wusqa @ Arooti and others vs The State and others2019 KLR Criminal Cases 192 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-19Read full judgment →
• University of the Punjab through V.C vs Wajid Ali etc2019 CLC 1662, 2019 LHC 1258 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-25
  equivalence certificateuniversity admission criteriastatutory interpretationhigher education commissionintra-court appealeducational institutions autonomy
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge who had accepted a writ petition declaring the Equivalence Department of the University of the Punjab illegal and unconstitutional. The core legal question revolved around whether the powers of the University of the Punjab to recognize examinations and determine equivalence under the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 overlap with and are repugnant to the powers of the Higher Education Commission under the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002, thereby attracting Article 143 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court held that the powers vested in the University under section 28(2)(h) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 are specifically for the purpose of admissions and further education within the university, whereas general equivalence certificates fall under the domain of the Higher Education Commission. Consequently, the court ruled that there is no repugnancy between the two statutes, set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge, and dismissed the writ petition, laying down the principle that educational institutions are independent in formulating admission policies and determining equivalence criteria for their programs, with which courts should not interfere absent exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the powers of the University of the Punjab to recognize examinations under the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 are repugnant to the powers of the Higher Education Commission under the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002?
  • Can university admission criteria and equivalence determinations for further education be interfered with by courts under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is applicable to the concurrent functions of provincial university statutes and federal commission ordinances regarding degree equivalence?
  Read full judgment →
• University of Management Technology for Deceptive Marketing2021 P C T L R 488, 2019 CLD 615 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Universal Insurance Company Limited vs Hamayun Khan2019 CLD 1216 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-16Read full judgment →
• Universal Brothers (Private) Limited and Another vs Federation of Pakistan2019 YLR 2561, 2019 SHC 29 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Universal Auto Engineering vs The Director General and 2 others2019 PTD (Trib.) 800 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-10-23Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, etc2020 PLC 42, 2019 PLJ Lahore 295 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-19
  Industrial RelationsWorkman definitionLabour Court jurisdictionSuperannuationGrievance PetitionConstitutional Petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition challenges the orders of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which granted relief to a retired employee regarding his pensionary benefits. The core legal question is whether an employee who retired upon reaching the age of superannuation qualifies as a 'Workman' under Section 2(xxx) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, thereby possessing the standing to file a grievance petition under Section 46 of the same Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that the definition of 'Workman' under the Ordinance is restricted to persons employed in an establishment or industry, or those dismissed, discharged, retrenched, or removed in connection with an industrial dispute. Since the respondent retired voluntarily upon superannuation and was not removed due to an industrial dispute, he does not fall within the statutory definition of a 'Workman'. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition. The impugned orders were set aside, and the petition was allowed, clarifying that the respondent must seek his remedy before the appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee who retires upon superannuation fall within the definition of 'Workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • Can a retired employee invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • Does the definition of 'Workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, include individuals whose employment ended due to superannuation?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Muhammad Manzoor and another2019 CLD 595 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Ghulam Rafiq2019 SHC 18 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
• Umer Din vs Mairaj-Ud-Din & others2019 CLC 1781, 2021 [M] C L R 172, 2019 PLJ Quetta 77 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-24Read full judgment →
• Umat-ur-Rehman vs Muhammad Saeed,etc2019 LHC 2042 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-29Read full judgment →
• Umar Ud Din vs The State2019 YLR 1602 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-12-07
  post-arrest bailattempt to murdernon-vital body partsprohibitory clausecriminal procedurebail concession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Umar ud Din, who was charged under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in relation to an FIR registered at Police Station City Gilgit. The petitioner sought bail after his initial application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the injuries inflicted and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while the petitioner was directly charged and a weapon was recovered, the injuries were inflicted on non-vital parts of the body (thighs), suggesting a lack of clear intent to kill at this stage. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, determining that the question of intent under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, is a matter to be resolved during trial upon the recording of evidence. The key principle established is that where injuries are inflicted on non-vital body parts, the intent to kill required for Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, remains a triable issue, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the infliction of injuries on non-vital parts of the body negate the immediate presumption of intent to kill under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the purpose of bail?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the determination of intent to kill requires the recording of evidence at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Siddique vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 103 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-04
  post-arrest bailmala fidesillegal confinementfurther inquirydelayed FIRcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Dilawar, in a case involving allegations of lurking house-breaking and theft under Sections 380, 457, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of his arrest and the evidence presented. The Court observed that the FIR was registered with an unexplained delay of over one month. Crucially, the Court found evidence of mala fides, noting that the petitioner had been recovered from illegal police custody by a bailiff acting under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 just moments before his formal arrest in the present case. Holding that the petitioner's case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that his continued incarceration served no purpose, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where the circumstances of an arrest suggest mala fides and the prosecution's case requires further probe, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can evidence of illegal police confinement prior to a formal arrest support a finding of mala fides in a bail application?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case requires further investigation and the accused has been incarcerated without trial progress?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Shahzad vs The State & anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 326, 2019 YLR 1254, 2019 LHC 216 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-22
  narcoticschain of custodychemical examiner reportsafe custodyrepresentative samplesrecovery contradictionsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated 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 alleged recovery of a large quantity of charas and opium. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the prosecution's recovery evidence, the establishment of a safe and unbroken chain of custody for the samples and bulk contraband, and the legal sufficiency of the chemical examiner reports without full testing protocols and separate analysis where multiple packets are involved. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in police testimonies, failure to produce the vital vehicle used in the transport, breaks in the chain of custody, and non-compliance with mandatory legal requirements regarding chemical analysis reports as laid down by the Supreme Court. The key principles laid down include the strict requirement for the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of safe custody for seized narcotics and samples, the necessity of separate chemical analysis of representative samples taken from every individual packet or slab, and the mandatory inclusion of full testing protocols in government analyst reports.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of custody or lapse in the control of recovered narcotic samples vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is a chemical examiner's report inconclusive and unreliable if it fails to mention full protocols of the test applied under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Must separate representative samples be taken from every packet, cake, or slab of a recovered substance and separately analyzed to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when police witnesses contradict each other on material particulars regarding the conduct of the raid and the recovery of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Mehmood vs Minister for Forests, Wildlife and Fisheries, Azad2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 122 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Umar Mehmood vs Minister for Forests, Wild Life and Fisheries, Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu Kashmir and 4 others2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 122, 2019 P.S.C. 1501 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C.(Peshawar)396, 2020 YLR 1398, 2019 PHC 180 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-11Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs Muhammad Iqbal Arshad Goraya, etc2020 YLR 666, 2019 LHC 3486 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-13Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat Khawaja vs National Bank of Pakistan through President2019 PLC (C.S.) 258 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-05
  post-retirement benefitsNational Bank of Pakistanmedical ceilingCircular No. 19/95Circular No. 37/1999service terms and conditionslaches
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple constitutional petitions filed by former employees of the National Bank of Pakistan who retired between 2002 and 2014, seeking post-retirement benefits, including medical ceilings, in accordance with Circular No. 19/95. The core legal question is whether employees who retired after the issuance and substitution of Circular No. 19/95 by Circular No. 37/1999 are entitled to post-retirement benefits under the earlier circular. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that since the petitioners retired after the promulgation of Circular No. 37/1999, their post-retirement benefits are strictly governed by the prevailing circular at the time of their retirement, distinguishing them from prior retirees who benefited from earlier judgments. The key principle laid down is that retiring employees are bound by the service and retirement circulars in vogue at the time of their retirement, and superseded circulars cannot be invoked retrospectively unless specifically applicable.

  Questions settled

  • Are bank employees who retired after the issuance of Circular No. 37/1999 entitled to post-retirement benefits under the superseded Circular No. 19/95?
  • Does a judgment rendered in favor of employees who retired prior to the issuance of a new circular apply uniformly to subsequent retirees?
  • What is the effect of the substitution of a service circular on the retirement benefits of employees retiring after such substitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat alias Umer Daraz alias Umeri vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1402 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-20
  post-arrest bailmurderlast seen evidencetentative assessmentcriminal conspiracysupplementary statementexpedited trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a case registered under Sections 302, 364, 201, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the abduction and murder of the complainant's brother. The petitioner, not named in the initial FIR, was implicated via a supplementary statement and subsequent investigation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidence of last seen witnesses and his implication in a pre-planned murder motivated by property disputes. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case through incriminating material, including statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the petitioner's placement in Column No. 3 of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reiterated the principle that bail applications require only a tentative assessment of evidence, and deeper appreciation of material is deprecated at the bail stage. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, with a directive to the trial court to expedite proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible while adjudicating a bail application?
  • Does the implication of an accused in a supplementary statement automatically entitle them to bail?
  • Can bail be denied where the offence alleged entails capital punishment and sufficient incriminating material exists?
  • What is the scope of tentative assessment of evidence in bail matters?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA vs Muhammad Afzal s/o Ditta, caste Jatt2019 SC AJK 63 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-21Read full judgment →
• Umar Farooque vs The State2019 KLR Criminal Cases 134 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-19
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausehatchet blowfalsely implicatedmedical evidencebail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application whereby the applicant, Umar Farooque, seeks pre-arrest bail in respect of Crime No. 58 of 2018 registered at Police Station Sinjhoro for offences including sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iv), 337-F(i), 337-L(ii), 506(2), 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail given that he is nominated in the F.I.R., armed with a hatchet, and assigned a specific role causing injuries that fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant failed to make out a case for pre-arrest bail, noting that the medical evidence corroborates the ocular account, the injured person remains confined to bed, and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail was recalled and the application dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused nominated in the FIR with a specific role and armed with a weapon is entitled to pre-arrest bail when the injury falls within the prohibitory clause?
  • Does medical evidence supporting the ocular account disentitle an accused from securing pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether delay in lodging the FIR is adequately explained by the medical treatment of the injured party?
  Read full judgment →
• Umair Saleem vs Imtiaz Arshad2019 CLD 1236, 2019 PLJ Lahore 338 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-08Read full judgment →
• Ubedullah and 2 others vs The State2019 YLR 1829 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-25
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencedelayed FIRmurderacquittalinterested witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court under Sections 302 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given the alleged discrepancies in the ocular testimony, medical evidence, and the timing of the FIR. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, including unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies between the eye-witness accounts and the medical reports regarding the time of death and stomach contents, and the absence of independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right, and that medical evidence contradicting ocular testimony significantly undermines the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR, without a plausible explanation, warrant the rejection of the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when medical evidence regarding the time of death and stomach contents contradicts the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Does the failure to produce independent corroboration in a case involving only related witnesses affect the credibility of the prosecution's evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Trade Development Authority of Pakistan Finance and Trade Center2019 CLD 107, 2021 P C T L R 444 · Intellectual Property Tribunal · 2018-10-08Read full judgment →
• Touqeer Nasir vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1200 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-23
  post-arrest bailimpersonationcriminal proceduregrant of baildocumentary evidencenon-convict
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Tauqeer Nasir, sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 170, 171, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of impersonating a doctor at Nishtar Hospital, Multan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offences and the stage of the investigation. The Court observed that the investigation was finalized, the documentary evidence was already in prosecution custody, and there was no risk of evidence tampering. Furthermore, the petitioner was a previous non-convict, and the trial had not progressed significantly. The Court held that for offences punishable by imprisonment of less than ten years, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception. Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify continued detention, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The judgment affirms the principle that unless there is a risk of abscondence, evidence tampering, repetition of the offence, or the accused is a previous convict, bail should generally be granted in such cases.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences punishable by imprisonment of less than ten years?
  • Does the completion of investigation and seizure of documentary evidence by the prosecution mitigate the risk of evidence tampering for bail purposes?
  • Should a court consider the minimum sentence provided for an alleged offence when determining bail eligibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Toufique Ali vs Province Of Sindh and Others2019 SHC 532 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-17Read full judgment →
• Tom Le vs Her Majesty the Queen2019 SCMR 1460 · Supreme Court of CanadaRead full judgment →
• The Stillman's Company (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive Officer vs S.M.2019 YLR 815 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-31
  trademark infringementinterim injunctionconcealment of material factsclean hands doctrinedistributor liabilityco-ownership of trademarkdiscretionary reliefassignment deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was brought before the Sindh High Court seeking a declaration, permanent injunction, accounts, and damages regarding the alleged infringement of the trademark "Stillman's". The plaintiff company claimed exclusive ownership and assignment rights of the trademark, alleging that the defendants were distributing infringing products. Conversely, the defendants argued that the plaintiff had suppressed and concealed material facts regarding multiple ongoing litigations and conflicting interim injunctive orders between the sponsor directors and the manufacturing firm, Messrs Evan and Mayer. The core legal question revolved around whether the plaintiff was entitled to interlocutory injunctive relief against a distributor in light of severe non-disclosure of prior connected proceedings and rival claims to trademark usage. The court held that the plaintiff acted contumaciously and inequitably by concealing extensive ongoing litigation and conflicting court orders concerning trademark ownership and licensing rights. The court dismissed the plaintiff's injunction application, laying down the principle that a party seeking equitable interim relief must come with clean hands and make a full, honest disclosure of all relevant previous and pending proceedings, and failure to do so disentitles them to discretionary relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the concealment of prior related litigation and conflicting court orders disentitle a plaintiff to discretionary interim injunctive relief?
  • Can a plaintiff obtain an injunction against a product distributor when the underlying manufacturing rights and trademark ownership are actively disputed in multiple concurrent lawsuits?
  • What are the rights and limitations of co-proprietors of a registered trademark under the Trademarks Ordinance 2001 regarding assignment and licensing?
  • Is a product distributor liable for trademark infringement when selling goods supplied by a manufacturer operating under protective judicial orders?
  Read full judgment →
• The State/Anti Narcotics Force vs Parvez Hassan Haravi & another2019 SCP 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-05-04
  narcotics forfeitureControl of Narcotics Substance Actretrospective applicationburden of proofasset tracingconstitutional protectionproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged orders from the Special Court and the High Court of Sindh, which declined the forfeiture of property under Section 40 of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997. The appellant sought to forfeit property held by the respondent’s ex-wife, alleging it was purchased with narcotics proceeds by the respondent, who was convicted by a foreign court. The core legal questions were whether forfeiture is permissible without evidence linking the assets to illicit narcotics trade and whether the Act applies retrospectively to property acquired before its 1997 enactment. The Supreme Court held that forfeiture under the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997 requires a demonstrable nexus between the assets and illicit narcotics activities. As the appellant failed to provide evidence linking the property to drug money and the property was acquired in 1987, the Court ruled that forfeiture was unjustified. Furthermore, the Court established that applying Section 40 to property acquired before the Act's promulgation violates Article 12 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which prohibits retrospective penal laws. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can assets be forfeited under the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997, without evidence linking them to illicit narcotics trade?
  • Does the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997, allow for the retrospective forfeiture of property acquired before its enactment?
  • Is the forfeiture of property under Section 40 of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997, permissible if the conviction occurred in a foreign court?
  Read full judgment →
• The State/Anti Narcotics Force through Assistant Director vs Sessions2019 YLR 2460 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-03
  criminal revisionsummoning material witnessessafe custody of narcoticschemical examinermalkhanafair trialanti-narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed by the State through the Anti-Narcotics Force against an order of the Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNS, Hyderabad, dismissing an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to examine the Incharge Malkhana and the official who transported the case property to the chemical examiner. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to summon material witnesses at a later stage of the trial to prove the safe custody of the narcotics and ensure a just decision. The Sindh High Court held that Section 540 Cr.P.C. imposes a mandatory obligation on the court to summon any witness if their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case, and technicalities should not prevent the prosecution from proving its case. The impugned order was set aside, the revision application was allowed, and the trial court was directed to summon and examine the proposed witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 imposes a mandatory obligation on the court to summon a witness whose evidence is essential for the just decision of the case?
  • Can the prosecution be permitted to examine material witnesses regarding the safe custody of case property after closing its side?
  • Does the power of the court under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to benefiting the prosecution in proving its case?
  Read full judgment →
• The State/Anti Narcotics Force through Assistant Director vs 3RD2019 YLR 1037 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-29
  summoning material witnessadditional evidencecriminal revisionmalkhanachemical examinerjust decision of the caseprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant/prosecution challenged the trial court's order dismissing its application under Section 540, Cr.P.C. for the examination of the Incharge Malkhana and the official who transported the case property to the Chemical Examiner. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to summon additional witnesses on the ground that it would fill a lacuna in the prosecution's case. The Sindh High Court held that Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contains both a discretionary and a mandatory part, obligating the court to summon any witness if their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The court ruled that an application under Section 540 cannot be summarily dismissed merely for filling a lacuna or being belated without considering whether the evidence is essential for a just decision, thereby setting aside the trial court's order and directing the examination of the witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can summarily dismiss an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that it would fill a lacuna in the prosecution case?
  • Is the examination of the Incharge Malkhana and the official transporting case property to the Chemical Examiner essential for the just decision of a narcotics case?
  • What is the scope and nature of the discretionary and mandatory powers of the court under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State/ANF vs Babar Khan S/o Kamran Khan2020 YLR 2053, 2019 SHC 588 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24
  appeal against acquittalnarcotics recoverychemical examiner reportlimitation periodbenefit of doubtchain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  The State through the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) filed an acquittal appeal against the judgment of the Special Court-II (CNS), Karachi, which had acquitted the respondents of charges under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the limitation period for filing an acquittal appeal by the State and whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents was based on a misreading or non-reading of the evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the limitation period for an acquittal appeal filed by the State under Section 417(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is regulated by Article 157 of the Limitation Act, 1908, providing a period of six months, thereby rendering the appeal timely. On merits, the Court upheld the acquittal, finding that material contradictions between the ocular testimony and the chemical examiner's report, along with tampering and chain of custody defects, created reasonable doubt regarding the recovery. The Court reaffirmed the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment unless it is perverse, arbitrary, or capricious.

  Questions settled

  • What is the limitation period for filing an appeal against an acquittal by the State under Section 417(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does an acquittal appeal filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force fall under Article 157 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal where a double presumption of innocence is attached?
  • Does a material discrepancy between the recovered weight of narcotics and the chemical examiner report warrant the grant of the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Zafar Ali2019 KLR Criminal Cases 441, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 274, 2019 YLR · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-13
  capital punishmentguilty pleasafe administration of justicemurder referencede novo trialjudicial discretioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Murder Reference and a Jail Appeal arising from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Zafar Ali, for the offence of Qatl-i-Amd. The trial court convicted the appellant solely based on his plea of guilty and a written admission, without recording any prosecution evidence. The core legal question was whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion under Section 265-E of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in handing down a capital sentence based exclusively on a guilty plea. The Islamabad High Court held that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion in accordance with the principles of safe administration of justice. The Court emphasized that awarding capital punishment based solely on a guilty plea is improper and requires extraordinary care and caution. The Court established that to ensure a plea is voluntary and free from coercion, the trial court must record prosecution evidence rather than relying solely on the accused's admission. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for a de novo trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court convict an accused and impose a death sentence solely based on a plea of guilty without recording any prosecution evidence?
  • What is the scope of judicial discretion under Section 265-E of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the acceptance of a guilty plea in capital cases?
  • Is a distinction maintained between an admission and a confession in the context of criminal trials?
  • What precautionary measures must a trial court adopt before accepting a guilty plea in a murder case to ensure it is voluntary?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Shakeel Ahmed and two others2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 188 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit BaltistanRead full judgment →
• The State vs Shabrang2019 MLD 808 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-05-09
  criminal appealacquittalextra-judicial confessionappreciation of evidenceJirga settlementmaterial contradictionsdismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondents by the Judicial Magistrate, Chilas, regarding charges under Section 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a misreading of evidence and whether the respondents' act of depositing a significant sum of money into the State treasury following a Jirga-mediated settlement constituted an implied extra-judicial confession of guilt. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court dismissed the appeal in limine. The Court held that the trial court's judgment was sound, noting that the prosecution's evidence contained material contradictions. Crucially, the Court established the principle that a compromise or settlement reached between parties to avoid the rigors of protracted litigation cannot be construed as an incriminating circumstance or an implied extra-judicial confession of guilt. The Court emphasized that innocent parties may opt for settlement to escape the financial and temporal burdens of a lengthy judicial process, and such actions do not serve as proof of criminal liability.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise or settlement reached between parties to avoid protracted litigation be treated as an implied extra-judicial confession of guilt?
  • Does the deposit of money by an accused following a Jirga-mediated settlement constitute proof of guilt in a criminal trial?
  • Is an appellate court required to interfere with an acquittal judgment where the prosecution's evidence contains material contradictions?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Raj Dad and 2 others2019 YLR 2281 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-04-01
  criminal appealacquittallast-seen evidencecircumstantial evidencedelay in FIRdelay in statementmurdercorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a case involving the alleged murder of the complainant's son. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, specifically last-seen testimony and the recovery of weapons. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the last-seen evidence was weak, uncorroborated, and based on the belated statements of close relatives recorded ten days after the incident without plausible explanation, and that the initial FIR omitted material facts. The court laid down the principle that last-seen evidence is a weak type of circumstantial evidence that requires strong, independent corroboration, and an inordinate, unexplained delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is fatal to the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Is last-seen evidence sufficient on its own to sustain a conviction in a capital charge without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained, inordinate delay in recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the acquittal of an accused by a trial court should be interfered with when the prosecution relies solely on weak circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Naveed Akhtar alias Jani2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 192 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2018-04-09Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muzafar Shah2019 YLR 698 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-08-15
  criminal revisionplea of guiltylesser punishmentnarcotics recoverysentencing leniencyrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal revision petitions were filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the State against conviction orders passed by the trial court, seeking enhancement of sentences awarded to the respondents under section 9(B) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in awarding a lesser punishment (imprisonment already undergone) upon the voluntary confession of guilt by the convicts from whom contraband charas was recovered. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the trial court committed no illegality or material irregularity, noting that when an accused voluntarily pleads guilty and throws himself at the mercy of the court, a lenient view in sentencing is properly taken. The court laid down the principle that revisional jurisdiction will not be exercised to interfere with a lenient sentence lawfully and judiciously awarded by the trial court upon a voluntary plea of guilt, and consequently dismissed the petitions in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can enhance a sentence in revision where the trial court awarded a lesser punishment upon a voluntary plea of guilty?
  • Does a court commit a material irregularity by taking a lenient view in sentencing when an accused confesses guilt and places himself at the mercy of the court?
  • Can the revisional jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to interfere with a lawful sentence based on a voluntary confession?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Sohail @ Samma Sohail2019 LHC 527 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-26
  murderDNA evidencelast seen evidenceexpert reportPunjab Forensic Science Agencymitigation of sentencebenefit of doubtchain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment decided Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2016 and Murder Reference No. 57 of 2016 regarding the conviction of Muhammad Sohail alias Samma and Mumtaz Bibi for the murder of a minor child under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal questions concerned the evidentiary value and admissibility of DNA profiling obtained from cigarette butts recovered at the crime scene, the reliability of last-seen evidence, and whether failure to independently prove the alleged motive serves as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The Lahore High Court held that DNA evidence is admissible under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, establishing an unbroken chain of custody connecting the primary appellant to the crime alongside proximate last-seen and medical evidence. However, due to lack of corroboration, the co-appellant was acquitted. The death sentence of the primary appellant was reduced to life imprisonment because the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged motive.

  Questions settled

  • Is a forensic DNA analysis report admissible as evidence per se under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can an unbroken chain of custody for biological samples recovered from a crime scene serve as conclusive proof of an accused's presence and guilt?
  • Does uncorroborated last-seen evidence suffice to sustain a conviction for murder against a co-accused?
  • Can the prosecution's failure to prove an alleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance to alter a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Siddique and another2019 PCr.LJ 1600, 2019 IHC 64 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-06-12
  murderpolice official killedanti-terrorism courthostile witnessesbenefit of doubtacquittalweapon recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses a death reference and a criminal appeal against the convictions and sentences handed down by the Anti-Terrorism Court in a case involving the killing of a police constable on duty during an unauthorized religious procession where participants resorted to indiscriminate aerial firing. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given material contradictions in the ocular account, hostile police witnesses, and doubtful weapon recoveries. The Court held that the prosecution failed to bring on record unimpeachable and consistent evidence, noting that multiple police witnesses had retracted their statements and failed to support the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, answered the death reference in the negative, set aside the trial court's judgment, and ordered the immediate release of the appellants while directing inquiry proceedings against certain police officials for fabricating evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions in ocular testimony and doubtful weapon recoveries are sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt leading to acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when key prosecution witnesses, including police officials, retract their statements and are declared hostile?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to establish safe custody and unimpeachable transmission of recovered firearms to the forensic laboratory vitiates the case?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Kaleem Bhatti2019 KLR Supreme Court 451, PLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 225, 2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 960, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-07-02
  sentence in default of payment of finerecovery of fineforfeiture of assetsNational Accountability Bureauarrears of land revenuedouble jeopardy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals and a petition arising from National Accountability Bureau references wherein convicts challenged the recovery of fines and forfeiture of assets after they had already undergone sentences of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The core legal questions centered on whether serving a default sentence absolves a convict from paying the fine, whether asset forfeiture as a set-off for fine remains permissible, and whether the limitation period under section 70 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applies to fine recoveries under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The Supreme Court held that a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment is a punishment for non-payment rather than a substitute for the fine, meaning the fine remains recoverable and assets can be forfeited if the fine is unpaid. Furthermore, the Court held that fine recovery under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 is governed by section 33-E of that Ordinance and is not controlled by section 70 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appeals were accordingly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine acts as a substitute for the fine or as a punishment for non-payment?
  • Can a fine be recovered from a convict after he has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of such fine?
  • Does section 70 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 control the recovery of fines imposed under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Are the assets and properties of a convict liable to forfeiture as a set-off for fine despite the service of a default sentence of imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Imran2019 LHC 3500 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-15
  murder appealfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of the doubtocular accountchance witnessesdishonest improvementsconflicting medical evidenceweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of ocular testimony that was previously rejected for acquitted co-accused, the presence of eye-witnesses at the crime scene, and the applicability of the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The Lahore High Court held that the eye-witnesses made dishonest improvements, were not present at the scene given their unnatural survival without injury, and that their testimony was entirely untrustworthy. Re-establishing the rule falsus in omnibus into Pakistani jurisprudence, the court ruled that tainted evidence cannot be used to convict an accused when co-accused based on the same evidence are acquitted. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, answered the murder reference in the negative, and ordered the immediate acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether evidence disbelieved against acquitted co-accused can be relied upon to convict another co-accused charged with the same offense?
  • Does the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply in criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  • Can eye-witnesses who sustain no injuries during a deadly firing incident be deemed present at the scene of the crime?
  • What is the evidentiary value of motive and weapon recovery when the primary ocular account has been discarded?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Hashim2019 LHC 3216 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-14
  murderbenefit of the doubtchance witnessocular and medical inconsistencycriminal appealdeath referencerecoveryimpeached credit
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected matters challenge the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellants for Qatl-e-Amd under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the credibility of related and chance eye-witnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence versus ocular testimony, the legality of police recoveries without independent witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the application of the principle of benefit of the doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the eye-witnesses were unproven to be present at the crime scene due to material omissions, failure to explain blood-stained clothing, and blatant inconsistencies with medical evidence regarding injuries and the absence of blackening. The Court ruled that tainted ocular testimony cannot be corroborated by unproven motive or flawed recoveries, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the murder reference was answered in the negative, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration when their presence at the crime scene is rendered doubtful?
  • Does an inconsistency between the ocular account regarding firing distance and the absence of blackening in the medical report warrant the rejection of the eyewitness testimony?
  • Can recovery evidence under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sustain a conviction when independent local witnesses are not associated and the ocular account is disbelieved?
  • What is the legal effect of dishonest improvements made by prosecution witnesses in their statements before the court?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Liaqat2019 LHC 3829 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-07
  chance witnessbenefit of doubtocular accountcriminal appealmurder referenceappreciation of evidencemedical evidenceQatl-i-Amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on 'chance witnesses' and the consistency of the ocular account with medical evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the scene, noting that they were 'chance witnesses' whose presence was not corroborated by independent evidence or site plans. Furthermore, the Court found the ocular account implausible because the assailants, despite having the opportunity, caused no harm to the witnesses, and the medical evidence regarding the timing of death and the nature of injuries contradicted the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of a chance witness must be evaluated with suspicion and requires corroboration from unimpeachable sources, and that the benefit of reasonable doubt must be extended to an accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a chance witness sufficient for conviction without corroboration from an independent source?
  • Does the failure of assailants to harm witnesses present at the scene, despite having the opportunity, cast doubt on the presence of those witnesses?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence regarding the time of death and injury patterns contradicts the prosecution's ocular account?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a matter of right for an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Irfan Alias Shani2019 LHC 3374 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-26
  test identification paradeocular evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder convictionrecovery of weaponpolice investigationQatl-i-Amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and robbery under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's ocular evidence and the validity of the test identification parades conducted during the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the convictions were unsustainable, setting them aside and acquitting the appellants. The court determined that the identification parades were procedurally flawed and lacked evidentiary value because the witnesses had been informed of the accused's identities by the police prior to the parades. Furthermore, the court found that the alleged recoveries of weapons were inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the absence of independent witnesses. The court reiterated the principle that when the ocular account is unreliable, corroborative evidence like motive and recovery loses its significance. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants, emphasizing that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prior disclosure of an accused's identity by police to witnesses invalidate a subsequent test identification parade?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account is found to be unreliable?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon admissible as evidence if the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are violated?
  • Does the presence of injuries on a witness automatically establish their credibility and truthfulness?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Imran Nazir2019 PLJ SC Cr.C. 411, 2019 SCMR 1227, 2019 SCP 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-29
  narcoticsconscious possessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalforfeiture of vehicle
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by the State against the acquittal of respondents by the Peshawar High Court in a narcotics case. The respondents were originally convicted by a Special Court (CNS) for the possession of 2800 kilograms of charas recovered from a truck, resulting in life imprisonment and forfeiture of the vehicle. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondents based on the prosecution's failure to identify the specific driver of the vehicle, thereby failing to establish conscious possession. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, reasoning that when multiple individuals are present in a vehicle cabin, the prosecution must unambiguously identify the specific person in control to establish conscious possession. The Court affirmed that in the face of wavering prosecution evidence, the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the doubt, a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence. While the acquittal was maintained, the Court ordered that the forfeiture of the vehicle by the Anti-Narcotics Force remain intact.

  Questions settled

  • Is the prosecution required to identify the specific driver of a vehicle to establish conscious possession of contraband when multiple individuals are present?
  • Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to clarify the role of occupants in a vehicle entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can the forfeiture of a vehicle remain intact even if the respondents are acquitted of the underlying narcotics charge?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Imran Hussain and 2 others2019 MLD 1424 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-11-22
  Anti-Terrorism ActCriminal AppealAcquittalConfessional StatementRetracted ConfessionEvidentiary ValueCircumstantial Evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents by the Anti-Terrorism Court regarding charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically relying on retracted confessional statements recorded by a police officer. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence; the respondents were not directly charged in the FIR, no identification parade was conducted, and no weapons were recovered. Crucially, the Court established that confessional statements recorded by a police officer under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 are inadmissible and lack evidentiary value unless corroborated by strong, independent circumstantial evidence. As the confessions were retracted and lacked such corroboration, they were deemed unreliable. Consequently, the trial court’s decision to acquit was found to be legally sound, as the prosecution failed to meet the requisite standard of proof to sustain a conviction against the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Are confessional statements recorded by a police officer under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 admissible without independent corroboration?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of retracted confessional statements recorded by a police officer?
  • Is an acquittal justified when the FIR names unknown persons and no identification parade is conducted?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Doulat Mir & another2019 P.S.C (Crl.) 202 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2018-05-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ashfaq Hussain & another2019 P.S.C (Crl.) 185 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2018-04-02Read full judgment →
• The State vs Amir Hussain Shah2019 KLR Criminal Cases 409 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-04
  rapechild witnesscorroborationdeath sentencecriminal appealevidentiary valuerule of prudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Murder Reference for the confirmation of a death sentence and a Jail Appeal filed by the appellant, Amir Hussain Shah, who was convicted of the rape of a minor girl. The core legal question addressed by the Islamabad High Court was whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained based on the testimony of a child victim, particularly regarding the evidentiary value and reliability of such testimony in criminal proceedings. The Court held that a child witness is competent to testify provided the trial court is satisfied regarding their intelligence and ability to understand the proceedings. While a conviction may be based on the sole testimony of a child witness, the Court affirmed the rule of prudence requiring corroboration by other evidence to ensure the safe administration of justice. Finding the victim's testimony consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence and independent witnesses, the Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence, noting the absence of any mitigating circumstances for such a heinous offense.

  Questions settled

  • Is a child witness competent to testify in a criminal trial?
  • Can a conviction be based on the sole testimony of a child witness?
  • What is the rule of prudence regarding the testimony of a child witness in criminal cases?
  • Does the testimony of a child victim of rape require corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ali Ahmad2019 LHC 2835 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-15
  murder referencecapital punishmentbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidence contradictiondelayed FIRweapon recoverymotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-e-amd. The prosecution alleged the appellant shot the deceased during a wedding ceremony following a minor dispute over a seat and alleged instigation by opponents. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the corroborative value of medical evidence, the reliability of delayed weapon recovery and forensic reports, and the proof of motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding firing distance, the motive was non-existent and contradictory, and the delayed transmission of crime empties vitiated the forensic report. The court laid down the principle that a criminal conviction must rest on unimpeachable evidence, and any reasonable doubt arising from flaws in the prosecution case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, answered the murder reference in the negative, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether promptitude in lodging an FIR can be treated as a substantive piece of evidence when the presence of eye-witnesses is doubtful?
  • Does a positive report from the forensic science laboratory lose its evidentiary value if the crime empties are sent after the arrest of the accused or alongside the weapon of offense?
  • How does a material contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the firing distance affect the prosecution's case?
  • What is the effect of mutually destructive and inconsistent stances regarding the motive set up by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Akhtar Hussain2019 LHC 2785 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-21
  benefit of doubtmurder referenceocular accountinquest reportsite plancircumstantial evidencecriminal appealappellate acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants arising from a double murder case. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the eyewitness accounts, the establishment of motive, and the reliability of the circumstantial and medical evidence in a blind midnight murder occurring in a deserted area. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eyewitnesses at the crime scene, prove the motive, or provide any corroborative recovery, rendering the prosecution's case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that material contradictions, delayed post-mortem examinations indicating unattended dead bodies, and unproven sources of light during a dark night occurrence entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the convictions and sentences were set aside, the death reference was answered in the negative, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unverified presence of eyewitnesses during a dark, un-witnessed midnight occurrence is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination, pointing to bodies remaining unattended, cast serious doubt on the prosecution timeline?
  • Can a conviction for murder stand when the prosecution fails to establish the motive and source of light at the crime scene?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when material aspects of the prosecution story remain unproven?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Rehman alias Manni2019 LHC 746 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-09
  Qatl-bis-Sababaerial firingaccidental deathmurder appealalteration of convictiondiyatmedical evidencere-appraisals of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a minor child resulting from a firearm injury. The core legal question was whether the fatal injury was inflicted intentionally with pre-meditation or was the result of an accidental or inadvertent act during aerial firing. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove intent or motive, and that successive police investigations and medical evidence supported the defense's version that the occurrence was an accidental result of aerial firing where a bullet deflected off a hard surface. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction under Section 302(b) and altered it to Qatl-bis-Sabab under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing the appellant to pay diyat. The key principle laid down is that where medical evidence and successive investigations corroborate an accidental or inadvertent origin of a firearm injury without proof of pre-meditation or murderous intent, the offense falls within the ambit of Qatl-bis-Sabab rather than intentional murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be altered to Qatl-bis-Sabab when evidence establishes that the death resulted from inadvertent aerial firing without pre-meditation?
  • Does the recovery of a de-formed bullet indicating deflection off a hard surface support the plea of an accidental or unintended firearm injury?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a death sentence and substitute it with punishment under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon finding no murderous intent?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Aashir NadeemPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 205, 2019 YLR 768, 2019 LHC 56 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-10
  re-examination of witnessSection 540 Cr.P.C.Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984prosecution evidencecriminal procedurewitness testimonyrecovery memo
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the dismissal of an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought the re-examination of a prosecution witness to correct his testimony regarding the names of attesting witnesses on a recovery memo. The core legal question was whether Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permits the re-examination of a witness to alter testimony given during examination-in-chief before cross-examination has occurred. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application was an attempt to allow the witness to retract or change his sworn testimony, which would prejudice the accused and undermine judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized that under Articles 132 and 133 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984, re-examination is strictly limited to explaining matters arising during cross-examination and cannot be used to rectify errors in examination-in-chief. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the procedural scheme of witness examination must be strictly followed, and Section 540 cannot be invoked to facilitate a "U-turn" in testimony or bypass established evidentiary rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be utilized to allow a witness to change testimony given during examination-in-chief?
  • At what stage of a trial is re-examination of a witness permissible under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the re-examination of a witness under Article 133 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 extend to matters deposed during examination-in-chief?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Aamir Hussain Shah2019 YLR 2171, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 238 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-13
  child witnessrapemurder referencedeath sentence confirmationtestimony of child victimcorroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment addresses a Murder Reference for the confirmation of a death sentence and an appeal filed against the conviction of the appellant under section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for raping a ten-year-old minor girl. The core legal question centered on whether the uncorroborated or sole testimony of a child victim of rape, who is also a child witness, is sufficient for a conviction, and whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Islamabad High Court held that a child witness is competent to testify if found by the trial court to be intelligent and capable of understanding questions, and while a conviction can be based on the solitary testimony of a child victim or witness, as a rule of prudence, corroboration by other evidence is preferred. The court found the victim's testimony consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence, an independent witness, and recoveries. The court laid down the principle that the testimony of a child rape victim, when inspiring confidence and properly corroborated, is sufficient to maintain a conviction for a heinous offence, dismissing the appeal and confirming the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a child is a competent witness to testify in a criminal trial under the law?
  • Can a conviction for rape be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a child victim?
  • What is the evidentiary value and rule of prudence applicable to the testimony of a child witness in criminal cases?
  • Whether the testimony of a child witness requires corroboration from medical or other independent evidence to ensure safe administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Regional Director Anti-Narcotic Force Balochistan vs Abdul Wahab and 11 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 495, 2019 MLD 2048 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-09
  Section 540 CrPCfilling lacunaefair trialsupply of documentsSection 265-C CrPCnarcotic substancesprosecution evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order of the Special Court (CNS) dismissing the prosecution's application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon witnesses and produce additional documents regarding chemical analysis protocols after the prosecution evidence had concluded and the case was fixed for final arguments. The core legal question was whether the prosecution could utilize Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to introduce new evidence at a belated stage to fill gaps in its case. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the powers under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are intended for the court to discover the truth and cannot be exercised to fill lacunae in the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the prosecution is mandatorily required under Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to supply all documents relied upon to the accused before the framing of the charge. Introducing new evidence at the final argument stage, which was not previously disclosed to the accused, violates the right to a fair trial and vitiates the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution invoke Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to fill gaps or lacunae in its case after the conclusion of evidence?
  • Does the failure to supply documents to the accused before the framing of the charge under Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • Is the court permitted to allow the production of new evidence at the stage of final arguments under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Regional Director ANF Peshawar vs Sohail Khan2019 SCMR 1288, 2019 SCP 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-30
  Control of Narcotic Substances Actenhancement of sentenceSection 9(c) CNSAnarcotics possessionCharas Gardamandatory sentenceimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the State's challenge against the refusal of the Peshawar High Court to enhance the respondent's sentence for possessing 11.400 kilograms of Charas Garda. The trial court had convicted the respondent under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, but imposed a sentence of only five years' imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question was whether a sentence lesser than imprisonment for life can lawfully be awarded to a convict found in possession of contraband exceeding ten kilograms in weight. The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 9(c) mandatorily prescribes imprisonment for life when the recovered contraband exceeds ten kilograms. Determining that the lower courts' leniency fell outside the remit of the law and that the respondent's deliberate absence could not impede the proceedings, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower judgments regarding quantum of sentence, and enhanced the respondent's punishment to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence lesser than imprisonment for life be awarded to a convict under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when the recovered contraband exceeds ten kilograms?
  • Does the deliberate absence of a respondent to avoid the process of law prevent the appellate court from deciding an appeal on the merits?
  • Is the appellate court mandated to enhance a sentence if the trial court awarded a punishment below the statutory minimum prescribed under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor-General, Punjab vs Jahangir Akhtar2019 SCP 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-17
  double jeopardydisciplinary proceedingscriminal prosecutioncompulsory retirementpremature acquittalforged documentsservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondents, police department employees, were compulsorily retired after discovery that they had obtained employment using forged School Leaving Certificates. They were subsequently charged in criminal proceedings. The respondents successfully applied for acquittal under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the trial court, which held that their compulsory retirement precluded criminal prosecution under the doctrine of double jeopardy. The High Court upheld these acquittals. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether departmental disciplinary action (compulsory retirement) bars subsequent or simultaneous criminal prosecution for the same underlying conduct under the principle of double jeopardy. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the lower courts' orders. The Court held that disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecutions are distinct, serve different purposes, and can proceed simultaneously or sequentially without violating the principle of double jeopardy. The Court clarified that section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is only applicable where a charge is groundless or there is no probability of conviction, neither of which applied here. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trials.

  Questions settled

  • Does compulsory retirement from service bar subsequent criminal prosecution for the same underlying misconduct?
  • Can departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution proceed simultaneously against a public servant?
  • Does the principle of double jeopardy apply to the concurrent operation of departmental disciplinary action and criminal proceedings?
  • Under what circumstances can a trial court invoke section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor General, Sindh vs Mansoor Mujahid2019 MLD 1092 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-26
  acquittal appeallimitation perioddouble presumption of innocencecondonation of delaycriminal appealperverse acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State against an acquittal order passed by the V-Assistant Sessions Judge, Karachi (South). The primary legal questions were whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether the trial court's acquittal order warranted interference by the High Court. The Court held that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred, as it was filed beyond the 30-day limitation period without providing plausible or sufficient reasons for the delay. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in an appeal against acquittal, the accused benefits from a double presumption of innocence. An appellate court should only interfere with an acquittal if the judgment is found to be capricious, perverse, arbitrary, or based on a misreading of evidence. The Court found that the trial court's judgment was well-reasoned and that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed both on the grounds of limitation and lack of merit, affirming the principle that appellate courts should not interfere with sound acquittal orders.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal against acquittal maintainable if filed beyond the statutory limitation period without sufficient cause?
  • What is the standard of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal order?
  • Does an acquittal order carry a presumption of double innocence for the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Police Station Normal Gilgit vs Ali Ahmed Jan2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 311 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2018-04-12Read full judgment →
• The State through District Public Prosecution and another vs Imran-Ul-2019 MLD 531 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-09-13Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General,Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Fayaz Khan2019 PLD Federal Shariat Court 21 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-11
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocencerecovery memoProhibition Ordersearch and seizurechemical examiner delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This state appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed against the acquittal of the respondent, who had been charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 for possessing local liquor. The core legal questions centered on whether the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt, the effect of failing to associate local witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 despite advance information, and the evidentiary value of recovery memos bearing the FIR number prior to its registration. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to material discrepancies. The Court ruled that recovery and arrest memos prepared before the registration of an FIR but bearing its number lose legal sanctity. Additionally, the unexplained four-day delay in sending samples to the chemical examiner and the failure to join local witnesses created reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated that an acquittal reinforces the double presumption of innocence and cannot be disturbed unless the trial court's judgment is arbitrary or speculative.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of recovery and arrest memos bearing the FIR number if they were allegedly prepared at the place of occurrence prior to the registration of the FIR?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of the police to associate respectable inhabitants of the locality during a search, despite having advance spy information, violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How does an unexplained delay in dispatching samples of recovered contraband to the chemical examiner affect the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General, KPK, Peshawar vs Zubair Ahmad2019 YLR 2329 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-08
  appeal against acquittalcircumstantial evidenceretracted confessionrecovery of stolen propertyidentification testhostile witnessbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  The State, through the Advocate-General of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, filed an appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court. The respondents had been tried for offenses under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Sections 436, 452, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving arson, theft, and the death of the complainant's wife. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of stolen articles and a retracted confession. The Federal Shariat Court observed that the recovered articles were not sealed at the spot, the police movement was not documented in the daily diary, and the identification test was compromised as the articles were shown to the complainant beforehand. Furthermore, the complainant disclaimed having any proof connecting his son-in-law to the offense. The Court held that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain of events and that conviction cannot be based on suspicion. Finding no perversity or misreading of evidence in the trial court's judgment, the Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is incomplete and not interconnected?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a recovery of stolen articles where the police failed to seal the items at the spot and did not record their movements in the daily diary?
  • Does an identification test of recovered property hold legal validity if the items were shown to the complainant prior to the test?
  • What is the standard of appellate interference required to overturn a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Meharban and 4 others2019 PCr. LJ 1375 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-10
  appeal against acquittalSection 265-K Cr.P.C.Offences Against Property Hudood Ordinancenon-compoundable offencecompromise outside courtno probability of convictionabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  The State appealed under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Abbottabad, acquitting the respondents under Section 265-K of the Cr.P.C. The respondents faced trial under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, Sections 452, 411, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The trial court acquitted the accused prior to concluding evidence because no identification parade had been conducted, alleged recoveries were doubtful, and the sole ocular witness/complainant had compromised the matter and raised no objection to acquittal. The core legal question was whether a trial court could invoke Section 265-K to acquit accused persons facing non-compoundable charges when the complainant exonerates them, rendering conviction improbable. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal. It held that Section 265-K empowers the court to prevent futile, prolonged proceedings where there is no probability of conviction, without being constrained by the recording of full evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court invoke Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit accused persons without recording complete evidence?
  • Whether the trial court is justified in acquitting the accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a non-compoundable case where the sole ocular complainant compromises and exonerates the accused?
  • What is the scope of appellate interference against an order of acquittal rendered under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General vs Muhammad Ajmal alias Akram2019 YLR 1406 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-17Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad vs Noor Hussain2019 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 40 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-09-12Read full judgment →
• The State through Additional Prosecutor-General vs Faiz Muhammad alias2019 P Cr. L J 297 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-06-13
  criminal acquittal appealabductionextra-judicial confessionDNA evidencepresumption of double innocenceAnti-Terrorism Actburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which acquitted the respondents of charges related to the abduction and subsequent death of the victim. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had produced sufficient, confidence-inspiring evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on extra-judicial confessions and DNA evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court observed that the eyewitnesses did not identify the accused, and the DNA analysis report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency explicitly contradicted the prosecution's claim that the exhumed remains belonged to the abductee. Consequently, the court ruled that the extra-judicial confessions lacked evidentiary value due to the negative forensic results. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal order earns the accused a presumption of double innocence and should not be interfered with unless found to be perverse, fanciful, or contrary to the record. Finding the trial court's judgment sound, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal order grant the accused a presumption of double innocence that limits appellate interference?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on extra-judicial confessions when subsequent forensic evidence contradicts the facts asserted in those confessions?
  • Is an appellate court justified in overturning an acquittal if the prosecution fails to produce direct evidence linking the accused to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Additional Advocate-General vs Zaryat Khan and 42019 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 33 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
• The Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan vs Beema Pakistan2019 CLD 950, 2020 P C T L R 1356, 2019 SHC 182 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-21
  winding upinsurance companyfraudulent managementloss of substratumSECP investigationcompulsory liquidationcorporate fraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was brought under Section 305 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 read with Section 143 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 seeking the winding up of the respondent insurance company and the appointment of a provisional manager. Investigations conducted under corporate and insurance laws revealed that the management control of the respondent had been fraudulently acquired, books of accounts were falsified, and the company was commercially insolvent having lost its substratum and failing to meet statutory registration requirements and insurance business mandates. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent company was conducting its business in a manner oppressive to its members and policy holders, and whether grounds for compulsory winding up under the relevant statutes were established. The court held that the respondent's management was guilty of fraud, misfeasance, and misconduct, and that the continuance of the company was prejudicial to the interests of policy holders and the general public. Consequently, the winding up petition was allowed and the Official Assignee was appointed as the Official Liquidator. The key principles laid down include that insurers holding public trust must maintain financial solvency and strict regulatory compliance, and that courts will order compulsory winding up where a company's substratum is gone and its management engages in systemic fraud or oppression.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an insurance company can be wound up by the court under Section 143 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 read with Section 305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 when its management is found guilty of fraud and misfeasance?
  • Does the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan have the statutory authority under the Companies Ordinance and the Insurance Ordinance to investigate the affairs of an insurer and initiate winding up proceedings?
  • What constitutes the loss of a company's substratum for the purpose of ordering compulsory winding up?
  • Whether an insurance company that has suspended its insurance business and lost its operational license is liable to be wound up in the interest of its policy holders?
  Read full judgment →
• The Secretary Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore and others vs Aamir Hayat and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 470, 2019 P.S.C. 1052, 2019 SCMR 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-11-27
  Leave to appealConstitutional petitionPublic employmentAppointmentMerit listDepartmental discretionRe-advertisementHigh Court jurisdictionTrichotomy of powersSub-Inspector
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that directed the Punjab Public Service Commission to appoint a respondent as Sub-Inspector (BS-14) based on a 2016 merit list, despite the department's decision to re-advertise vacant posts. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could compel such an appointment by interfering with the department's discretion to re-advertise posts for better candidates, especially when no request for a substitute was made and no mala fides was found. The Supreme Court held that the department had valid grounds and lawful justification to re-advertise the posts, and its decision not to request a substitute was not unreasonable or unlawful. The Court ruled that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution by substituting its own decision for that of the department and acting as an appointing authority, thereby transgressing the concept of trichotomy of powers. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside.

  Read full judgment →
• The Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan through its Secretary vs The Special Court through its Registrar2020 PLD Islamabad 82, 2019 IHC 194 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-30Read full judgment →
• The Louis Berger Group, Etc vs LTH Joint Venture, Etc2020 CLC 493, 2019 LHC 4199 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
• The Land Acquisition Collector, Pak-Arab Refinery Limited & another vs Khan deceased & others2019 MLD 968, 2019 LHC 924 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-26
  land acquisitionreference to civil courtjurisdictioncompensation enhancementstatutory interpretationmandamuscollector
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a Senior Civil Judge's order, which had entertained a direct application from landowners seeking enhanced compensation for acquired land. The core legal question was whether a Civil Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 directly from landowners, bypassing the statutory requirement of a reference from the Land Acquisition Collector. The Court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, declaring the proceedings void ab initio. It established that the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is a complete code, and the Collector’s reference is a mandatory condition precedent for the Civil Court's jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that where a statute prescribes a specific manner for exercising jurisdiction, that procedure must be strictly followed. Consequently, the Court ruled that a Civil Court cannot entertain such applications directly. It further clarified that if a Collector fails to make a reference, the aggrieved party's proper remedy is to invoke the High Court's extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to seek a writ of mandamus, rather than approaching the Civil Court directly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landowner file an application for enhancement of compensation directly to the Civil Court under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Is a reference by the Collector a condition precedent for the Civil Court to exercise jurisdiction under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a landowner when the Collector refuses or fails to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• The Land Acquisition Collector, (WAPDA) Tarbela Dam Ghazi District2020 YLR 1363, 2019 PHC 376 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-14Read full judgment →
• The Karachi Parsi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd vs Maneck M.2019 CLC 866 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-30Read full judgment →
• The Jurists Foundation through its Chairman vs Federal Government through Secretary Ministry of Defence, etc2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 1, 2020 PLD Supreme Court 48, 2019 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-28
  Chief of the Army Staffextension of tenurereappointmentjudicial restraintmilitary commandconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the extension and reappointment of the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), General Qamar Javed Bajwa. The core legal question was whether the Constitution, the Pakistan Army Act 1952, or the associated rules and regulations contained any valid statutory provisions specifying the tenure, retirement, reappointment, or extension of the COAS. Upon examination, the Court found that no such legislative provisions existed, and that the government's practice of granting extensions was uncodified. Exercising judicial restraint, the Court accepted the Attorney General's undertaking that the Federal Government would initiate necessary legislation to codify these terms. The Court held that the command and terms of service of the COAS must be governed by an Act of Parliament. Consequently, the Court allowed the current appointment of the COAS to continue for a temporary period of six months, subject to the enactment of appropriate legislation by Parliament within that timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 or the Pakistan Army Act 1952 contain provisions specifying the tenure, retirement, reappointment, or extension of the Chief of the Army Staff?
  • Can the terms and conditions of service of the Chief of the Army Staff be regulated by uncodified military practice rather than statutory law?
  • What is the scope of the President's power under Article 243 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding the appointment and tenure of the Chief of the Army Staff?
  Read full judgment →
• The Inspector General of Police vs Abdus Salam and another2019 CLC 1156, 2019 LHC 347 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-26
  limitationcondonation of delayintra court appealgovernment functionariessufficient causeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 sought condonation of delay in filing an Intra Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 against a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge in a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether the period of limitation for filing an Intra Court Appeal starts from the date of the judgment or from the date of communication of a copy of the judgment by the court office to a government functionary, and whether departmental delays constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Lahore High Court held that the limitation period of twenty days under Article 151 of the Limitation Act, 1908 read with Rule 4 of the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders begins from the date of the judgment itself, which can be appealed without a certified copy, and that service of a copy for compliance does not furnish a fresh period of limitation. The court established that government functionaries and agencies are not entitled to preferential treatment or condonation of delay based on internal departmental procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period of limitation for filing an Intra Court Appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court is governed by Article 151 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Does the limitation period for filing an Intra Court Appeal start from the date of the judgment or from the date of receipt of an administrative copy of the judgment served for compliance?
  • Can departmental delays and internal file movements by government agencies constitute sufficient cause for the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Is an appellant required to attach a copy of the judgment appealed from when filing an Intra Court Appeal under the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders?
  Read full judgment →
• The Imperial Electric Company (Pvt.) Limited vs Zhongxing Telecom2019 CLD 609 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-28Read full judgment →
• The Imperial Electric Company (Private) Limited vs M/s Zhongxing Telecom2019 IHC 200 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
• The Gilgit Press Club through President vs The Chief2019 MLD 1207 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-11-23Read full judgment →
• The Deputy Registrar/ Representative of Employees of Federal Shariat2019 PLD Islamabad 591, 2019 IHC 98 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-30
  Federal Shariat Courtutility allowancejudicial independenceterms and conditions of serviceadministrative autonomystatutory interpretationwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the employees of the Federal Shariat Court (F.S.C.) seeking the implementation of a notification issued by the Chief Justice of the F.S.C. which revised the rates of utility allowances for its officers and staff. The core legal question was whether the Chief Justice of the F.S.C. could unilaterally enhance these allowances under the Federal Shariat Court (Terms and Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1982, or if such revision required the prior approval of the Prime Minister or the Finance Division. The Court held that the Chief Justice of the F.S.C. possesses the exclusive authority to regulate the terms and conditions of service for court staff under Rule 5 of the 1982 Rules, which grants the Chief Justice powers otherwise exercisable by the President. The Court determined that the rules contain no requirement for external executive approval. Consequently, the Court declared the respondents' objection regarding the necessity of Prime Minister approval to be without lawful authority and allowed the petition, affirming the judiciary's administrative autonomy regarding its staff's remuneration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court have the power to revise utility allowances for court staff without the approval of the Prime Minister or Finance Division?
  • Are the Federal Shariat Court (Terms and Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1982, subordinate to the approval of the Prime Minister regarding the enhancement of staff allowances?
  • Can a court read into a statutory rule a requirement for executive approval that is not explicitly stated in the text?
  Read full judgment →
• The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle C-4, Karachi vs M/s2019 P.S.C 1284, PTCL 2019 CL. 520, 2019 PTD 1377, 2019 SCMR 1011, 2019 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-15
  income taxinterest on securitieshybrid system of accountingaccrual basisreceipt basisfinancial institutionspast practiceIncome Tax Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 relate to assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, addressing whether interest earned by financial institutions on Government securities was liable to be taxed on an accrual or a receipt basis. The Supreme Court examined the statutory provisions of sections 17 and 32 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, alongside extensive case law concerning mercantile, receipt, and hybrid systems of accounting. The core legal question was whether an assessee could adopt a hybrid system of accounting and whether past practice accepted by the Department precluded sudden rejection. The Court held that, as a matter of law, an assessee was permitted to use a hybrid system of accounting by combining elements of cash and accrual methods. Furthermore, where an established past practice of accepting interest income on a receipt basis existed and was accepted by the Department, assessments could not be arbitrarily reopened or rejected based merely on a change of view by the Appellate Tribunal. The appeals filed by the Department were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interest earned by financial institutions on Government securities is liable to be taxed on accrual or on receipt basis under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can an assessee adopt a hybrid system of accounting mixing accrual and cash methods under section 32 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a consistent past practice of accepting tax returns computed on a receipt basis preclude the Department from abruptly rejecting it for past assessment years?
  • Whether an assessment can be reopened under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on a mere change of opinion by the tax authorities or Appellate Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• The Cooperative Model Town Society through President vs The Punjab2019 PLC 291, 2019 YLR 1825 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-05
  labor grievancesummoning of witnessesadmissibility of evidencemisconductconstitutional petitionQanun-e-Shahadatlabor court procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the orders of the Punjab Labor Court and the Punjab Labor Appellate Tribunal, which declined the petitioner's application to summon its former secretary as a witness in a labor grievance case. The core legal question was whether the Labor Court acted within its legal discretion in refusing to summon a witness when the application failed to specify the purpose, relevance, or necessity of the proposed testimony. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts correctly exercised their discretion. The Court reasoned that the petitioner failed to demonstrate what material facts the witness would prove, particularly since the relevant documentary evidence was already on record. The judgment affirms the principle that under Article 131 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, a court is empowered to inquire into the relevance of proposed evidence. Consequently, a party cannot insist on summoning a witness without establishing the relevance of their testimony, and courts are justified in refusing such requests to prevent unnecessary prolongation of proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court decline a request to summon a witness if the application fails to disclose the purpose or relevance of the testimony?
  • Does the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 empower a judge to inquire into the relevance of proposed evidence before admitting it?
  • Is a party entitled to summon a witness in labor proceedings without establishing the necessity or specific facts to be proved by that witness?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore vs Messrs Chaudhary Dairies2019 PTD 452 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-05
  tax exemptionretrospective operationclarificatory amendmentagricultural producedepartmental practicestatutory interpretationadvance tax deduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application concerns whether an amendment made by Notification No. S.R.O. 593(1)/94, which inserted the words "including fresh milk" into an existing tax exemption notification (S.R.O. 586(1)/91) regarding agricultural produce, operates retrospectively. The Department argued the amendment was prospective, while the assessee contended it was merely clarificatory. The Lahore High Court held that the amendment was indeed clarificatory in nature, serving to explain and remove ambiguity regarding the scope of "agricultural produce" under Section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Consequently, the Court ruled that the amendment applies retrospectively from the date of the original notification (30.06.1991) rather than the date of the amendment (12.06.1994). The Court affirmed that statutory explanations or clarifications intended to resolve doubts are generally retrospective. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that consistent departmental practice and interpretation over a significant period create a reliance that should not be disturbed, reinforcing the principle that administrative bodies cannot depart from established interpretations without valid legislative or regulatory changes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amendment inserting "including fresh milk" into a tax exemption notification for agricultural produce has retrospective effect?
  • Does a clarificatory amendment to a statutory provision or notification generally operate retrospectively?
  • Can a government department depart from a long-standing consistent interpretation of a statute or rule without new legislative development?
  • Is the recipient of fresh milk supplies required to deduct advance tax under Section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, given the clarificatory nature of the subsequent amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax Peshawar vs Director General, NWFP2020 PLC (C.S.) 499, 2019 SCP 26 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-09
  income taxdefinition of incometax exemptionsocial security contributionsvoluntary contributionsretrospective operation of exemptionstatutory welfare institution
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerned whether statutory contributions collected by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Employees' Social Security Institution under the KP Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 constituted taxable 'income' under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, and whether such receipts qualified for statutory exemption. The respondent argued that statutory welfare receipts were not income and, alternatively, were exempt as 'voluntary contributions' under Clause 62 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the 1979 Ordinance, or retrospectively exempt under Clause 142 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Department. The Court held that the definition of income is inclusive and of the broadest amplitude, encompassing the mandatory contributions. It held that contributions collected under Section 20 of the 1965 Ordinance were mandatory statutory levies enforceable as arrears of land revenue, not voluntary contributions under Clause 62. Additionally, Clause 142 of the 2001 Ordinance could not be given retrospective effect to exempt assessments under the repealed 1979 Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Do mandatory contributions collected by a statutory social security institution constitute income under Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  • Can statutory contributions mandated by law be categorized as voluntary contributions for the purpose of tax exemption under Clause 62 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a tax exemption clause inserted into the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 by a subsequent Finance Act be given retrospective effect to past assessments governed by the repealed Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-III, R.T.O., Karachi vs Messrs2020 PCTLR 68, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1836 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-06-12Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-III, Ltu, Karachi vs Messrs2020 PCTLR 168, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1024 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-08-03Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Rto, Lahore vs Messrs Ghee2020 P C T L R 812, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 2293 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-02-06Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, R.T.O., Hyderabad vs Messrs2019 PTD (Trib.) 130 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-01-27Read full judgment →