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.

• Syed Munir Syed vs Sardar Muhammad Kamal Khan and 2 others2019 YLR 209, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 575, 2020 PLJ Islamabad 24 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-09-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Waqar Haider Naqvi vs The State2019 SHC 440 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-08
  post-arrest bailtrap proceedingsprohibitory clausedelay in challanspeedy trialillegal constructionanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Syed Muhammad Waqar Haider Naqvi in Crime No. 70/2019 registered under Sections 161 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The core legal question involved whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail where the trap proceedings were conducted without a Magistrate, delay occurred in submitting the final challan, and the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that the absence of a Magistrate during the trap, lack of explanation for delayed FIR registration, delay in submitting the final charge-sheet, and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause brought the case within the scope of further inquiry and made bail the rule. The key principles laid down include that speedy investigation is a fundamental right under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, and that bail should be granted as a rule when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC unless exceptional circumstances exist.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a Magistrate during anti-corruption trap proceedings creates further inquiry regarding the genuineness of the case for the purpose of bail?
  • Does failure to submit a final charge-sheet within the statutory period entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC entitle the accused to bail as a general rule?
  • Is speedy investigation considered an inalienable right under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad vs The State2019 YLR 337 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-07-16
  criminal appealcircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtburden of proofmurderacquittalmedical evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellant for the murder of his wife under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, specifically the discovery of the body in the appellant's house and the alleged recovery of the weapon. The High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions regarding the appellant's presence, the timing of his arrest, and the recovery of the weapon. Furthermore, the medical evidence was inconclusive regarding whether the death was homicidal or suicidal. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, and the mere fact that a death occurred in the accused's house does not shift the burden of proof to the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, and ordered his immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that a death occurred in the accused's house shift the burden of proof to the accused to explain the circumstances of the death?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when there are material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence is inconclusive between homicide and suicide and the prosecution fails to produce direct evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Taqi Raza Naqvi vs Judge Family Court, etc2019 PLJ Lahore 404 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Taqi Raza Naqvi vs Judge Family Court and 4 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1276, 2019 PLJ Lahore 404, 2019 CLC 1261 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-10
  interim maintenanceFamily Courts Actconstructive res judicatarecurring cause of actionconstitutional petitioninterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Judge Family Court, Lahore, which fixed interim maintenance for the respondent-wife after having previously fixed interim maintenance for the minor children. The petitioner argued that under Section 17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, the court was required to fix interim maintenance for both the wife and children on the first date of appearance, and failure to do so for the wife initially implied a refusal, rendering the subsequent order barred by constructive res judicata. The Court held that the Family Court retains jurisdiction to fix interim maintenance for the wife and children even if done on separate dates. The Court emphasized that no party should suffer due to an omission by the court, and the silence of an earlier order regarding a specific claim does not constitute a refusal. Furthermore, the Court clarified that maintenance is a recurring cause of action and that Section 17-A does not divest the court of jurisdiction to pass such orders subsequently. The petition was dismissed as the impugned order was interlocutory and no jurisdictional error was established.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a Family Court to fix interim maintenance for a wife on the same date as the minor children constitute an implied refusal of that claim?
  • Is a Family Court barred by constructive res judicata from fixing interim maintenance for a wife on a date subsequent to fixing it for the children?
  • Does Section 17-A of the Family Courts Act 1964 divest a Family Court of jurisdiction to pass interim maintenance orders after the first date of appearance?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an interlocutory order of a Family Court regarding the quantum of interim maintenance?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal Kazmi vs Mayor of Karachi & others2019 SHC 316 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal & others vs Pakistan International Airline Corp. Ltd2019 SHC 448 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-19
  foreign postingseniority-cum-fitnessinterim injunctionmanagerial discretiontransfer vs promotionservice lawPIA
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns consolidated suits filed by Aircraft Maintenance Engineers against Pakistan International Airline Corporation (PIA), challenging a Board decision that denied them foreign postings in favor of junior colleagues. The core legal question was whether the court should interfere with the employer's selection process, which was governed by a Working Agreement stipulating "seniority-cum-fitness" as the criteria. The court held that foreign posting constitutes a transfer rather than a promotion, and thus does not create a vested right. Consequently, the court refused to grant an interim injunction, ruling that it cannot substitute its own judgment for the employer's subjective assessment of an employee's fitness, particularly regarding technical qualifications for specific aircraft. The court affirmed that while seniority is a factor, "seniority-cum-fitness" mandates a comparative assessment of competence, which remains the exclusive domain of the employer. The judgment establishes that judicial interference in managerial decisions regarding transfers is unwarranted absent clear illegality, and that interim relief cannot be granted if it effectively decides the main suit or alters the established status quo.

  Questions settled

  • Is foreign posting considered a promotion or a transfer for the purpose of seniority rights?
  • Can a court substitute its own judgment for an employer's subjective assessment of an employee's fitness for a specific post?
  • Does 'seniority-cum-fitness' entitle a senior employee to a position regardless of their technical qualifications?
  • Should an interim injunction be granted if it effectively grants the final relief sought in the main suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mir Shah and another vs The State2019 YLR 1800 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-12-10
  murder convictioncommon intentionocular evidencedeath penalty commutationinvestigative irregularitiescriminal appealforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence, the applicability of common intention, and the appropriateness of the death penalty. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established guilt through consistent ocular evidence and forensic reports, ruling that minor investigative irregularities do not vitiate a trial unless they cause prejudice to the accused. Regarding common intention under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Court affirmed that it is inferred from the conduct and participation of the accused rather than direct evidence. While upholding the convictions, the Court exercised its discretion to commute the death sentence of the primary accused to life imprisonment, emphasizing the judicial duty to balance severity with humanness. The Court also imposed compensation under Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting the trial court's omission. The judgment reinforces that credible ocular evidence remains the primary basis for conviction, even where supportive evidence exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does a defect or irregularity in the investigation process automatically vitiate a criminal trial?
  • Can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be inferred from the conduct of the accused?
  • Is credible ocular evidence sufficient for conviction without corroborative evidence?
  • Does the appellate court have the discretion to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the circumstances of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Maroof Shah alias Mehtab alias Baba TT and 3 others vs The State2019 YLR 1654 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-08
  murderextortionbhatadelayed FIRsolitary witnessappellants convictionpolitical terrorcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants for the murder of the complainant's husband under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the conviction could be sustained despite the initial registration of the FIR against unknown persons and the delayed nomination of the appellants, given the prevailing climate of fear and continuous threats from the politically affiliated accused. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, holding that the natural testimony of the complainant—a bereaved widow subjected to intimidation—alongside corroborative evidence from a private witness and police officials, was sufficient and reliable. The key legal principle laid down is that the testimony of a solitary, confidence-inspiring witness can form the basis of a conviction even on a capital charge, and that delayed nomination in an FIR is justifiable and does not vitiate the prosecution's case when explained by special circumstances such as grave threats and localized terror.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a solitary witness is sufficient to maintain a conviction on a capital charge if found to be reliable and confidence-inspiring?
  • Does a delay in nominating accused persons in the First Information Report vitiate the prosecution case when explained by fear of death and intimidation?
  • Can the conviction be sustained under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite hostile or turned-around private witnesses where the complainant fully supports the prosecution version?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Manzoor Hussain Shah and 5 others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 4 others2019 MLD 1268 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-18
  pension benefitsretrospective operation of statuteslegislative assembly membersdoctrine of lachesstatutory interpretationwelfare fundconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, by former Members of the Legislative Assembly seeking entitlement to pension benefits despite having served prior to the establishment of the relevant pension funds. The core legal questions were whether the court could grant retrospective effect to pension legislation to cover periods before 2003, whether the petitioners qualified as beneficiaries without having contributed to the mandatory Welfare Fund, and whether the petition was barred by laches. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that statutes are presumed to be prospective unless expressly stated otherwise by the legislature. Since the relevant pension acts were given effect from 2003, the Court refused to extend them retrospectively to 1985. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioners failed to meet the statutory criteria for pension eligibility, as they had never contributed to the required Welfare Fund. Finally, the Court ruled that the petition, filed fifteen years after the initial legislation, was barred by the doctrine of laches, as there was no valid explanation for the inordinate delay.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant retrospective effect to a statute in the absence of express legislative intent?
  • Are former members of a legislative assembly entitled to pension benefits if they did not contribute to the mandatory welfare fund?
  • Does a delay of fifteen years in filing a constitutional petition constitute laches?
  • Is a statute presumed to be prospective or retrospective in its operation?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Manzar Abbas vs National Accountability Bureau, through Director General2019 MLD 581 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Karam Hussain Shah & another vs The State2019 KLR Civil Cases 470, 2019 IHC 60, 2019 MLD 1445 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-06
  narcoticscharasvehicle confiscationsentencing enhancementcriminal appealpossession of contrabanddriver liabilityCNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of two appellants for the transportation of narcotics (charas) in a vehicle. The appellants were intercepted by Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) officials, leading to the recovery of 3kg of charas from a bag in the possession of the first appellant and 2kg of charas concealed in the vehicle's doors, which the second appellant was driving. The trial court convicted both, sentencing them to three and two years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively, but ordered the release of the vehicle. The appellants challenged their convictions, while the ANF sought enhancement of sentences and confiscation of the vehicle. The High Court upheld the convictions, finding the prosecution's evidence credible and the appellants' defense unsubstantiated. Regarding sentencing, the Court noted that while the trial court failed to apply the established sentencing criteria for the quantity of narcotics involved, it could not enhance the sentences as the appellants had already served their terms. However, the Court set aside the release of the vehicle, ordering its confiscation as it was used for transporting contraband.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be enhanced if the offender has already completed the term of imprisonment awarded by the trial court?
  • Does the driver of a vehicle used for transporting narcotics bear legal liability for the contraband concealed within the vehicle?
  • Is a vehicle used for the transportation of narcotics liable for confiscation under the CNSA, 1997?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Article 122 of the Qanun-e Shahadat Order, 1984, when contraband is recovered from a concealed cavity in a vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Kaleem-ur-Rehman, etc. vs Secretary Cooperatives, Government of Punjab,etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 1287 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Irtaza Raza Naqvi & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2019 SHC 306 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Iqbal Shah and others vs Syeda Tahira Bibi and 2 others2019 P.S.C. 1064 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Iqbal Shah and another vs Syeda Tahira Bibi and 2 others2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 71, 2019 P.S.C. 1064, 2019 MLD 576 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Iqbal Kazmi and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 PLD Sindh 255 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-11
  access to justicefundamental rightstribunal of inquiryconstitutional petitionlaw and orderper incuriamjoint investigation teamjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two constitutional petitions regarding the violent events of May 12, 2007, in Karachi, which resulted in the denial of access to justice and widespread lawlessness during the visit of the then Chief Justice of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the High Court could order an inquiry into these events, given a prior judgment by a five-member bench that had declined to act as an investigator. The Court held that while it could not set aside the prior five-member bench judgment, which had attained finality, it could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution to direct the Government of Sindh to establish a Tribunal of Inquiry. The Court reasoned that the prior judgment failed to address critical issues regarding command and control and the denial of fundamental rights. The key principle laid down is that the High Court possesses inherent powers and plenary jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(c) to issue mandatory directives to the executive to ensure the enforcement of fundamental rights, including the establishment of inquiry commissions in matters of significant public importance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court direct the provincial government to establish a Tribunal of Inquiry under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a two-member bench have the authority to set aside a judgment passed by a larger five-member bench of the same court?
  • Is the right to access to justice a fundamental right enforceable under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a High Court establish a commission of inquiry to investigate matters of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Imtiaz Ali vs Chairman, Implementation Tribunal2019 PLC (C.S) 1039, 2019 P.S.C. 856, 2019 SCMR 1034, 2019 SCP 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-09
  Implementation TribunalWage Board Awardnewspaper employeesjurisdictionpartnership agreementmaster and servantcontractual claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgments of the Islamabad High Court upholding a decision of the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees, which had granted various pecuniary claims to the private-respondent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Implementation Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, to adjudicate and award civil claims arising out of a private mutual agreement, particularly when the relationship between the parties constituted a partnership rather than that of master and servant. The Supreme Court held that the Implementation Tribunal's mandate is strictly confined to implementing Wage Board Awards and trying specific offenses under the Act, and it lacks the adjudicatory jurisdiction to determine general civil or contractual claims or disputes between partners. The ratio decidendi is that a special tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction over matters outside its statutory mandate, and contractual disputes requiring factual inquiry or arising from partnership agreements must be adjudicated by a court of competent civil jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Implementation Tribunal constituted under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 have the jurisdiction to adjudicate civil and contractual claims arising out of a mutual agreement?
  • What is the true scope of the adjudicatory powers conferred upon the Implementation Tribunal under Section 13 of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
  • Whether an agreement to share profits and jointly manage a publication venture creates a partnership relationship rather than a master and servant relationship?
  • Can concurrent findings of lower courts be set aside by the Supreme Court when they suffer from a gross jurisdictional error?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 5 others2019 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 28 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 5 others2019 PLJ AJ&K 96 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Hassan Ali Shah vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 940 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-05
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecivil disputefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant seeking confirmation of interim bail in Crime No. 09 of 2019 registered at Police Station Gharibabad District Mirpurkhas under Sections 489-F and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and when the underlying dispute possesses civil overtones alongside an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The court held that since the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and the dispute is primarily of a civil nature pending adjudication before a competent civil court, the case warrants further inquiry, making the grant of bail the rule and its refusal the exception. The court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that bail should not be withheld as a punishment where statutory prohibitory clauses do not apply and no exceptional risk of absconsion or evidence-tampering exists.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a business dispute pending before a civil court justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving a dishonoured cheque?
  • Can bail be refused as a punishment in cases not covered by the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Haji Shah and 2 others vs Irshad Ahmed Khan and another2020 YLR 661, 2019 P.S.C. 932 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Fida Hussain Shah vs The Election Appellate Tribunal & others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1281, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1293, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1449, PLD 2018 Lahore · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Bashir Hussain Shah and 5 others vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar and 22020 PLJ Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1, 2019 P.S.C. 1562 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Syed Aziz-ud-Din Kaka Khel vs Governor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through its2019 PLD Peshawar 145, 2019 PHC 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-13
  Advocate Generalconstitutional petitionappointment of law officersage limitpleasure of the GovernorHigh Court judge qualification
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the appointment of the Advocate General of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the vires of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Appointment of Law Officers Act, 2014. The core legal questions involved whether an upper age limit of 62 years applies to the appointment of an Advocate General based on the retirement age of High Court judges, whether prior consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory, and whether removal under the pleasure of the Governor constitutes a disqualification under the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973. The Peshawar High Court held that while an Advocate General must possess qualifications similar to a High Court judge under Article 193, the retirement age limit of 62 years prescribed under Article 195 does not apply to the appointment. The Court further held that removal of an Advocate General during the Governor's pleasure is a removal simpliciter carrying no stigma, and dismissed the petition while upholding the statutory framework.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the retirement age limit prescribed for High Court judges applies as a disqualification for the appointment of an Advocate General?
  • Does the Constitution require prior consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court for the appointment of an Advocate General?
  • Does the removal of an Advocate General during the pleasure of the Governor constitute a removal carrying stigma that disqualifies him from re-appointment?
  • Whether the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Appointment of Law Officers Act, 2014 is ultra vires the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Azhar Hussain Shah vs The State, etc2019 SCP 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-10
  Section 30 Magistratecriminal jurisdictionDiyat and Arshconcurrent sentencesQisas and Diyat lawssentencing powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellant for offences under sections 324, 334, and 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial conducted by a Magistrate empowered under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions concerned the competency of a section 30 Magistrate to try offences involving Diyat and Arsh, and the jurisdictional limits of such Magistrates regarding specific punishments and organ injuries. The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate empowered under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 possesses the jurisdiction to try offences not punishable by death, and that the limitation on sentencing powers regulates punishment rather than trial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Diyat is relevant only to cases involving death, rendering it inapplicable to the present case where the victim survived. The Court upheld the convictions and sentences, finding no merit in the appeal, but ordered the sentences to run concurrently and granted the benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Magistrate empowered under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 competent to try offences punishable with Diyat or Arsh?
  • Does the limitation on sentencing powers of a section 30 Magistrate affect their jurisdiction to try an offence?
  • Is the payment of Diyat relevant in cases where the victim has survived the injuries?
  • Do the sentencing limitations of a section 30 Magistrate regulate the punishment or the jurisdiction to try an offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Azhar Hussain Shah and another vs The State and others2019 PLJ SC (Cr.C) 311, 2019 P.S.C (Crl.) 245, 2019 PLJ SC (Cr.C) 317, 2019 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-10
  section 30 magistratejurisdictionqisas and diyat lawshurtconcurrent sentencescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under sections 324, 334, and 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by a Magistrate empowered under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which was subsequently upheld by the Court of Session and the High Court. The core legal questions involved the competence of a Section 30 Magistrate to try offences punishable with Diyat or Arsh under Qisas and Diyat laws and related jurisdictional limits. The Supreme Court held that offences not punishable with death are triable by a Section 30 Magistrate and that Diyat is relevant only to cases of death under section 299, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rendering Diyat issues inapplicable to surviving victims of hurt under sections 324, 334, and 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court dismissed the appeal on merits due to consistent ocular and medical evidence, while clarifying that the appellant's sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate empowered under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is competent to try offences punishable with Diyat or Arsh?
  • Does section 299 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 restrict the application of Diyat exclusively to cases involving the death of a victim?
  • Whether limitations on sentences passed by a Magistrate under section 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regulate punishment or the jurisdiction to try an offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Atta Ul Hassan vs Ahmad Nawaz and others2019 MLD 1013 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Asghar Shah vs The Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar2020 PLC (C.S.) 454, 2019 PHC 296 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-19
  Annual Confidential Reportadverse remarkscompulsory retirementjudicial officerservice tribunaldelay in communication
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves four appeals filed by the appellant, a former Additional District & Sessions Judge, seeking to set aside and expunge adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 by the Administration Committee of the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question was whether adverse remarks recorded and communicated long after the appellant's compulsory retirement, and in violation of prescribed timelines and instructions, could be legally sustained. The court held that the impugned adverse remarks were vitiated due to unreasonable delay, lack of support from the overall service record, and non-compliance with the applicable ACR Instructions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government. The key principles laid down are that unexplained and inordinate delay in recording and communicating adverse remarks casts doubt on their authenticity, that ACR instructions regarding timely communication in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are mandatory rather than merely directory, and that adverse entries cannot be validly recorded or utilized to reinforce allegations after a judicial officer has already been compulsorily retired from service.

  Questions settled

  • Whether adverse remarks recorded in Annual Confidential Reports after a civil servant's compulsory retirement are legally sustainable?
  • Are the ACR Instructions regarding timely communication of adverse remarks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa mandatory or directory in nature?
  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in communicating adverse remarks vitiate their authenticity?
  • Can adverse remarks be recorded to reinforce allegations raised in a prior show-cause notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Aoun Muhammad vs The State and another2021 P Cr.LJ 990, 2019 LHC 4102 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-12
  explosive substancesillegal armspolice witnessespublic witnessescriminal appealforensic evidenceterrorist attack preparation
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Syed Aoun Muhammad, challenged his conviction and sentences under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and section 13-(2)(a) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, arising out of FIR No. 19 of 2018 registered at Police Station CTD Multan. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was apprehended red-handed in possession of illicit arms and explosive substances, and whether the testimony of police witnesses without public corroboration is sufficient for conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution established its case beyond a shadow of doubt through prompt FIR registration, reliable and consistent ocular testimony of police officials corroborated by recoveries, and positive forensic reports confirming the explosive nature of the seized items. The court laid down that police witnesses are as competent and credible as private witnesses unless their veracity is successfully impeached or mala fides is established, and that Section 19A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 dispenses with the mandatory requirement of public witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials can form the sole basis for a criminal conviction without the association of private or public witnesses?
  • Does Section 19A of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding searches and arrests?
  • Is a promptly lodged First Information Report with detailed minor and material facts sufficient to exclude the possibility of deliberation and false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Anwar Ali Shah and another vs Irfan Ali and othersPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 104, 2019 SCMR 1214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-06-25
  terrorismacquittalidentification paradecriminal appealburden of proofappreciation of evidencehostile witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a terrorist incident involving a massive blast in Multan that resulted in significant loss of life. The respondent was initially convicted by an Anti-Terrorism Court and sentenced to death, but the High Court subsequently acquitted him, citing insufficient and flawed evidence. The complainant and the State challenged the acquittal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the respondent's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented, specifically the identification parade and witness testimonies. Upon re-evaluating the record, the Supreme Court found the prosecution's case to be inconsistent and logically implausible, particularly regarding the timing of the vehicle snatching and the respondent's alleged stay at a guest house. The Court held that the High Court’s acquittal was based on a prudent and sound assessment of the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the prosecution failed to prove culpability, emphasizing that even in heinous crimes, convictions must rest on sustainable evidence rather than conjecture.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's reasoning is found to be prudent and possible?
  • Does the presence of mutually destructive prosecution evidence justify the rejection of a criminal case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution's timeline of events is logically inconsistent?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Aminullah vs The StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 87, 2019 YLR 230 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-03-26
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayexpeditious trialrule of consistencyDrugs Actprolonged incarceration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Syed Aminullah, who has been in custody for approximately 18 months in connection with a case involving the sale and stocking of unregistered and expired drugs. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to bail on statutory grounds due to the inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial, particularly given that the trial court has been without a presiding officer and the prosecution has failed to expedite proceedings despite previous judicial directions. The Court held that the applicant cannot be incarcerated indefinitely due to the prosecution's inability to conclude the trial, especially when co-accused persons have already been granted bail. The Court emphasized the principle that an accused person cannot be left at the mercy of the prosecution to languish in jail for an indefinite period, and that inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial, not attributable to the accused, constitutes a valid ground for the grant of bail to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted bail on statutory grounds if the trial is delayed due to the absence of a presiding officer in the trial court?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused when co-accused persons facing similar charges have already been released?
  • Is it permissible to keep an accused in custody for an indefinite period when the prosecution fails to conclude the trial within a reasonable time?
  • Does inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial, not caused by the accused, constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Raza and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2019 YLR 129 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Naqi vs Government of The Punjab and others.2019 PLC (C.S.) 952 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-06
  constitutional petitiontermination of servicecontract employeeconfession of guiltregular inquirymisconductright to fair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the termination of the petitioner's services as a contract employee following allegations of making and leaking unauthorized videos of female patients in a hospital operation theater, as well as the subsequent dismissal of his departmental appeal. The core legal question was whether a contract employee who has confessed in writing to serious misconduct can challenge his termination on the ground that a regular, formal inquiry was not conducted. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that where an employee has explicitly confessed to the allegations during show-cause and personal hearing proceedings, a formal regular inquiry is dispensed with, and termination based on such admitted guilt is lawful. The court laid down the principle that a confessed wrongdoer cannot retract his admission by claiming his signatures or thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers, and serious misconduct of a shameful nature must be dealt with strictly without leniency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a regular inquiry is required when a public employee confesses in writing to the allegations against him?
  • Can an employee retract his written confession of guilt by alleging that his thumb impressions were obtained on blank paper?
  • Whether termination of a contract employee for serious misconduct involving the privacy of patients warrants interference under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the failure to conduct a regular inquiry violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution where guilt is admitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Manzar Zaidi etc. vs Syed Nafees etc.2020 CLC 369, 2019 PLJ Lahore 735 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Haider & Others vs Pakistan International Airline Corporation2021 PLC (C.S.) 221, 2019 SHC 582 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-23
  service matterpromotiondemotionnatural justiceunilateral withdrawalPIAaccrued rightsadministrative order
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a suit for declaration and injunction filed by employees of the Pakistan International Airline Corporation (PIA) belonging to the cabin crew category, challenging Administrative Order No. 17 of 2016 through which the earlier Administrative Order No. 13 of 2013—granting up-gradation and promotion from Pay Group IV to Pay Group V—was cancelled. The core legal questions involve whether the employer could unilaterally withdraw the promotion orders and whether such cancellation could be effected without affording the affected employees an opportunity of being heard. The Sindh High Court held that accrued rights and promotion orders cannot be arbitrarily or impliedly cancelled without adhering to due process, following the principles of natural justice, and issuing independent show-cause notices. The court laid down the principle that public-sector organizations controlled by the government cannot unilaterally overturn validly conferred benefits and promotions without a hearing, and that individual promotion orders remain operative unless independently and lawfully recalled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether promotion orders issued to employees pursuant to a policy can be deemed to be cancelled impliedly by the withdrawal of the parent administrative order without independent proceedings?
  • Can an organization controlled by the government demote or rescind benefits granted to its employees without affording them an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice?
  • Whether a subsequent Board of Directors can unilaterally overturn a conscious, implemented decision of an earlier Board granting benefits to employees without following due process?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Ammaar Jafrey & others vs Federation of Pakistan2019 SHC 120 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-02
  transferred employeesservice terms and conditionsstatutory protectionPerformance Management Systemcivil servantspension benefitsPTCLconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the imposition of a non-statutory Performance Management System (PMS) by the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. (PTCL) upon 'transferred employees' originally from the T&T Department. The core legal questions concerned whether the PMS adversely affected their protected terms and conditions, whether the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and its associated rules applied to them, and whether they were entitled to financial benefits granted to federal civil servants. The Court held that while these employees are not strictly 'civil servants,' their terms and conditions of service are statutory and protected under the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996. The ratio established that the employer cannot unilaterally impose a non-statutory PMS that varies these protected terms to the employees' detriment. The Court affirmed that the employer must adhere to the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and relevant rules for service matters, disciplinary proceedings, and pension benefits, ensuring that transferred employees receive the same financial increases and emoluments as federal government employees, as mandated by their protected status.

  Questions settled

  • Are transferred employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. still considered civil servants?
  • Does the imposition of a non-statutory Performance Management System violate the protected terms and conditions of service for transferred employees?
  • Are transferred employees entitled to the same financial increases and pension benefits as federal government employees under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Abbas Rizvi vs The Addl. Controller of Rents Clifton & Another2020 MLD 130, 2019 SHC 236 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Aijaz Ali Shah vs Iftikhar Unar2019 YLR 2333 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-11
  criminal acquittal appealpresumption of double innocenceplea of alibimisappreciation of evidenceperverse judgmentbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Sessions Judge/Special Judge [S.T.A.], Shaheed Benazir Abad, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 324, 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a misappreciation of evidence or was otherwise perverse, warranting appellate interference. The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the trial court's judgment was well-reasoned and based on a sound appreciation of the evidence, including the respondent's proven plea of alibi and the prosecution's failure to recover empty bullet shells from the scene despite allegations of firing. The Court reaffirmed the principle that an appeal against acquittal carries a presumption of double innocence, and appellate courts should not interfere unless the acquittal is capricious, perverse, or results in a gross miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that when there is doubt regarding the guilt of an accused, the benefit must be extended to the accused, and the court will not fill lacunae in the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Does the presumption of double innocence apply to an accused who has been acquitted by a trial court?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment if the prosecution fails to recover incriminating evidence like bullet shells from the scene of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmed Danish vs Mst. Mariam Baig2019 YLR 2362 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Abid Hussain Shah (Deceased) and Others vs Chief Land2020 [M] C L R 346, 2019 PLD Islamabad 581, 2019 IHC 110 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Qadir Shah (Deceased) through his Legal Heirs and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 CLC 1920 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Nabi vs Baz Muhammad and 4 others2019 KLR Criminal Cases 186, 2019 MLD 836 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-10-29
  criminal acquittal appealcircumstantial evidencedouble presumption of innocenceextra-judicial confessionmedical evidencedisclosure memocorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pishin, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in an unseen occurrence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to connect the respondents to the crime. The Court reaffirmed that disclosure memos obtained during police custody are inadmissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that extra-judicial confessions require strong, independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court held that medical evidence and the recovery of crime empties are merely corroborative and cannot independently identify assailants or establish guilt in the absence of direct evidence. Emphasizing that an acquittal judgment carries a double presumption of innocence, the Court ruled that such findings cannot be reversed unless they are perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, which was not established in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of disclosure memos obtained while an accused is in police custody?
  • Does medical evidence or the recovery of crime empties serve to identify the assailants in an unseen murder case?
  • Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  • Is extra-judicial confession considered a weak piece of evidence requiring independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Hameed vs Mian Izhar Ahmad etc2020 [M] C L R 949, 2019 PLD Peshwar 154, 2019 PHC 17 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Abbas Mohy-Ud-Din and 3 others vs National Highway Authority2019 YLR 2770 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-16Read full judgment →
• SW Sugar Mills Limited through its Chief Executive vs Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through its Chairman & others2020 PTD 925, 2019 PCTLR 947 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-05Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Case No.8 of 2018 and Civil Misc. Application No.649-L of 2018_ In the matter of vs N_a2019 PLD Supreme Court 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-17
  dual nationalitydisqualificationSenate electionsArticle 63(1)(c)renunciation of citizenshipnomination papersinterpretation of statutes
  Summary & questions settled

  This Suo Motu matter concerned the dual nationality status of several newly elected Senators and the interpretation of Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether the word 'or' in Article 63(1)(c)—which disqualifies a person who 'ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan, or acquires the citizenship of a foreign State'—should be interpreted conjunctively as 'and,' thereby allowing dual nationality for Parliamentarians. The Court held that 'or' is disjunctive, meaning the acquisition of foreign citizenship constitutes a distinct disqualification, regardless of whether Pakistani citizenship is retained. The Court affirmed that this disqualification persists until the foreign citizenship is effectively and completely renounced. Furthermore, the Court established that the critical date for determining a candidate's qualification is the last date for filing nomination papers. Consequently, candidates who had not completed the renunciation process by that deadline were deemed disqualified, and their elections were annulled. This judgment reinforces the strict constitutional prohibition against dual nationality for elected representatives.

  Questions settled

  • Does the word 'or' in Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, function as a disjunctive or conjunctive operator?
  • Is a candidate who holds dual nationality at the time of filing nomination papers disqualified from contesting elections under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the mere initiation of the process to renounce foreign citizenship cure the disqualification arising from dual nationality for a candidate for the Senate?
  • What is the critical date for determining whether a candidate is qualified or disqualified regarding dual nationality in Senate elections?
  Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Case No.7 of 2017 vs N/APLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 190, 2019 SCP 30, 2019 PLD Supreme Court 318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-06
  suo motu jurisdictionfundamental rightsright to protestpeaceful assemblyFaizabad dharnaTehreek-e-Labaik PakistanElection Commission of Pakistanintelligence agencies mandatemedia regulationhate speechpolitical parties fundingrule of lawconstitutional dutiesfreedom of movementfreedom of speech
  Summary & questions settled

  This suo motu case addressed the 2017 Faizabad Interchange dharna by Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP), which severely disrupted public life and infringed citizens' fundamental rights. The Supreme Court invoked its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, affirming that the matter was of public importance involving the enforcement of fundamental rights such as life, movement, education, fair trial, dignity, work, and property. The Court held that while citizens have a right to peaceful protest, it is not absolute and cannot infringe upon the fundamental rights of others or public order. It found that the State, including law enforcement, the Election Commission, and PEMRA, failed to fulfill their constitutional and statutory duties in managing the protest, ensuring accountability of political parties, and regulating media. The judgment also clarified that intelligence agencies and Armed Forces personnel must operate strictly within their mandates, refrain from political interference, and monitor those inciting violence or hate speech, emphasizing the need for transparency and rule of law.

  Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Action Taken by HCJ Regarding Service Structure of Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute (Pkli)_ In the matter of vs N_aPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 501, 2019 SC MR 565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-28
  suo motuservice structureforeign travel banmanagement committeeAnti-Corruption Establishmentstatutory management
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a suo motu action taken regarding the service structure of the Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute (PKLI) and involved the management of the institute and travel restrictions on Dr. Saeed Akhtar. The core legal questions pertained to the legality of the continued foreign travel ban, the management of PKLI through a court-constituted committee vis-a-vis its governing statute, and the validity of an inquiry initiated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The Supreme Court held that the ban on foreign travel imposed by earlier court orders should be recalled, leaving it to relevant authorities to decide in accordance with the law. The Court further held that PKLI must be managed and run strictly in accordance with sections 6 and 8 of the Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute and Research Centre Act, 2014, thereby disbanding the court-constituted management committee. Finally, aggrieved persons were permitted to challenge the Anti-Corruption Establishment's inquiry report before the appropriate forum under the law. The key principle laid down is that statutory bodies must be managed in accordance with their governing legislation rather than court-appointed committees once functioning.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court recall a travel ban previously imposed on an individual during the pendency of proceedings?
  • Should the Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute and Research Centre be managed by a court-constituted committee or in accordance with its governing statute?
  • How should grievances regarding an inquiry report initiated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment be addressed?
  Read full judgment →
• Suo Moto Case vs Govt. of Pakistan thr. Secretary, M_O Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and Others2019 SCP 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-06
  suo moto jurisdictionstatutory auditAuditor General for Pakistanadjournment requestDefence Housing Authorityjudicial procedurelegal representation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a Suo Moto Case concerning the audit of various statutory organizations, specifically the Defence Housing Authority (DHA), Karachi, by the Auditor General for Pakistan, as previously directed by the Supreme Court. The core legal question involved whether these statutory bodies could resist the court-ordered audit and the procedural handling of adjournment requests by counsel. The Court declined a frivolous adjournment application filed by counsel for the DHA, noting that the counsel's appointment as Attorney General for Pakistan was not recent and did not justify the delay. Regarding the audit, the Court reiterated its previous order directing the Auditor General for Pakistan to conduct the audit of the DHA. The Court further ordered that the criminal matter related to FIR No. 544 of 2015 be delinked from the instant Suo Moto Case for procedural purposes. The Court emphasized that all parties must ensure proper representation, warning that failure to appear would result in the matter being decided on the available record. The principle established is that statutory bodies are subject to audit mandates, and frivolous adjournment requests will be summarily rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory organization resist an audit directed by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the appointment of a counsel as Attorney General for Pakistan automatically justify an adjournment in pending litigation?
  • Can the Supreme Court decide a matter on the available record if parties fail to ensure proper representation after notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Sunrise Capital (Pvt.) Limited vs Commissioner (Securities Market2019 CLD 449 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-01-29Read full judgment →
• Sumair Saeed vs The Sect: Aviation & Ors2019 SHC 352 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-11Read full judgment →
• Sultanul Uloom vs Anis-ur-Rehman & Ors2020 CLC 60, 2019 SHC 238 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-26Read full judgment →
• Sultani Room vs Muhammad Inam and others2019 PHC 146 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-15Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali and 18 others vs Collector/Deputy Commissioner District2019 YLR 1245 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-10-18Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmed through General Attorney vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Revenue, Karachi and 4 others2019 PTD 741 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-28Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmed and another vs Tariq Mehmood and another2019 PLJ AJ&K 32 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-09-22Read full judgment →
• Suleman Khan vs The State2019 KLR Criminal Cases 45, 2019 MLD 393 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-12-17
  narcotics controlrepresentative samplecharas recoverybail and sentencingcriminal appealweight of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal appeal arising from a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life for the alleged recovery of 285 kilograms of charas from a vehicle. The core legal question was whether a conviction for a large quantity of narcotics can be sustained when samples were not taken from each individual slab and the individual slabs were not separately weighed, in light of binding precedent on representative sampling. The Islamabad High Court held that failure to take separate samples and separately weigh each slab violates the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in Ameer Zeb v. The State, meaning the prosecution could only rely on the exact quantity tested from the samples taken. The Court laid down the principle that the quantity of narcotics for sentencing purposes cannot be determined by hypothesis or proportional estimation of unweighed slabs, and where individual slabs are not separately weighed and sampled, the conviction must be restricted strictly to the proven weight of the actual samples tested.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to take separate samples from each individual slab of a recovered narcotic renders the un-sampled portions unreliable for establishing quantity?
  • Can the weight of individual narcotic slabs be determined through hypothesis or proportional estimation when they are not separately weighed by the police?
  • Does a conviction for life imprisonment under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 stand if the proven quantity of narcotics falls below the threshold of ten kilograms?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman Khan vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 744 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-12-17
  narcotic substancesrepresentative samplechemical examinationcriminal appealsentencing guidelinesrecovery of narcoticsburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the recovery of 285 kilograms of charas. The core legal question is whether the prosecution can secure a conviction for a large quantity of narcotics when samples were not taken from every individual slab of the substance and when the weight of the recovered substance was determined by hypothesis rather than actual weighing. The Court held that the prosecution failed to follow the mandatory guidelines established in Ameer Zeb vs. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380), which requires a representative sample to be taken from every separate packet, wrapper, or slab. Because the police failed to sample each slab and failed to weigh them individually, the Court ruled that it could only safely convict the appellant for the quantity of narcotics actually sampled and tested (2,260 grams). The key principle laid down is that in narcotic cases, the quantity is the determinative factor for sentencing, and failure to take representative samples from each individual unit renders it unsafe to rely on the total weight for conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally permissible to determine the weight of recovered narcotics based on an average weight per slab rather than actual weighing?
  • Does a sample taken from one packet containing multiple slabs constitute a representative sample of all slabs within that packet under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can an accused be sentenced to life imprisonment if the quantity of narcotics proven to be recovered is less than 10 kilograms?
  • What is the consequence for the prosecution's case when samples are not taken from each individual slab of a recovered narcotic substance?
  Read full judgment →
• Sulaman Amjad & others vs Govt. of Punjab & others2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 1, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 168, 2020 PLJ Lahore 53, · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-20
  Rule 17-Acontract employmentregularization of servicesappointment on compassionate groundsPunjab Civil Servants Rulesgovernment policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the validity of a 2008 government directive requiring that appointments made under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974—intended to provide employment to the families of deceased or incapacitated government servants—be made on a contract basis. The core legal question was whether the government could mandate contract-based employment for Rule 17-A appointments despite the parent rules not providing for such a mechanism, especially after the government had reverted to a policy of regular recruitment. The Court held that the 2008 directive had become redundant and legally unsustainable following the 2009 policy shift toward regular recruitment. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that Rule 17-A appointments must be made on a regular basis, as the parent rules do not authorize contract-based induction. Consequently, the Court declared the 2008 letter ineffective, ordered the immediate regularization of all employees appointed under Rule 17-A, and mandated that all future appointments under this rule be made on a regular basis.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government mandate contract-based appointments under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  • Does the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, authorize the appointment of employees on a contract basis?
  • Are appointments made under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, required to be on a regular basis?
  Read full judgment →
• Sukkur Beverages (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2020 CLD 110, 2019 SHC 24 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Limited vs Karachi Electric Supply Company2020 PLD Sindh 385, 2019 SHC 406 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-07Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited vs Wafaqi Mohtasib and others2019 PLD Lahore 169 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-18Read full judgment →
• Sughran Bibi vs Munawar Akram and 2 others2020 [M] C L R 759, 2019 MLD 2036 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-10Read full judgment →
• Sufiyan alias Sufyani vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 505 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-31
  post-arrest bailvicarious liabilitymurderous assaultfabricated injurycriminal trial delaycommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 580 registered at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, District Okara, concerning offences under Sections 324, 302, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of participating in a murderous assault alongside co-accused persons, resulting in the death of one victim and injury to another. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the specific role attributed to him and the evidentiary value of the injuries. The Court observed that the petitioner was not alleged to have caused the fatal injury to the deceased, and the injury attributed to him on the complainant was medically noted as potentially fabricated. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's relationship to the co-accused and the lack of trial progress since his arrest. Holding that the petitioner's vicarious liability required further determination at trial, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution. The principle established is that where the prosecution's case rests on potentially fabricated injuries and the petitioner's specific role is distinct from the fatal act, bail may be granted pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the injury attributed to them is medically suspected of being fabricated?
  • Can bail be granted when the petitioner is not alleged to have caused the fatal injury in a murder case?
  • Does the lack of progress in a criminal trial justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sudheer Ahmad alias Chan vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 26 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-15
  post-arrest baildacoityidentification paradeFIR delaycriminal procedurebail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Sudheer Ahmad alias Chan, in connection with FIR No. 04 dated 02.1.2018, registered under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Muzaffarabad, Multan, regarding an alleged dacoity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail given the circumstances of the investigation and the evidentiary gaps. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting an unexplained five-hour delay in lodging the FIR, the fact that the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR, and serious questions regarding the legality of the identification parade, as his name appeared in a newspaper prior to the parade. Furthermore, the court observed that the alleged recovery was not supported by a memo of identification and that the petitioner had no previous criminal convictions. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to grant bail, emphasizing that indefinite detention without sufficient evidence would be unfair.

  Questions settled

  • Is an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR a relevant factor for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the appearance of an accused's name in a newspaper prior to an identification parade cast doubt on the legality of the parade?
  • Can bail be granted when the recovery of stolen property is not supported by a memo of identification?
  Read full judgment →
• Subay Khan vs Secretary, Labour, Government of the Punjab2019 [M] C.L.R. 1413, 2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 223, PLD 2019 Lahore · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-25
  domestic workersfundamental rightsforced labourchild domestic labourminimum wagespublic interest litigationlabour welfare
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the enforcement of fundamental rights of domestic workers by directing the government to initiate proper legislation to regulate their minimum wages and working conditions. Initially raised in a writ petition, the matter was later pursued through a contempt petition which the court converted into a writ petition due to its significant public importance concerning workers' rights and protection from exploitation. The court examined international conventions, constitutional provisions including Articles 3, 4, 11, and 25, and landmark judgments concerning forced labour and fundamental rights. During the proceedings, the Punjab Government enacted the Punjab Domestic Workers Act, 2019, which provides comprehensive protections, including wage regulations, limitations on working hours, prohibitions on child domestic labour under fifteen years of age, and social security benefits. The court disposed of the petition while issuing directions for the effective implementation, rule-making, and administration of the new legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can convert a contempt petition into a writ petition when it involves matters of significant public importance concerning fundamental rights?
  • Are domestic workers entitled to fundamental rights and protections against exploitation under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • What are the statutory protections and prohibitions introduced under the Punjab Domestic Workers Act, 2019?
  • Does the right to life under the Constitution include the right to livelihood and the elimination of exploitation in employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Stocker vs Stocker2019 SCMR 885 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
• State vs Zar Muhammad and others2019 YLR 1663, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 533 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-01-18
  acquittal appealcriminal appealidentification paraderecovery memodelay in FIRrobberyburden of proofpresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by the State and the complainant against the acquittal of respondents Zar Muhammad, Usman Ali, Bakht Ali, and Wali Hayat, who were charged with robbery and related offenses. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the charges and whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a misreading of evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubts, including an unexplained three-day delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of description of the culprits, and the failure to prove the recovered items were indeed the looted property. The Court affirmed the acquittal, emphasizing that interference with an acquittal judgment is only permissible if the trial court's findings are perverse, speculative, or arbitrary, which was not the case here. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR is lodged with an unexplained delay and the identification of recovered property is procedurally flawed, the prosecution fails to meet the burden of proof, and the presumption of innocence in favor of the acquitted accused remains undisturbed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR without a plausible explanation create doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal if the trial court's reasoning is not perverse or speculative?
  • Is the identification of recovered property valid if the complainant failed to describe the items or identify them among similar objects?
  • Does the recovery of cash from an accused after they have already been searched and detained constitute reliable evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Bahria Town Pvt. Ltd2019 SCP 110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-21
  land implementationthird-party rightsfinancial offerdefault consequencesallottees protection
  Summary & questions settled

  The lis pertains to the implementation of a previous judgment regarding Bahria Town Limited, Karachi (BTLK) and the protection of third-party rights of over 140,000 allottees. The core question addressed is whether to accept a revised and enhanced financial offer by BTLK to acquire land rights, complete the project, and secure public exchequer interests. The Supreme Court accepted BTLK's final offer of Rs. 460 billion for 16,896 acres of land, payable over seven years with specific security measures, default clauses, and conditions for leasehold transfer. The court held that accepting this structured financial offer best protects the rights of allottees and ensures adequate compensation to the public exchequer while holding off National Accountability Bureau references subject to strict compliance with the payment terms and conditions laid down by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court can accept a financial offer from a developer to resolve land rights and protect third-party allottees?
  • What constitutes a default in payment under the settlement terms established by the court?
  • Can the National Accountability Bureau withhold filing a reference upon the acceptance of a financial settlement by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• State through the Director, Directorate-General of Intelligence &2019 SCP 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-09-26
  criminal appealacquittal appealmaintainabilitynarcoticsspecial lawright of appealCustoms ActControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed the State's criminal acquittal appeal as not maintainable by relying on provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an appeal against acquittal in a narcotics case is governed by the Customs Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, or specifically by the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Supreme Court held that the right of appeal in cases involving the recovery of narcotic substances is squarely and exclusively governed by Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which places no restriction on the State or the complainant regarding the filing of an appeal. The Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter back for decision on merits, laying down the principle that special legislation on narcotics exclusively regulates appellate remedies for offenses falling under its ambit, rendering general provisions of other statutes inapplicable to the question of maintainability.

  Questions settled

  • Which statutory provision governs the right of appeal in cases involving the recovery of narcotic substances?
  • Does Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 place any restrictions on the State or the complainant regarding the filing of an appeal against acquittal?
  • Were the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 relevant to the maintainability of an appeal arising from a narcotics trial?
  • What is the legal effect of an appellate court wrongly applying general statutes instead of special legislation governing narcotics offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Special prosecutor ANF GB, Gilgit vs Muhammad Akram2019 MLD 1655 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-03-27
  bail cancellationnarcotics recoveryprohibitory clausetentative assessmentcontrol of narcotics substancespublic place search
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal application filed under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNSA. The respondent was arrested following the alleged recovery of 9500 grams of heroin concealed inside carpets at a hotel, leading to a case registered under sections 6, 9(c), 14, and 15 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997. The core legal question was whether bail was rightly granted by the trial court for an offence falling within the prohibitory clause when a huge quantity of narcotics was recovered and section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was bypassed. The court held that the trial court improperly ventured into deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage, that section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply to public places and searches under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997 by virtue of section 25 thereof, and that reasonable grounds existed connecting the accused to a heinous crime. Consequently, the court recalled the bail order, cancelled the bail, and directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to recoveries made in public places like hotels under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997?
  • Does section 25 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997 exclude the application of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted for an offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997 that falls within the prohibitory clause when a huge quantity of narcotics is recovered?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Prosecutor-General Sindh vs Piyaro and 5 others2019 P Cr.LJ 793 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-28
  acquittal appealidentification paradepolice encounterdouble presumption of innocenceballistic expert reporthostile witnessocular testimonyanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Sukkur, which acquitted the respondents of charges arising from an FIR involving murder, attempt to commit murder, and police encounters. The core legal questions revolved around the reliability of the ocular account, the necessity of an identification parade where names were omitted from the FIR, the evidentiary value of unsealed and unverified weapon recoveries, and the stringent standards for interfering with an acquittal judgment. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the absence of an identification parade, the failure to examine key independent witnesses, doubtful weapon recoveries lacking ballistic verification, and a hostile injured witness. The court affirmed that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and appellate courts will not interfere unless the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a misreading of evidence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal judgment that carries a double presumption of innocence?
  • Is an identification parade necessary when the accused are not named in the FIR and the witnesses claim they can identify them upon seeing them again?
  • Can unsealed weapons recovered without being sent to a Ballistic Expert constitute reliable corroborative evidence?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to connect an accused person to the commission of a crime in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Director, Directorate-General of Intelligence and Investigation, (Customs and Excises), Karachi vs Haji Nabi Bux and othersPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  narcoticsacquittal appealmaintainabilitystatutory interpretationcriminal appealspecial court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of the respondents in a narcotics case, holding it non-maintainable. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly applied the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to determine the maintainability of an appeal against acquittal in a narcotics case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by relying on irrelevant statutes, as the right of appeal in cases involving the recovery of narcotic substances is exclusively governed by Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Court clarified that Section 48 places no restrictions on the State or the complainant regarding the filing of an appeal against an acquittal. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for a decision on the merits, emphasizing that the specific provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 supersede general procedural laws in such matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 place restrictions on the State or a complainant regarding the filing of an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Are the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 or the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 relevant for determining the maintainability of an appeal against an acquittal in a narcotics case?
  • Which statute exclusively governs the right of appeal in cases involving the recovery of narcotic substances?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Director vs Shakil Ur Rehman2019 YLR 1468 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-06
  cancellation of bailcustoms offenceliberty of subjectmisuse of bailperversity of ordercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed by the State seeking the cancellation of bail previously granted to the respondent, Shakil-ur-Rehman, by the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, in a customs-related criminal case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established sufficient grounds to justify the cancellation of the bail order. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice in the original bail order. The Court emphasized that the principles governing the grant of bail and the cancellation of bail are distinct. While bail is granted based on the merits of the case and the nature of the accusation, its cancellation is an extraordinary measure that requires strong and exceptional grounds, such as proof of misuse of the concession of bail or a patently erroneous order. The Court reiterated that the liberty of an individual should not be curtailed on flimsy grounds, and the power to cancel bail must be exercised with extreme care and circumspection, particularly when trial proceedings are already underway.

  Questions settled

  • What are the distinct legal considerations for the grant of bail versus the cancellation of bail?
  • Does the mere existence of prosecution witnesses justify the cancellation of bail once granted?
  • Under what circumstances should a court exercise its power to cancel bail already granted to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Director ANF vs Parvez Khan & another2019 SCP 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-30
  narcotics controlconscious knowledgecriminal appealacquittalforfeiture of vehicleprocedural lacuna
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the acquittal of the respondents by the Peshawar High Court in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 576 kilograms of opium and charas from a Mazda truck. The respondents were initially convicted by the Special Court (CNS) under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court subsequently acquitted them, citing a lack of conscious knowledge regarding the contraband, noting that the vehicle was registered to a third party who disowned it, and pointing to procedural deficiencies, including the failure to properly exhibit the case property. The State appealed this acquittal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution's case and the findings of the High Court. The Court held that the lacunas identified by the High Court were neither artificial nor imaginary. Consequently, the Court found that the hypothesis regarding the respondent's lack of conscious knowledge could not be refuted without being imprudent. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld, though the order forfeiting the vehicle to the State remained intact.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of an accused in a narcotics case can be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove conscious knowledge of the contraband?
  • Does the failure to properly exhibit case property constitute a significant procedural defect warranting acquittal?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal when the prosecution's case contains substantial lacunas?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Director ANF Peshawar vs Muhammad Ramzan2019 SCMR 1295, PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 553, 2019 SCP 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-29
  narcotic contrabandmandatory sentencereduction of sentencejudicial processcriminal appealstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple criminal appeals filed by the State challenging the reduction of sentences by the Peshawar High Court in cases involving the possession of narcotic contraband exceeding ten kilograms. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reducing the sentences of respondents convicted under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, given the statutory sentencing requirements. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to adhere to the mandatory sentencing provisions of the Act, which prescribe a minimum punishment of imprisonment for life for the possession of narcotics exceeding ten kilograms. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, and restored the original sentences awarded by the trial courts. The Court further affirmed the principle that while a party is entitled to a reasonable opportunity of hearing, deliberate absence to obstruct the judicial process does not preclude the court from deciding a case on its merits. Perpetual warrants of arrest were ordered to ensure the respondents serve their original sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of narcotic contraband exceeding ten kilograms mandate a minimum sentence of life imprisonment under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997?
  • Can a court decide a criminal case on its merits if the respondent deliberately avoids the judicial process?
  • Does a High Court have the authority to reduce a sentence below the mandatory minimum prescribed by the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Director ANF Peshawar vs Fakhar Zaman2019 SCMR 1122, 2019 SCP 152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-30
  narcotics controlmandatory minimum sentencereduction of sentencepossession of charascriminal appealabsconding respondent
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby the respondent's conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 was maintained, but his sentence was reduced from imprisonment for life to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court, upon maintaining the conviction for possessing narcotics exceeding ten kilograms, had the legal discretion to reduce the sentence below the mandatory minimum of imprisonment for life stipulated in the proviso to Section 9(c). The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where an offender is found guilty of possessing contraband in excess of ten kilograms, the law unambiguously mandates a sentence not less than imprisonment for life, leaving no option to reduce the quantum of sentence once conviction is maintained. The Court laid down the principle that the lowest mandated sentence under the proviso cannot be undercut, and further affirmed that an appellate case can be decided in the absence of a party whose default and absence from the judicial process are deliberate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has the power to reduce a sentence below the mandatory minimum prescribed under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 upon maintaining a conviction?
  • Can a criminal appeal or case be decided in the absence of a respondent who deliberately avoids the judicial process?
  • What is the lowest mandated sentence for possessing contraband in excess of ten kilograms under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab, Multan vs MuhammadPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 241 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-13
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailgang rapemisreading of evidenceperverse order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to Respondents No. 1 and 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, in connection with FIR No. 225 registered under Sections 365-B, 376(ii), and 371-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether grounds existed to recall the bail already granted to the respondents. The Court held that the considerations for the cancellation of bail are significantly different from those for its grant and are akin to grounds for an appeal against acquittal, requiring a showing that the bail-granting order was perverse or resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Finding no such perversity or overlooked material substance, the High Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that bail once granted will not be cancelled unless the petitioner demonstrates that the granting order is perverse, leaves no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused, or suffers from unconsidered material substance amounting to a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • What are the legal considerations and standards required for the cancellation of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether bail once granted can be cancelled merely on the grounds of misreading of evidence without showing perversity?
  • Are the grounds for the cancellation of bail akin to the grounds for an appeal against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan vs Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offence in Bank) and 20 others2019 MLD 1139, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 542 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-03
  supplementary challanreinvestigationcognizancewhite collar crimecriminal revisionCode of Criminal Procedureinterim challan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Special Court (Offences in Banks), which had declined to accept a supplementary challan submitted by the Investigating Officer, having previously taken cognizance based on an interim challan. The core legal question was whether the police are barred from conducting further investigation and submitting a supplementary challan once a trial court has already taken cognizance of a case based on an interim report. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court’s refusal to accept the supplementary challan was legally unsustainable. The Court ruled that there is no statutory bar preventing the police from conducting reinvestigation or submitting a supplementary challan even after the submission of a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that legal controversies should be resolved on their merits rather than on technicalities, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to accept the supplementary challan and proceed with the case in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a legal bar to the reinvestigation of a criminal case after the submission of a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the police submit a supplementary challan after a trial court has taken cognizance of a case based on an interim challan?
  • Does the submission of an interim challan preclude the investigating agency from conducting further investigation into the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan vs Ibrahim & anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1636 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-12-14
  acquittalSection 265-K CrPCnarcotics smugglingprobability of convictionpossession of contrabandhearsay evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was preferred by the State against an order of the Sessions Judge, Khuzdar, which acquitted the respondents under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a narcotics case registered under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its power to acquit the accused at an early stage due to a lack of probability of conviction. The Federal Shariat Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish any nexus between the respondents and the recovered contraband. The court emphasized that while a full-fledged trial is the normal course, Section 265-K empowers courts to acquit an accused at any stage if there is no probability of conviction. The court established that 'no probability of conviction' requires a careful evaluation of the evidence collected during investigation. Since the prosecution's case relied entirely on hearsay and spy reports without evidence of possession or custody, remanding the case would be an exercise in futility.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power to acquit under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for acquittal prior to the conclusion of the prosecution's evidence?
  • What is the legal standard for determining 'no probability of conviction' under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be convicted for narcotics smuggling based solely on information provided by a secret informant without evidence of possession or custody?
  • Is it appropriate for an appellate court to remand a case for trial when the evidence collected during investigation is insufficient to support a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• State thr. Deputy Attorney General vs Abdul Ali2019 SCMR 1102, 2019 SCP 146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-29
  narcotics possessionacquittalcriminal appealbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceprosecution witnessescontraband
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had acquitted the respondent, Abdul Ali, of charges related to the possession of seventeen kilograms of opium. The respondent had initially been convicted by the Special Court (CNS), Peshawar, after being intercepted at an FC check post. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's acquittal was based on a perverse or artificial appreciation of evidence, given the substantial quantity of contraband recovered. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, holding that the High Court's decision was not perverse. The Court identified significant, unexplained discrepancies between the date of the respondent's arrest and his subsequent remission into police custody for case registration. Furthermore, the Court noted material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, which rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent and the chain of custody or arrest procedure is flawed, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, and an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal that represents a possible, reasonable view of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained discrepancy between the date of arrest and the registration of a criminal case create reasonable doubt in narcotics cases?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment that is based on a possible and reasonable view of the evidence?
  • Are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses sufficient grounds to uphold an acquittal in a narcotics possession case?
  Read full judgment →
• State thr. ANF Peshawar vs Olufemi2019 SCP 138, PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 588, 2019 SCMR 1284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-29
  narcotics controlacquittaldestruction of contrabandcriminal appealabsentee respondentextraditionacademic exercise
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court acquitting the respondent, a Nigerian national, who had been convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the possession of 25 kilograms of heroin and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court had set aside the conviction primarily due to non-compliance with the procedure for destroying the contraband under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to examine the merits of the arguments or interfere with the acquittal, noting that the respondent had already left Pakistan and was no longer within the realm, rendering any reversal of the judgment an academic exercise that would necessitate a cumbersome and inconvenient extradition process. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will decide an appeal on merits when the respondent has left the country and is no longer within the realm?
  • Does the non-compliance with procedural requirements for destroying contraband under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 warrant interference with an acquittal when the respondent is absent?
  • Whether an appellate court should refrain from undertaking an academic exercise that would lead to a cumbersome extradition process?
  Read full judgment →
• State thr. Advocate General, KP, Peshawar vs Hassan Jalil & others2019 PLJ SC Cr.C. 421, 2019 SCMR 1154, 2019 SCP 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-29
  homicideacquittalcriminal appealburden of proofeyewitness testimonybenefit of doubtabsconsion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State through the Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Peshawar High Court. The respondent was initially convicted by the Sessions Judge for the homicide of his wife and causing injuries to his minor children. The prosecution case rested on the testimony of the respondent's mother-in-law, who claimed to have seen him fleeing the scene. The State argued that the overwhelming evidence, including the respondent's absconsion and the daylight nature of the occurrence, precluded any hypothesis of mistaken identity. However, the Supreme Court observed that guilt cannot be established based on suspicion, moral satisfaction, or the accused's failure to explain the circumstances in the absence of positive proof. The Court noted the lack of a clear motive and inconsistencies in the eyewitness's arrival at the scene. Finding that the High Court's assessment of the evidence as being fraught with doubt was neither unconscionable nor imprudent, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.

  Read full judgment →
• State thr. Advocate General, KP vs Muhammad Rafiq & othersPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 552, 2019 SCMR 1150, 2019 SCP 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-29
  criminal appealacquittalqatl-e-amdappreciation of evidenceeyewitness testimonybenefit of doubtSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents by the Peshawar High Court for the qatl-e-amd of two persons, which had initially resulted in their conviction by the trial court. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of ocular evidence, specifically the presence and reliability of the primary eyewitness mother at the crime scene and the credibility of corroborating testimonies. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's acquittal was based on a prudently possible view, noting the improbability of the mother's presence at the public thoroughfare during the fateful hours in a rural Pashtoon setting, compounded by material contradictions and witness deviation. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment premised on a plausible view of the evidence merely because another interpretation is conceivable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal judgment based on a plausible view of the evidence?
  • Does the presence of a close relative eyewitness in a rural setting require strict scrutiny regarding their availability at the crime scene?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions and deviation of witnesses on the prosecution's case in a homicide trial?
  Read full judgment →
• State of Madhya Pradesh vs Kalyan Singh and others2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 180 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-01-04
  quashing of criminal proceedingsnon-compoundable offencesattempt to murdersettlement between partiesinherent powers of High Courtcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court order that quashed criminal proceedings against the accused for offences under Sections 307, 294, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court had quashed the proceedings solely on the basis of an amicable settlement between the complainant and the accused. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences, such as attempted murder, can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, merely because the parties have reached a settlement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a grave error in quashing the proceedings. The Court reaffirmed the principle that criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences cannot be quashed based on a settlement between the complainant and the accused, particularly when the allegations involve serious crimes like attempted murder. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed that the criminal proceedings against the accused be continued in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences be quashed by the High Court solely on the basis of a settlement between the complainant and the accused?
  • Is an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 considered a compoundable offence?
  • Does a settlement between the parties justify the quashing of criminal proceedings involving serious allegations of attempted murder?
  Read full judgment →
• State of Gujarat vs Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya and others2019 PSC. (Crl.) 448 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-02-27
  TADAprior sanctionnon-application of mindDesignated Courtconfessional statementcriminal conspiracyArms Actacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents by a Designated Court in cases involving the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The core legal questions concerned the validity of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 20A(2) of TADA and whether a Designated Court could convict for non-TADA offences when the TADA prosecution fails due to invalid sanction. The Supreme Court held that the sanction orders issued by the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police suffered from non-application of mind, as they merely granted permission to add TADA sections rather than sanctioning prosecution, and failed to evaluate the specific evidence against the accused. Consequently, the court affirmed the acquittal, ruling that without valid sanction, cognizance of TADA offences is barred. Furthermore, while a Designated Court possesses the inherent power to try connected non-TADA offences, the court found the prosecution's evidence regarding these charges insufficient and inadmissible, as the confessional statements were recorded under TADA and could not be utilized once the TADA prosecution was vitiated.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sanction order that merely grants permission to add sections of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 constitute a valid sanction for prosecution under Section 20A(2)?
  • Can a Designated Court convict an accused for offences under other enactments if the prosecution under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 fails due to lack of valid sanction?
  • Is a confessional statement recorded under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 admissible to prove guilt for offences under other enactments if the TADA prosecution is vitiated?
  • Does the failure to frame a specific issue regarding the validity of prior sanction preclude a Designated Court from deciding the issue at the outset?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Attorney vs Additional District Judge and others2019 CLD 144 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-25Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and another vs Mst.2019 SCMR 1917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-03-19
  life insurancerepudiation of claimmaterial concealmentincontestability clauselimitation periodinsurance contractfraudulent misrepresentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the repudiation of a life insurance claim by the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. The deceased insured had obtained a policy in 2005 and passed away in 2008. The insurer declined the claim, alleging fraudulent concealment of material health facts. The core legal question was whether the insurer could avoid the insurance contract after the two-year period stipulated in the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, on the grounds of misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that the policy was incontestable after the two-year period prescribed by Section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, unless the insurer could prove that the statement was on a material matter, was fraudulently made, and the policyholder knew it was false at the time. The Court affirmed that Section 80 acts as a special law setting a specific limitation period for repudiation, distinct from general limitation laws. Finding that the insurer failed to substantiate the alleged prior ailments, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the lower tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can an insurer avoid a life insurance contract on the grounds of misrepresentation after the two-year period prescribed by Section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000?
  • What are the three conditions required to challenge a life insurance policy after the two-year incontestability period under Section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does the limitation period for repudiating an insurance policy under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, run from the date of the policy's issuance or the date of discovery of fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation and others vs Mst. Safia Akhtar2019 CLD 310 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
• State etc vs Muhammad Ramzan, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 11 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-05
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtinjured witnessocular accountmedical evidenceappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Sections 302(b), 337-A(i), and 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence for one appellant and terms of imprisonment for others, alongside an acquittal of a co-accused. The core legal questions involve the assessment of ocular and medical evidence, the reliability of an injured witness whose presence and testimony showed significant contradictions, and the sufficiency of proof regarding a night-time occurrence without reliable sources of light. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material discrepancies in the sole eye-witness account, delayed reporting, withholding of material witnesses, and lack of corroborative forensic evidence. Consequently, the convictions and sentences were set aside, the appellants were acquitted of the charges, and the murder reference for the confirmation of the death sentence was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction when there are material contradictions regarding his presence and medical condition?
  • Does the withholding of material witnesses by the prosecution attract an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction for murder be upheld in a night-time occurrence where identification of the accused from a distance under moonlight is highly doubtful?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the forensic ballistic report is absent or inconclusive?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Mohammad Naeem and others2019 CLD 828 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-30Read full judgment →
• Standard Chartered Bank Limited vs Nice N Easy (Pvt.) Limited, etc2019 CLD 840, 2020 PCTLR 59, 2019 LHC 1283 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-17Read full judgment →
• Space Telecom (Private) Limited, Lahore vs The Pakistan2019 SCP 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-22
  earnest money forfeiturebreach of contractreasonable compensationtelecommunication licensebidding processcontractual obligationsliquidated damages
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a member of a consortium, successfully bid for a mobile cellular license from the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA). Upon failing to pay the requisite initial installment, the PTA forfeited the consortium's earnest money. The petitioner challenged this forfeiture, arguing that a civil court injunction prevented payment, thereby invoking the doctrine of impossibility under Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the forfeiture was unjustified under Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872, as the PTA suffered no actual loss. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that it was genuinely prevented from performing its obligations or that it had contested the injunction. Affirming the lower court's decision, the Court ruled that earnest money forfeiture is permissible upon breach of contract, provided the amount is reasonable. Given that the forfeited sum represented less than 3.5% of the total bid, the Court found it neither oppressive nor penal, thus upholding the PTA's decision to retain the earnest money as reasonable compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Can earnest money be forfeited by a party upon the other party's breach of contract even if no actual loss is proven?
  • Does a court injunction preventing payment of a contractual installment constitute impossibility of performance under Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Is the forfeiture of earnest money amounting to less than 4% of the total bid price considered an oppressive or penal stipulation under Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Space Telecom (Private) Limited, Lahore vs Pakistan2019 KLR Supreme Court 8, 2019 PLJ SC 206, 2019 SCP 44, 2019 SCMR 101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-22
  earnest money forfeiturebreach of contractreasonable compensationliquidated damagesbidding processtelecommunication licenseSection 74 Contract Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority's (PTA) forfeiture of earnest money deposited by a consortium for a mobile cellular license. The petitioner, a consortium member, failed to pay the initial 25% of the bid price within the stipulated timeframe, leading to the forfeiture of the earnest money under the bidding terms. The core legal question was whether the forfeiture was valid under Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872, particularly when the petitioner alleged the breach was caused by a court injunction and that the PTA suffered no actual loss. The Supreme Court held that the forfeiture was lawful, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate it was prevented from performing its obligations or that the forfeiture was unreasonable. The Court affirmed that under Section 74, a party is entitled to reasonable compensation upon breach, regardless of whether actual loss is proven, provided the amount is not oppressive or penal. The forfeiture of less than 4% of the bid amount was deemed reasonable compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Is it necessary for an aggrieved party to suffer actual loss to retain or claim earnest money under Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Can a party claim frustration of contract under Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872, when it fails to demonstrate that it was ready, able, and willing to perform its obligations?
  • Does the forfeiture of earnest money amounting to less than 4% of the total bid price constitute an oppressive or highly penal stipulation?
  Read full judgment →
• Soofi Rice Mills through Proprietor and 2 others vs National Bank of Pakistan through Manager and 2 others2020 P C T L R 1180, 2019 CLD 395 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-03Read full judgment →
• Soneri Bank Limited through Principle Officer/General Attorney vs Messrs2019 CLD 1004 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-12Read full judgment →
• Somaid vs Ali Gohar Gohar Zaman & another2019 PLJ SC Cr.C. 423, 2019 SCP 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-30
  dying declarationbenefit of the doubtmurdercriminal appealconvictioncapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals arise out of a judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding an incident of murder dated 22.9.2005, which resulted in the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, where the High Court had maintained the conviction but altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerns the reliability and evidentiary value of an unverified dying declaration when the identity of the person who actually recorded the deceased's last words remains shrouded in mystery due to contradictory witness testimonies. The Supreme Court held that since the person who records a dying declaration is a crucial witness to verify its veracity, and the prosecution failed to prove who recorded the statement beyond doubt, the dying declaration cannot be relied upon. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that a conviction based on a dying declaration is unsafe and liable to be set aside, extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be safely based on a dying declaration when the identity of the person who recorded the deceased's last words remains unverified and shrouded in mystery?
  • What is the evidentiary value and legal requirement for the verification of a dying declaration in a murder trial?
  • Whether the absence of the scribe of a dying declaration as a witness is fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohbat Ali vs Rasheed Ahmed & Others2019 SC AJK 48 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-20Read full judgment →
• Sohail Yousaf and 2 others vs Yasir Riaz and 6 others2019 YLR 1284 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-11-19Read full judgment →