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.

• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Special Rto, Multan vs Messrs Attiq-2019 PCTLR 1178, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1294 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-02-01Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, R.T.O., Sukkur vs Messrs Muhammad2019 PCTLR 1149, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1256 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-12-12Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Ltu, Lahore vs Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan, Lahore2020 P C T L R 413, 2019 PTD 1990 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-02-04Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Ltu, Lahore vs Kohnoor Energy Ltd., Lahore2020 P C T L R 629, 2019 PTD 1953 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Mannowal Textile Mills LimitedPTCL 2020 CL. 94, 2019 PTD 1811, 2019 LHC 2206 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-23
  gratuity fundadmissible expendituremercantile accountingaccrual basistax deductionapproved gratuity fundincome tax reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application filed by the department challenges the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which deleted additions made by disallowing deductions claimed under the head 'provision for gratuity' for the tax year 2008. The core legal question revolves around whether a contribution to a gratuity fund not recognized by the Commissioner is an admissible expenditure under Section 21(e) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, notwithstanding the adoption of the mercantile or accrual method of accounting. The Lahore High Court held that Section 21(e) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is a special and explicit provision mandating that allowable deductions for gratuity payments can only be claimed if an actual contribution is made towards an approved gratuity fund, distinguishing it from provisions under the repealed Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and the Income Tax Act 1922. The court ruled that mere provisioning for future gratuity liabilities under the mercantile accounting method does not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 21(e). The question was answered in the negative, deciding the reference in favour of the department.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contribution to a gratuity fund not recognized by the Commissioner is an admissible expenditure under Section 21(e) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does the adoption of the mercantile method of accounting allow a taxpayer to claim deductions for mere provisioning of gratuity payments without contributing to an approved gratuity fund?
  • Are Section 24(g) of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and Section 21(e) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 pari-materia in scope, construction, and application?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue vs (M/s.) Ferrous Engineering Industry2021 PTD 1270, 2019 PCTLR 1045 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Peshawar vs Messrs Jan's Builders, Peshawar2019 PCTLR 1157, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1266 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-11-27Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Quetta vs Messra Al-Habib Enterprises and Engineering and others2020 P C T L R 324, 2019 PTCL CL. 604, 2019 PTD 1712 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, MCC (Preventive), Lahore through Assistant2019 PCTLR 1272, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1555 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-06-26Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs vs (M/s.) T.U. Plastic Industry Company (Pvt.) Ltd.2021 PTD 1870, 2019 PCTLR 1068 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs2019 PTD 1599 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-08Read full judgment →
• The Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Peshawar vs M/s Sabrina2019 PCTLR 1114, 2020 P SC 98, 2019 PTD 2001, 2019 SCMR 1639, 2019 SCP 302, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-09
  amended assessmentdefinite informationincome taxbank account statementtax liabilityassessment proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal arising from the judgment of the High Court concerning the interpretation of 'definite information' under Section 122(8) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether the appellant tax authority possessed definite information to pass an amended assessment order based on bank account statements of the respondent. The Supreme Court held that definite information does not mean a reanalysis of existing information or an analysis of further information that was previously accessible but not taken into account during the original assessment proceedings. The Court established that collecting further information from a source already available, which the authority failed to demand at the relevant time, does not constitute receipt of definite information within the meaning of Section 122(8) of the Ordinance, thereby dismissing the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the collection of further information from a source already available during original assessment proceedings constitutes 'definite information' under Section 122(8) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does a reanalysis of existing information or an analysis of further information that was previously accessible amount to definite information for passing an amended assessment order?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chancellor, Mirpur University of Science & Technology/President Azad2020 PSC 530, 2019 SC AJK 154 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-11-05Read full judgment →
• WAPDA vs Muhammad Taj2019 SC AJK 96 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-26Read full judgment →
• Telenor Pakistan vs Presiding Officer Labour Court2019 PLC 240, 2019 PHC 174 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-06-17
  payment of wagestrans-provincial establishmentmandatory depositstatutory appealconstitutional jurisdictionlabour courtcommercial establishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Peshawar High Court addresses writ petitions filed by Telenor Pakistan (Pvt) Limited challenging orders passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Haripur, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeals against directions of the Wages Authority under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of claim petitions against trans-provincial establishments under provincial wage legislation following the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and the mandatory requirement of depositing the decretal amount as a pre-condition for filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013. The court held that the provincial payment of wages legislation applies to commercial establishments within the province regardless of their trans-provincial status under industrial relations laws, and that the statutory requirement to deposit the decretal amount for an appeal is mandatory. The court laid down the principle that failure to comply with mandatory pre-conditions for statutory appeals bars invocation of the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, and dismissed the petitions as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the deposit of the decretal amount is a mandatory pre-condition for maintaining an appeal under section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013?
  • Does the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 oust the jurisdiction of the Provincial Wages Authority over trans-provincial establishments?
  • Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked when a statutory remedy of appeal is bypassed due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-conditions?
  • Are private security agencies operating on telecommunication towers covered under the definition of commercial establishments for the payment of wages?
  Read full judgment →
• Telecard Limited through Representative vs Federation of Pakistan2019 MLD 1053 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-21Read full judgment →
• Tbea Company (Private) Limited through Faisal Anwar vs Al Wasay2019 LHC 3436 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →
• Tayyab Paper Mills vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Division, Islamabad and others2019 PTD 1674 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-14Read full judgment →
• Tasleema Bibi vs SSP, Islamabad etc2019 PLD Islamabad 524, 2019 IHC 56 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-28Read full judgment →
• Tasleem Mehmood vs Muhammad Saleem & others2019 SC AJK 138 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-24Read full judgment →
• Tasaddaq Hussain, Deputy Director Inventory Control_Inspection B- 18_8e5247222019 P.S.C 1257, 2019 KLR Supreme Court 322 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Tasaddaq Hussain alias Idnan vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 712 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-22
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtplea of alibiocular evidencepolice investigationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given that multiple police investigations declared him innocent, the ocular evidence was inconsistent with medical findings, and the appellant raised a credible plea of alibi. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's involvement, noting significant delays in reporting the crime, the lack of corroborating evidence, and the fact that the injury attributed to the appellant was not clearly established as a firearm injury. Furthermore, the Court found the testimony of the eye-witnesses doubtful and the appellant's plea of alibi supported by defence witnesses. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution evidence is riddled with doubts, inconsistencies, and contradictions, and where the police investigation—while not binding—is based on sound material supporting the accused's innocence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police investigation report declaring an accused innocent be considered by the court in determining the guilt of the accused?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is the testimony of eye-witnesses reliable when it contradicts the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Tarique Ali Khan vs The State2019 SHC 514 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-13Read full judgment →
• Tariq Shah and others vs The State and others2019 S M C R 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal appealqatl-e-amdbenefit of the doubtacquittalappraisal of evidenceco-accused acquittalsupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Court challenges a judgment of the High Court affirming the appellants' convictions for qatl-e-amd and murderous assault, while altering their death penalties to imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerns the safety of maintaining convictions based on tainted eyewitness testimony and inconsistent forensic evidence, particularly where identically placed co-accused have already been acquitted. The Supreme Court held that where prosecution witnesses have been found unworthy of reliance regarding acquitted co-accused, their evidence cannot be selectively pressed into service against the remaining appellants, especially when forensic evidence indicates a smaller number of assailants than alleged. The Court laid down the principle that wholesale implication of numerous accused using automatic weapons, coupled with an investigative failure to establish individual culpability beyond reasonable doubt, warrants extending the benefit of the doubt and acquitting the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of eyewitnesses be relied upon against certain accused when the same evidence has been rejected to acquit identically placed co-accused?
  • Does the recovery of empty cartridge casings from a limited number of weapons cast doubt on the participation of a large number of armed assailants?
  • Is it safe to maintain convictions for capital punishment in the presence of major investigative flaws and doubtful ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Shah and others vs State and othersPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 572 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  qatl-e-amdbenefit of doubtacquittal of co-accusedappreciation of evidencecriminal appealforensic evidencewitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the High Court's judgment affirming the convictions of the appellants for qatl-e-amd and murderous assault, while commuting their death sentences to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the appellants' convictions could be sustained given that several co-accused, who were identically placed and implicated by the same prosecution witnesses, had been acquitted in separate trials. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution's case suffered from significant inconsistencies, particularly regarding the number of assailants versus the forensic evidence of weapon casings recovered at the scene. The Court held that the prosecution witnesses, having been found unreliable in the trials of the acquitted co-accused, could not be deemed credible to sustain the convictions of the present appellants. Emphasizing the principle that evidence rejected for one set of accused cannot be selectively applied to others in identical circumstances, the Court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, acquitted the appellants, and ordered their immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of prosecution witnesses be relied upon to convict an accused if the same witnesses were found unreliable and rejected in the trial of identically placed co-accused?
  • Does the recovery of a limited number of weapon casings at a crime scene undermine the prosecution's case regarding the participation of a large number of armed assailants?
  • Is it safe to maintain convictions when the prosecution's case suffers from significant investigative and forensic inconsistencies?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Nadeem vs Shakeel Ahmad2019 LHC 1369 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-30Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood vs The State2019 MLD 94 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-16
  post-arrest bailmurderconcealment of evidenceunnatural deathfurther inquirybailable offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through a criminal bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Tariq Mehmood, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of murder, concealment of evidence, and improper burial. The core legal question is whether the applicant, who was allegedly implicated as a friend of the prime accused in helping bury the deceased wife without proper Islamic rituals and hiding the crime, makes out a case for further inquiry under the relevant penal provisions. The court held that the primary murder charge against the applicant required further inquiry due to lack of direct evidence, while the remaining allegations concerning the improper burial fell under bailable offences. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to surety. The key principle laid down is that where direct evidence linking an accused to a capital charge is lacking and the attending allegations attract bailable offences, the case warrants a tentative assessment in favor of granting bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused allegedly involved in assisting the principal offender with burial without proper rituals is entitled to post-arrest bail when the murder charge requires further inquiry?
  • Do offences relating to the improper burial of a human corpse under the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the bailable category?
  • Can a tentative assessment of the police record justify the grant of bail when direct evidence linking the accused to the principal crime is absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood vs The State, etc2019 SCMR 1170, 2019 PLJ SC Cr.C. 429, 2019 SCP 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-09
  qatl-e-amdmurderous assaultabductionocular accountprivate complaintacquittalcriminal appealbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for qatl-e-amd, murderous assault, and abduction under Sections 302(b) and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and co-accused trespassed into a residence, shot the deceased and an eyewitness, and abducted a female relative to avenge a suspected liaison. The trial court convicted the appellant and two others, while acquitting four. The High Court maintained the convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court identified significant improbabilities in the prosecution's narrative, noting that the alleged prime target of the assault was left unharmed while others were attacked. The Court also highlighted contradictions regarding the recovery of the abductee and the role of a hired assassin mentioned by the investigating officer. Furthermore, a delay in the autopsy suggested potential deliberations. Holding the genesis of the case to be inherently suspect and the evidence self-destructive, the Court concluded it was unsafe to maintain the convictions. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs The State etc2019 P Cr. L J 1039, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 365, 2019 LHC 257 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07
  pre-arrest bailbailable offencesmedical jurisprudenceShajjah-e-Khafifahbone deep injurymala fiderecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving charges under sections 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 342, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the alleged injury, initially categorized as 'bone deep' and charged under section 337-A(ii), truly constituted a non-bailable offence, and whether bail should be granted given the circumstances. The Court held that the medical evidence, specifically the radiologist report, confirmed no fracture was present, and the term 'bone deep' was improperly used by the medical officer contrary to established guidelines. Consequently, the injury was reclassified as 'Shajjah-e-Khafifah', which falls under the bailable section 337-A(i). The Court further held that recovery of the weapon ('sota') was unnecessary due to the significant passage of time and that bail cannot be refused in bailable offences merely due to alleged abscondance. The pre-arrest bail was confirmed. The key principle laid down is that medical officers must strictly adhere to defined terminology regarding injuries, and misclassification of injuries by medical staff can indicate mala fide on the part of the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Does a 'bone deep' injury without bone exposure constitute an offence under section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be refused for the purpose of recovery of a weapon when significant time has elapsed since the incident?
  • Is bail liable to be refused in bailable offences merely on the ground of abscondance?
  • What is the correct legal classification for an injury where the bone is not exposed?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ikram and 4 others vs Lt. Mohammad Sohail Anjum Khan and 92019 YLR 1080 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-03Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain vs Subhan Ali and 6 others2019 CLC 1592 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-17
  election petitionlocal government electionscorrupt practicesnon-joinder of partiesdeclaration of assetsmandatory rulesdisqualification of candidate
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the judgment of the Election Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's election petition against the returned candidate for a local government seat in Sindh. The core legal questions involve whether the election petition was maintainable despite failing to implead certain government officials against whom specific allegations of corrupt practices were leveled, and whether a candidate can be disqualified for non-disclosure or incorrect disclosure of assets and liabilities under the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, at the nomination stage. The Sindh High Court held that the statutory election rules mandating the joinder of persons against whom allegations of corrupt practices are made are mandatory, rendering the petition unmaintainable for non-compliance. However, regarding the assets declaration, the court held that unlike the Representation of the People Act, 1976, the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, and its rules do not require a candidate to declare assets at the nomination stage, but rather post-election under Section 23. Nonetheless, because the returned candidate voluntarily submitted conflicting asset declarations during proceedings, the court set aside the tribunal's finding on candidate qualification and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry into whether the post-election declaration matches the disclosures.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-impleading of officials against whom specific allegations of corrupt practices are made is fatal to the maintainability of an election petition under the Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015?
  • Whether the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, requires a candidate to submit a declaration of assets and liabilities at the time of filing nomination papers?
  • Can an Election Tribunal inquire into the qualification and asset disclosures of a returned candidate under Section 76A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, read with the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013?
  • Whether statutory rules providing a penal consequence for non-compliance are mandatory in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain son of Dost Muhammad vs The statePLJ 2019 Cr.c. 1565, 2019 PHC 108 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-18Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hayat vs Muhammad Shabir & Others2019 SC AJK 54 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-19Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hameed Paracha and others vs Danish Ahmed and another2019 YLR 2246 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-04
  kidnapping for ransomextra-judicial confessionjoint pointationdiscovery of dead bodycall detail recordssentence enhancementanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for kidnapping an eleven-year-old boy for ransom, murdering him by suffocation, and related firearms offenses. The core legal questions involved the reliability of delayed FIR registration, extra-judicial confessions before police, joint pointation leading to the discovery of the dead body, and the principle of joint liability for co-accused in organized kidnapping and murder schemes. The Sindh High Court held that minor contradictions in recovery evidence do not vitiate the prosecution's case when corroborated by independent Citizens Police Liaison Committee records, call detail records, and pointing out the place of crime and body. While upholding the convictions of all appellants, the court altered the death sentences of three appellants to imprisonment for life due to uncertainty regarding the individual perpetrator of the murder, and enhanced the sentence of a fourth appellant to life imprisonment in accordance with the mandatory statutory penalties under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The key legal principle established is that co-accused participating in different stages of a planned kidnapping for ransom share equal liability regardless of their specific individual roles, and extra-judicial confessions when corroborated by independent discoveries and technical evidence are legally reliable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a significant delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case when explained by family negotiations and missing reports?
  • Can extra-judicial confessions made before the police be relied upon when corroborated by subsequent discoveries and technical evidence?
  • Does the joint pointation of a dead body by multiple accused invalidate its admissibility under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether co-accused playing different roles in a planned kidnapping for ransom scheme share equal criminal liability and punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Gul vs Zarar-Ul-Yamin Khan2019 CLC 566 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-12Read full judgment →
• Tariq Aziz vs Province of Sindh & others2019 MLD 1259, 2019 SHC 22 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-08Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ali Shah and another vs The State and othersPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 90, 2019 SCMR 1391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-06-24
  qatl-i-amdcriminal appealmedical evidence inconsistencybenefit of the doubtspot arrestacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the High Court's judgment upholding the appellant's conviction for qatl-i-amd with a modification of the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's eyewitness accounts, the credibility of the appellant's spot-arrest, and the consistency between the medical evidence and the weapon recovered. The Supreme Court held that numerous discrepancies in the prosecution's case—including unexplained delays in the postmortem examination, inconsistencies between the firearm used and the multiple entry wounds noted in the medical report, and doubts regarding the spot-arrest of the appellant within a heavily guarded police premises—rendered the prosecution's case unsafe for maintaining a conviction. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that where foundational aspects of the prosecution's narrative are riddled with patent discrepancies and medical incompatibility, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, resulting in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether inconsistencies between the firearm recovered and the medical injury report are sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the foundational narrative of the spot-arrest of the accused is surrounded by intriguing delays and lack of independent corroboration?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on similar or linked roles weaken the prosecution's case against the remaining appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Tareen alias Bado and another vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 832 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-09-11
  criminal appealmurder referencecapital punishmentinjured witnesspolice witnessmitigation of sentenceforensic evidencered-handed arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and causing hurt. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular and forensic evidence, and whether the death penalty was appropriate. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charge, relying on the testimony of police officials who apprehended the appellant red-handed, and the testimony of an injured witness. The Court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses and that the testimony of an injured witness is inherently credible, requiring little corroboration. Furthermore, forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the crime scene confirmed the appellant's involvement. However, the Court modified the sentence, converting the death penalty to life imprisonment. The ratio established that while the conviction was sound, the failure of the prosecution to establish a clear motive, coupled with the appellant's advanced age of 72 years, constituted sufficient grounds to mitigate the capital punishment. The appeal was dismissed regarding the conviction, but the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Are police officials considered competent witnesses in criminal trials?
  • Is the solitary statement of an injured witness sufficient to sustain a conviction?
  • Can advanced age and lack of established motive be grounds for mitigating a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanvir Tahir son of Muhammad Fazal vs Azad Government & others2019 SC AJK 65 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-20Read full judgment →
• Tanveer vs The State etc2020 PLD Lahore 774, 2019 LHC 4305 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-27
  abduction for ransomrapeDNA evidencechain of custodycriminal appealwitness credibilitycorroboratory evidencereasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for abduction and rape under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the victim’s testimony, the admissibility and weight of DNA evidence, and whether the prosecution established the chain of custody for forensic samples. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the victim’s testimony was inconsistent and improved upon, rendering it unreliable. Furthermore, the Court ruled that DNA evidence is corroboratory rather than primary, and because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the forensic samples, the DNA report was inadmissible. Emphasizing that medical evidence cannot substitute for primary ocular testimony and that any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms that forensic reports require strict adherence to procedural safeguards to be considered credible evidence in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of DNA evidence without primary ocular testimony?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the transmission of forensic samples to a laboratory affect the admissibility of a DNA report?
  • Is a witness who consistently improves their statement during trial considered a reliable witness?
  • Must the prosecution establish an unbroken chain of custody for forensic evidence to be admissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer vs The State and another2019 KLR Criminal Cases 214 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Tanveer Salamat vs Learned Addl. District Judge, etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 1272, 2019 YLR 1862, 2019 PLJ Lahore 363 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-10Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Musharraf and another vs Government of Khyber2019 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-27
  government accommodationpublic office holdercivil servantallotment cancellationretired son quotastatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who were allotted government accommodations under a retired son quota, challenged the cancellation of these allotments following a directive to vacate unauthorized housing. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as employees of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission and the Employees Social Security Institution, qualified as 'public office holders' eligible for government accommodation under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners did not meet the statutory definition of 'public office holder' because they were not civil servants appointed under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, nor were they federal civil servants posted in Peshawar. The Court affirmed that the benefits of the Act are strictly confined to the specific class of civil servants defined therein. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, finding no legal or jurisdictional error in the High Court's judgment, and refused leave to appeal, thereby upholding the cancellation of the unauthorized allotments.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission qualify as a 'public office holder' for the purpose of government accommodation allotment under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018?
  • Are employees of the Employees Social Security Institution eligible for government accommodation under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018?
  • Does the definition of 'public office holder' in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018 extend to all government employees regardless of their appointment statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Hussain vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 315 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-05
  criminal appealmurdercircumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtacquittalmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant, Tanveer Hussain, for the murder of a minor, as determined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence presented, specifically last-seen evidence, an alleged extra-judicial confession, medical reports, and recovery of incriminating items. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. The court found the last-seen evidence unreliable due to the witness's delayed reporting and close relationship with the complainant. Furthermore, the extra-judicial confession lacked corroboration and credibility, and the medical evidence failed to substantiate the prosecution’s theory, particularly regarding alleged sodomy, which was negated by the Chemical Examiner’s report. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof. The key principle laid down is that where circumstantial evidence is inconsistent, uncorroborated, and fails to form a complete chain of events, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an extra-judicial confession reliable when it lacks corroboration and involves unexplained delays?
  • Does the failure of medical evidence to support a specific allegation, such as sodomy, undermine the prosecution's entire case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on 'last seen' evidence when the witness's conduct is inconsistent with natural behavior?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a confession allegedly made to police during investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Ahmad alias Peeru vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 53 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-09
  narcotic substancesweight discrepancyforensic analysissentencing reductioncriminal appealrecovery memopossession of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing 1160 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether a significant discrepancy between the weight of the narcotic sample recorded at the time of recovery and the weight reported by the forensic laboratory necessitated a reduction in the conviction category. The court held that the discrepancy indicated an inaccurate scale used by the investigating officer. By calculating the percentage of deficiency observed in the sample and applying it to the total recovered quantity, the court determined the actual weight fell below the threshold for Section 9(c) and instead fell under Section 9(b). Consequently, the conviction was converted to Section 9(b), and the sentence was reduced. The key principle laid down is that where a weight discrepancy exists between field recovery and forensic analysis, the percentage of deficiency found in the sample must be applied to the total recovered narcotic substance to determine the accurate weight for sentencing purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the weight of a narcotic sample recorded at the scene and the weight reported by a forensic agency require a recalculation of the total recovered quantity?
  • Can a conviction under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be converted to Section 9(b) based on a finding of inaccurate weighing at the time of recovery?
  • Is the percentage of deficiency found in a forensic sample applicable to the total recovered narcotic substance for sentencing purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs The State2019 YLR 2056, 2019 SHC 10 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-28
  criminal negligencecase propertydiyatinvestigating officerroad accidentvicarious liabilitymotor vehicle insurance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 320 and 337-G, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a fatal road accident. The core legal question concerns the validity of the conviction and the satisfaction of Diyat liability when the prosecution failed to produce the vehicle involved in the accident as case property before the trial court. The High Court observed that the Investigating Officer had improperly released the vehicle to the owner without court authorization, subsequently leading to its destruction. Holding that the police investigation was grossly negligent, the Court determined that the failure to secure the case property prevented the satisfaction of Diyat from the vehicle. Consequently, the Court held the Police Investigation Department liable for the Diyat amount, ordering them to deposit the sum to compensate the legal heirs. The judgment establishes the principle that investigating officers possess a mandatory duty to secure case property, and their failure to do so, particularly when it serves as the primary source for satisfying compensation, renders the police department vicariously liable for the resulting financial loss.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the vehicle involved in a fatal accident as case property invalidate the conviction?
  • Can an investigating officer release a vehicle involved in a criminal offence to the owner without the permission of the trial court?
  • Is the police department vicariously liable for the payment of Diyat when the investigating officer's negligence results in the loss of the vehicle that was to serve as case property?
  • Does the owner of a motor vehicle have a statutory duty to secure third-party insurance under the Motor Vehicles Act 1938?
  Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs State & anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1340 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-19
  narcotic substancessafe custodychain of custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealforensic analysisnarcotics recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 2305 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the safe custody and chain of custody of the recovered contraband beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to glaring contradictions between the testimonies of the complainant and the police Moharrir regarding the dates the contraband parcel was submitted to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. Furthermore, the record failed to reconcile the timeline of the parcel's handling, creating a fatal gap in the chain of custody. The court reaffirmed the principle that the initial burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution, and where significant inconsistencies exist regarding the safe custody of recovered narcotics, the resulting doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between prosecution witnesses regarding the date of submission of contraband to a forensic laboratory create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish the safe custody of recovered narcotics beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove the chain of custody for recovered contraband?
  Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Aurangzeb and 17 others2020 YLR 222, 2019 P.S.C. 700 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-11-22Read full judgment →
• Talha Nasir & Others vs Pakistan Medical and Dental Council & Others2020 PLD Sindh 88, 2019 SHC 106 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
• Talat Hussain vs Aqib Mehmood and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 286, 2020 KLR Criminal Cases 326, 2020 YLR · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-15
  post-arrest bailsubsequently added offencesbail orderjail authoritiescustodia legiscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arose from the refusal of jail authorities to release the petitioner despite a prior bail order, due to the omission of subsequently added offences from that order. The core legal question was whether a bail order granted in an FIR automatically covers offences added later, or if a fresh application is required for those specific provisions. The Court rejected the view that bail in an FIR covers all offences regardless of their omission from the order, noting the potential for abuse and the necessity for judicial oversight of all charges. The Court held that a bail order must explicitly cover all provisions under which an accused is charged or investigated. However, in the instant case, having reviewed the merits, the Court exercised its discretion to extend the existing bail to cover the inadvertently omitted offences, ruling that the original sureties would suffice for the added provisions, thereby resolving the conflict between the need for specific judicial authorization and the practicalities of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a bail order granted in an FIR automatically cover offences added to the case after the bail was granted?
  • Is it mandatory for a bail granting order to explicitly mention all penal provisions under which an accused is being investigated?
  • Can a court extend an existing bail order to cover subsequently added offences without requiring a fresh bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Talat Hafeez vs Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge ,Dera Ghazi2019 LHC 3862 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
• Talat Ali vs Mrs. Durr-e-Shawar, etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 1146 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-05Read full judgment →
• Takhar vs Gracefield Developments Limited and others2019 SCMR 663 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
• Taj Wali Shah vs Bakhti Zaman2019 P.S.C. 388, 2019 SCMR 84 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-22
  possessionejectmentco-ownerAbadi DehSpecific Relief Actdeclaration of titlepossessory rightsmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for possession by ejectment and recovery of rent concerning a house in 'Abadi Deh' (village site). The appellant claimed ownership via a sale deed, while the respondent asserted possessory rights as a legacy. The Trial and Appellate Courts decreed in favor of the appellant, but the High Court reversed this, holding that a suit under Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, was not maintainable without a prior declaration of title under Section 42. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, clarifying that Section 8 uses the term 'entitled', which encompasses owners, co-sharers, and others with legal claims to possession. The Court held that a suit under Section 8 contains an inbuilt prayer for declaration of entitlement, making a separate suit under Section 42 unnecessary. Furthermore, it established that a co-owner can maintain a suit for ejectment against a mere possessor for the entire property, with such possession being for the benefit of all co-sharers. The Court modified the decree to recognize the appellant as 'entitled to possession as a co-owner'.

  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs The State2020 P Cr.L J 1693, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 463, 2019 SHC 450 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-20
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidenceSection 342 Cr.P.C.amended chargeappreciation of evidenceQatl-e-Amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences awarded by the trial court under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of two individuals. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the amended charge framed by the trial court and the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence. The High Court held that while the technical errors in the charge were curable under Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as they caused no prejudice, the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed. The court observed material contradictions in the ocular evidence and noted that the trial court failed to put critical medical evidence to the appellants during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, ruling that incriminating evidence not put to the accused cannot be considered against them. The court reaffirmed the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can an error in the framing of a charge be cured if it does not cause prejudice to the accused?
  • Can incriminating evidence not put to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used against them?
  • Does the failure to put medical evidence to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Ahmad vs Muhammad Nawaz, Member of Provincial Assembly (Mpa), Punjab & others2019 KLR Civil Cases 88 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Taimoor vs The State and another2019 SHC 208 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-28
  post-arrest bailQatl-e-amdfurther inquirydelay in FIRcriminal procedureevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from a criminal case where the applicant was accused of committing Qatl-e-amd. Having been denied post-arrest bail by the trial court, the applicant approached the Sindh High Court under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking release on the grounds of further inquiry. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of eyewitnesses, and the questionable nature of the evidence linking the applicant to the crime. The Court observed that no witnesses had seen the applicant commit the incident, the recovery of the deceased's clothes was doubtful, and there was an unexplained three-day delay in filing the FIR, alongside a five-day delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the applicant's guilt required further inquiry, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that significant, unexplained delays in the registration of an FIR and the recording of witness statements constitute valid grounds for admitting an accused to bail on the basis of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Can the absence of eyewitnesses combined with doubtful recovery evidence entitle an accused to bail on the basis of further inquiry?
  • Is a significant delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a relevant factor in bail adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Taimoor Khalid vs Muhammad Azeem and 6 others2020 PLJ Supreme Court (AJ&K) 15, 2019 P.S.C. 1703 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-14Read full judgment →
• Taimoor Ali Tiwana vs Mehr-U-Nisa Malik2019 YLR 938 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-11-29Read full judgment →
• Tahira Bano through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Bilal and others2019 MLD 1307 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
• Tahir-uz-Zaman vs The State/ANF2019 PCr. LJ 1302 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-29
  narcotics possessioncharas recoverycontrol of narcotic substancespolice witnessesindependent corroborationreduction of sentencemitigating circumstanceschemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possessing ten kilograms of charas, resulting in a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for twelve years and six months with a fine. The core legal questions addressed whether the non-association of private independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 vitiates a narcotics conviction, and whether official police and ANF witnesses are competent without independent corroboration. The Sindh High Court held that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 explicitly excludes the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, rendering official testimonies competent in the absence of established mala fides. While upholding the conviction on merits due to positive chemical reports and unblemished official evidence, the court found mitigating circumstances in the appellant's status as a first-time offender, his satisfactory jail conduct, and his family hardship, ultimately reducing his sentence to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in narcotics cases?
  • Can police or ANF officials be considered competent witnesses in narcotics recoveries without independent corroboration?
  • Whether the sentence of a convicted person under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be reduced to the period already undergone based on mitigating family circumstances and satisfactory jail conduct?
  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses from a locality vitiate a trial under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1710 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-02
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailreappraisal of evidencevicarious liabilityacquittal of co-accusedcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of a sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca, in a private complaint involving offences under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence pending the final decision of his appeal. The Court observed that the petitioner was not attributed the role of inflicting any firearm injuries to the deceased, and notably, the co-accused who were attributed specific roles of causing firearm injuries had been acquitted by the trial court. Finding that the petitioner was not a hardened criminal and that his involvement required serious reappraisal of evidence during the appeal, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought. Consequently, the Court suspended the petitioner's sentence subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, establishing the principle that suspension of sentence is appropriate where the prosecution's case against the accused requires substantial re-evaluation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convict entitled to suspension of sentence pending appeal when the co-accused attributed with the primary act have been acquitted?
  • Does the absence of a specific role in causing fatal injuries justify the suspension of a sentence under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the suspension of sentence be granted when the conviction requires a serious reappraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Pervaiz Director General Legal Affairs Pakistan Railways vs Federation2019 PLC (C.S.) 339, 2019 LHC 27, 2019 PLD Lahore 178, 2019 PLJ Lahore 149 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-08
  contractual employmentmaster and servantwrit jurisdictionex-post facto approvaltermination of servicemaintainability of petitioncompetent authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's contract as Director General/Legal Affairs (MP-II Scale) in Pakistan Railways. The core legal questions were whether a constitutional petition is maintainable for a contractual employee, whether the petitioner was estopped from challenging termination under specific contract clauses, and whether the termination order was issued by a competent authority. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner was a contract employee governed by the principle of master and servant, not statutory service rules. The Court affirmed that such employees cannot enforce contract terms in constitutional jurisdiction and, at best, may only claim damages for the unexpired period of service. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the termination, executed under the contract's notice provisions, was valid and that the Prime Minister's subsequent ex-post facto approval satisfied the requirement for approval, as the relevant rules did not mandate 'prior' approval. The principle established is that contractual service disputes are outside the scope of Article 199 jurisdiction, and 'approval' does not inherently require 'prior approval' unless explicitly stated.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for a contractual employee not governed by statutory service rules?
  • Can a contractual employee seek reinstatement in constitutional jurisdiction, or is the remedy limited to damages for the unexpired period?
  • Does the requirement of 'approval' by an authority inherently imply 'prior approval' in the absence of the word 'prior'?
  • Does the power to appoint include the power to dismiss under the General Clauses Act 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chairman, Lahore Gymkhana Club, Upper Mall, Lahore. Etc vs Basharat2019 PLC 162, 2019 LHC 1140 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-29
  jurisdictional factcommercial establishmentlabor court jurisdictionconstitutional petitionjudicial reviewworkman status
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed to impugn the concurrent orders of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's application challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain a grievance petition against a termination letter. The petitioner, Lahore Gymkhana Club, argued that as an association governed by its Memorandum and Articles of Association and not operating for profit, it did not fall within the definition of a 'Commercial Establishment' under the relevant labor laws. The core legal question was whether a tribunal of limited jurisdiction is competent to decide jurisdictional objections regarding the amenability of parties or subject matter, and whether the High Court should interfere through judicial review while the matter remains pending. The Lahore High Court held that objections concerning whether a party or subject matter falls within a tribunal's jurisdiction can competently be investigated and decided by the special tribunal itself based on evidence and factual inquiry, rather than through premature constitutional petitions. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a special tribunal of limited jurisdiction is competent to decide objections regarding the amenability of parties or subject matter to its jurisdiction?
  • Can the High Court exercise judicial review jurisdiction to determine preliminary jurisdictional facts while the main matter is still pending adjudication before a Labour Court?
  • Does a club incorporated as an association limited by guarantee automatically fall outside the definition of a commercial establishment without recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mirza vs Saleha Mehmood, DCO and others2019 YLR 2852 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-30
  contempt petitionparallel proceedingscivil litigationprotection of lawoverseas pakistanisconstitutional obligation
  Summary & questions settled

  This contempt petition was filed alleging non-compliance with an earlier order of the court wherein respondents had stated they would not conduct parallel proceedings in light of pending civil litigation. The core legal question concerned whether contempt of court was made out against the respondents for initiating subsequent proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that no contempt was made out as no formal undertaking had been recorded by the respondent, and noted that alternative remedies were available to the parties under the relevant statutory framework. The court laid down the principle that under Articles 4, 5, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, all citizens—including overseas Pakistanis—are equally entitled to the protection of law and must be treated in accordance with law, and no person is above the law or permitted to take matters into their own hands.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contempt of court is made out when no formal undertaking was given to the court during the disposal of a constitutional petition?
  • Does an overseas Pakistani enjoy immunity from the ordinary legal process or civil litigation pending between the parties?
  • What is the scope of the right to be treated in accordance with law under Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Khan and Others vs P.O Sindh & Other2019 SHC 122 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-07Read full judgment →
• Tahir Javaid vs Mst. Shahida Shafiq and others2020 MLD 277, 2019 LHC 1913 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
• Tahir Hussain vs The State, etc2020 YLR 576, 2019 LHC 3118 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-26
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustmala fidedelay in FIR registrationQarze-HasnaAmanat
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in connection with FIR No. 92 of 2019, registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging criminal breach of trust regarding a monetary transaction. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the circumstances surrounding the FIR. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the ad-interim bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that there was an unexplained two-year delay in registering the FIR, which cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court determined that the transaction, described as a loan (Qarze-Hasna) in substance, did not satisfy the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite the complainant's attempt to characterize it as 'Amanat' (trust). The key principle laid down is that the mere use of the word 'Amanat' in an FIR is insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the underlying transaction is essentially a civil loan, and such characterization may indicate mala fide intent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere use of the word 'Amanat' in an FIR automatically constitute an offence under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a transaction described as a loan (Qarze-Hasna) form the basis of a criminal charge for breach of trust?
  • Does an unexplained two-year delay in registering an FIR cast doubt on the reliability of the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Attique Zarif vs Federation of Pakistan2019 PLD Islamabad 483 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-03-20
  extraditionfugitive offenderprima facie caseinquiry magistrateextradition inquiryconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order by an Inquiry Magistrate recommending the extradition of the petitioner to the United Kingdom for trial on charges of murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and firearm possession. The core legal question was whether the Inquiry Magistrate correctly determined that a prima facie case existed for extradition and whether the proceedings complied with the Extradition Act 1972. The court held that the extradition proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and that the Inquiry Magistrate properly formed an opinion regarding the existence of a prima facie case based on authenticated documents. The court emphasized that an inquiry under the Extradition Act 1972 is not a trial; the Magistrate's role is limited to determining if there is sufficient ground to proceed, not to adjudicate guilt. The key principle laid down is that the standard of a 'prima facie case' in extradition inquiries signifies the existence of adequate material to justify further investigation or trial, rather than conclusive proof of guilt, and that the Magistrate is not required to conduct a minute appraisal of evidence as would be done in a full criminal trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is an inquiry under the Extradition Act 1972 equivalent to a full criminal trial?
  • What is the scope of an Inquiry Magistrate's duty when determining if a prima facie case exists for extradition?
  • Can the Federal Government initiate extradition proceedings for a non-treaty state under the Extradition Act 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Attique Zarif vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2019 IHC 130 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-03-20
  extraditionfugitive offenderprima facie caseextradition actinquiry magistrateconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner acting as an Inquiry Magistrate, which concluded that a prima-facie case was made out for the extradition of the petitioner to the United Kingdom and referred the matter to the Federal Government under the Extradition Act 1972. The core legal questions involved whether the extradition proceedings and inquiry were conducted in accordance with the Extradition Act 1972, whether the foreign documents were duly authenticated, and whether a prima-facie case existed to recommend extradition without conducting a full trial. The Islamabad High Court held that the Inquiry Magistrate is not required to conduct a trial or determine guilt, but merely to ascertain whether a prima-facie case is established based on authenticated material. The court found that the documents were properly authenticated through diplomatic channels, and the evidence including cellular data and CCTV footage sufficiently established a prima-facie case. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the inquiry proceedings suffered from no legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Inquiry Magistrate conducting an extradition inquiry is required to hold a full trial or merely determine the existence of a prima-facie case?
  • Can the Federal Government apply the provisions of the Extradition Act 1972 to a non-treaty State by issuing a direction under Section 4?
  • What constitutes proper authentication of foreign documents under the Extradition Act 1972 for the purpose of an extradition inquiry?
  • Does the evaluation of circumstantial evidence such as cell phone data and CCTV footage suffice for establishing a prima-facie case in extradition proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Tabassum Zia vs The State2019 MLD 1466 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-03-12
  quantum of sentenceenhancement of sentencesodomymitigating circumstancesrevision petitionalternative punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the quantum of sentence awarded to respondent No. 2 upon conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, wherein he was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment by the trial court. The core legal question revolves around whether the sentence awarded was adequate and whether enhancement of sentence is warranted under the circumstances of the case. The Federal Shariat Court held that the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial court was justified and commensurate with the gravity of the offense, taking into consideration mitigating circumstances such as doubts arising in the prosecution case, the respondent's status as a first offender, his age, and the fact that he had already served out his whole sentence. The court laid down the principle that while determining the quantum of punishment where alternative sentences are provided, factors such as mitigating doubts in the prosecution case, the offender's age, and reformation must be considered, and enhancement of sentence is unjustified where the convict has already served the sentence and no strong grounds exist for interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the quantum of sentence awarded under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 can be enhanced in revision when the convict has already served out his whole sentence?
  • Can doubts arising in the prosecution case be considered as mitigating circumstances while determining the quantum of sentence?
  • What factors should be kept in mind by the court while determining the quantum of punishment where alternative sentences are provided?
  Read full judgment →
• System Company through Authorized Attorney vs Mtu Middle East Fze and another2019 PLD Sindh 382 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Zafar Ali Shah and another vs Chief Minister, Secretary & I.G.2020 PLD Sindh 22, 2019 PLJ Karachi 170 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Yawar Hussain Shigri and another vs Federation of Pakistan2019 PLC (C.S.) 1067 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-27
  Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010reinstatement of serviceCivil Aviation Authorityconstitutional jurisdictionouster clausebeneficial legislationjurisdictional errorservice benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the implementation of a reinstatement order passed by the Sacked Employees Review Board in favor of a former Civil Aviation Authority employee. The core legal questions were whether the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 applied to the Civil Aviation Authority, whether the Review Board had jurisdiction to reinstate the petitioner, and whether the High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction despite the finality clause in the Act. The Court held that the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 is a beneficial legislation intended to provide relief to sacked employees of entities controlled by the Federal Government. It found that the Review Board acted within its jurisdiction and that the Civil Aviation Authority was afforded a fair hearing, as evidenced by the presence of its representative during the proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Civil Aviation Authority's challenge and directed the implementation of the reinstatement order. The judgment affirms that while statutory finality clauses exist, they do not oust the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional errors, decisions tainted by mala fide, or actions that are coram non judice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to review orders of the Sacked Employees Review Board despite the finality clause in the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010?
  • Is the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 applicable to employees of the Civil Aviation Authority?
  • Can an order of the Sacked Employees Review Board be challenged on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction or mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Wajahat Ali through Special Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan2019 [M] C.L.R. 767, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 157, 2019 MLD 692 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Tayyab Hussain Rizvi vs Federation of Pakistan, Etc2019 LHC 1204 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Tayyab Hussain Rizvi vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 PTD 1414 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Tasawar Hussain Shah vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Secretary Home Department and 5 others2020 P SC 686, 2019 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-09-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Tajuddin vs Messrs City Developers through Chief Executive2019 YLR 2778 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Shoaib Khursheed vs Messrs Al Mal Securities and Services Ltd.2019 CLD 1309 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Shoaib Hassan and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others2019 YLR 2162 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Sharafat Hussain and 6 others vs Mohammad Bux2019 MLD 14 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Shafqat Hussain Shah vs Returning Officer and another2019 YLR 643 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Saleem Shah vs The State & 5 others2019 PLD Lahore 435, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1069, 2019 LHC 1737 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-23
  revisional jurisdictionanti-terrorism courtsummoning of witnessesinterim ordersCode of Criminal Proceduresuperintendence of High Courtjust decision of the case
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) dismissing the petitioner's applications under Section 227 and Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possesses revisional jurisdiction over interim orders passed by an ATC and whether the trial court erred in refusing to summon investigating officers under Section 540, Cr.P.C. The Court held that an Anti-Terrorism Court is a court of criminal jurisdiction subordinate to the High Court, and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies mutatis mutandis to its proceedings unless expressly excluded. Consequently, the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. remains intact regarding interim orders of the ATC. The Court established that the jurisdiction of superior courts cannot be ousted except by express, clear, and unambiguous legislative intent. Regarding the merits, the Court held that summoning investigating officers is essential for the just decision of the case, allowing the petition and directing the trial court to record their testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 over interim orders passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Is an Anti-Terrorism Court considered a criminal court subordinate to the High Court?
  • Can a trial court refuse to summon investigating officers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Saleem Shah vs State and othersPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 510 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-06
  criminal revisionAnti-Terrorism Courtinterim ordersmaintainabilityjudicial conflictlarger benchprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal revision petition filed against an order dated 16.1.2019 passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court, which dismissed the petitioner's applications for the addition of a charge under Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and for the summoning of two Investigating Officers in a case involving FIR No. 247/2014. The core legal question addressed is the maintainability of a revision petition or writ petition challenging interim orders passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court, particularly in light of conflicting judgments from two Full Benches of the Lahore High Court. The Court observed that there is a divergence of opinion between the judgment dated 31.5.2018 passed by the Multan Bench and the judgment dated 6.7.2018 passed by the Principal Seat regarding the appropriate forum and procedure for challenging such interim orders. Consequently, the Court held that it is appropriate to transmit the petition to the Principal Seat and place the matter before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench to resolve the conflicting precedents and settle the legal position on the maintainability of such challenges.

  Questions settled

  • Is a revision petition maintainable against an interim order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • How should a court proceed when faced with conflicting judgments from two Full Benches of the same High Court regarding the maintainability of a petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Salahuddin S/o Nizamuddin Shah vs The State2020 MLD 886, 2019 SHC 522 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-13
  white-collar crimeextra-judicial confessionretracted confessionmisappropriationaccountability courtcorroborative evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal accountability appeal challenges the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellant, an Ex-Operation Manager/Joint Custodian of the National Bank of Pakistan, under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for corruption and corrupt practices. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution proved the charge of financial misappropriation and the making of fake inter-branch entries resulting in a loss of Rs. 78.4 million beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of a retracted extra-judicial confessional statement. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution successfully established its case through trustworthy oral and documentary evidence, and that the appellant's extra-judicial confession made during the departmental inquiry was voluntary, true, and adequately corroborated by a personal cheque issued for repayment and written applications for time extensions. The court laid down the principle that an extra-judicial confession, though requiring careful scrutiny, can form the basis of a conviction if found to be voluntary, true, and supported by unimpeachable corroborative evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession can be made the sole basis for conviction if it is voluntary, true, and corroborated by independent evidence?
  • Does a retracted extra-judicial confession lose its legal worth entirely when supported by documentary evidence and the conduct of the accused?
  • Whether the prosecution must prove a charge of corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a personal cheque issued by an accused for the repayment of an embezzled amount in corroborating a confession?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Sajjad Hussain vs Judge Family Court, etc2019 CLC 1462, 2019 PLJ Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Sadam Hussain vs Faisal Shah and others2019 YLR 2470 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-10
  criminal acquittal appealbenefit of the doubtdouble presumption of innocenceabductionransomappreciation of evidencematerial contradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 365-A, 392, 511, 504(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or based on a misappreciation of evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from material contradictions, including unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies regarding ransom demands, and unreliable witness testimony. The Court emphasized that the scope of interference in an acquittal appeal is narrow, as the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence. Finding the trial court’s reasoning sound and the prosecution's evidence lacking credibility, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that appellate courts should not interfere with acquittals unless the findings are perverse, arbitrary, or speculative, and that material contradictions in witness testimony and unexplained delays in reporting crimes warrant the benefit of the doubt for the accused.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR warrant the benefit of the doubt for the accused?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment that is based on a proper appreciation of evidence?
  • Do material contradictions between the statements of a complainant and their father regarding ransom demands render prosecution evidence unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Riaz Hussain Shah, etc. vs Addl. District Judhe, etc.2019 [M] C.L.R. 1680 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Rehan Zaidi @ Ali Buddha vs The State2019 SHC 222 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-04
  police encounterbenefit of doubtcriminal appealillegal weapons recoveryanti-terrorismconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Sections 324 and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and Section 23(i)A of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, following an alleged police encounter and recovery of a pistol and hand grenade. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the police encounter, the reliability of the alleged recovery of weapons given discrepancies in serial numbers and lack of time on the arrest memo, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that material contradictions in the evidence, lack of independent witnesses, and doubtful recovery warranted giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. The court set aside the conviction and sentence, establishing the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions in the recovery memo and change of weapon serial numbers make the recovery doubtful?
  • Does the absence of independent corroboration during investigation weaken the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a reasonable doubt is created in the prosecution case?
  • Whether an uninjured police encounter at close range without independent witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction under anti-terrorism and firearms laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Raza Haider Rizvi vs Messrs Gordon Shipping Company Ltd. and another2019 CLC 759 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-02
  seafarer injurymaritime employment contractlimitation periodmedical negligencepermanent partial disabilitydamages for breach of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a former Second Officer on board a vessel owned by the first defendant and managed by the second defendant, instituted a suit for damages and compensation for personal injuries and permanent partial disability sustained due to a hydraulic pipe burst while on duty, and for the defendants' failure to provide complete medical treatment. The core legal questions involved whether the claim was barred by limitation, whether the defendants were negligent in providing adequate medical treatment leading to partial disability, and the quantum of compensation entitled under the employment contract and international shipping standards. The court held that the suit was within time under Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and that while the accident itself was not caused by the defendants' initial negligence, the defendants were liable for discontinuing the plaintiff's medical treatment prematurely in the United Kingdom, which resulted in a permanent partial functional disability. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for US Dollars 16,000 equivalent in Pakistani Rupees along with a 10% mark-up from the date of the decree. The key principles laid down include the application of Article 115 for breach of employment contracts involving medical obligations, and the employer's liability to compensate a seafarer for aggravated disability resulting from the premature cessation of provided medical treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a claim for compensation arising from the breach of an employment contract regarding medical treatment is governed by Article 22 or Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Does an employer incur liability for partial disability when a seafarer's medical treatment is prematurely discontinued abroad?
  • Whether the non-impleading of a Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Club or marine insurer renders a seafarer's personal injury suit bad for non-joinder of parties?
  • How is the quantum of compensation determined for a seafarer suffering from a permanent partial disability resulting from an accident during employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Qutab Ali Shah vs Mst. Sonia and 4 others2020 [M] C L R 391, 2019 MLD 1408 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Nazakat Hussain Shah vs Zeeshan Azam2019 SC AJK 102 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Nazakat Hussain Shah vs Zeeshan Azam & 10 others2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 116 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Naveed Raza Hussain vs Chief Commissioner Islamabad and others2020 [M] C L R 111, 2019 YLR 2759, 2019 IHC 100 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Nasir Abbass vs The Chairman, National Accountability Bureau2019 MLD 911 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Naseem Ahmed vs Mst. Rehana Taj and others2019 PLD Sindh 94 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-09
  illegal dispossessionlandlord-tenant disputecriminal revisionlocal inquirypolice biasmaintainability of complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, which dismissed a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The complainant, a tenant, alleged illegal dispossession by the landlord and collusion between the landlord and local police. The trial court had dismissed the complaint, holding that the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 was not applicable to the facts. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, held that the Act is not restricted to a specific category of offenders or 'property grabbers' but applies to anyone committing illegal dispossession against a lawful owner or occupier, regardless of pending civil litigation. The Court found that the trial court erred in its narrow interpretation of the Act. Furthermore, noting evidence of police bias and collusion, the Court held that the SHO's investigation could not be relied upon. Consequently, the High Court set aside the dismissal and ordered a fresh trial, directing the Sessions Judge to appoint a Magistrate to conduct a local inquiry as mandated by the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 apply to disputes between landlords and tenants?
  • Can proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be initiated if civil litigation is pending between the parties?
  • Is the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 limited only to 'property grabbers'?
  • When is a local inquiry under Section 5(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 required?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Najamuddin Hussain and Another vs Askari Bank Limited2019 CLD 901, 2019 SHC 42 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Najaf Shah vs Haji Raza and another2019 YLR 1365 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-12-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Naeem Shah and another vs Khawaja Zahoor Iqbal and 2 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1374, 2019 YLR 757 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-20Read full judgment →