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.

• Shahid Hussain etc vs Member (S&R)/CSC/Administrator (RP), Punjab2020 KLR Civil Cases 86, 2020 YLR 118, 2019 LHC 3572 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-30Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hamid Khan and others vs Project Director NHA and another2019 PLD Peshawar 165 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-28Read full judgment →
• Shahid Habib vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Department Peshawar and 3 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1426 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-04
  constitutional petitionappointment orderwaiting listprimary school teacherservice matternon-joinder of selectee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to issue his appointment order as a Primary School Teacher (PST). The petitioner had qualified the NTS examination, secured the fifth position on the merit list, and was placed on the waiting list. After one of the initial appointees' appointment was withdrawn due to fake documents, the petitioner claimed entitlement to the vacant post. The respondents resisted the petition, relying on a provincial government policy and precedent from the Supreme Court of Pakistan which prohibited maintaining a general waiting list, requiring vacant posts due to non-joinder or withdrawal to be re-advertised, subject to the exception that vacancies created on account of non-joinder or withdrawal of a selectee may be filled up to the commencement of training of the appointees of the same selection. The court held that since the respondents failed to establish that the selectees had already undergone training prior to the withdrawal of the appointment order, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate on the waiting list can be appointed to a vacancy created by the withdrawal of an appointment order of a selectee?
  • Up to what point in time can vacancies created on account of non-joinder or withdrawal of a selectee be filled from the waiting list?
  • Does the maintenance of a waiting list for public appointments violate the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Akhtar vs Khalida Parveen and others2019 CLD 520 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Freight Services & Others vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2021 CLC 323, 2019 SHC 466 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Akhtar vs Abdul Majeed & others2019 SC AJK 132 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-23Read full judgment →
• Shahdost Dashti vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry2019 CLC 1750 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-30
  constitutional petitiondisqualificationpublic servantsports bodyelection schedulestatutory body
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the declaration of disqualification of the petitioner as a public servant to contest elections for the Regional Cricket Association (Quetta), along with the subsequent notification de-notifying him and announcing a fresh election schedule. The core legal question revolved around the validity of the petitioner's disqualification from holding office in a cricket association on the ground of being a public servant. The Lahore High Court examined the status of the Pakistan Cricket Board as a statutory body and the legality of the proceedings resulting in the petitioner's disqualification. The court considered whether an initial void act could sustain subsequent administrative actions. The holding and key principle established is that actions built upon a void ab initio foundation cannot lawfully form the basis for subsequent disqualifications or administrative superstructures, thereby invalidating the impugned notifications affecting the petitioner's electoral status.

  Questions settled

  • Can a superstructure raised on the basis of a void act serve as a valid basis for subsequent disqualification?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable against the disqualification of a sports association official?
  • Is the Pakistan Cricket Board considered a statutory body established under the Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance, 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 1719, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1140, 2019 LHC 759 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-16
  qatl-e-amdsudden provocationright of self-defensealteration of sentencedeath sentence confirmationcriminal appealappraisal of evidenceres gestae
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 302(b), 324, and 337F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a sentence of death and imprisonment terms. The core legal question concerned the true mode and manner of the occurrence, specifically whether the appellant acted in the exercise of the right of self-defense or premeditated murder, and whether the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt against all co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution and defense both suppressed parts of the true story, and since co-accused were acquitted and independent witnesses supported aspects of the appellant's version of a sudden altercation, the case did not attract Section 302(b). The court laid down the principle that in sudden fights where parties do not come with clean hands and the accused acts without preplanning or premeditation during a sudden flare-up, the conviction is properly altered from premeditated murder to qatl-e-amd under Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, adjusting the sentence accordingly while maintaining concurrent running and extending the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be altered to Section 302(c) when the incident occurs during a sudden flare-up without preplanning?
  • Is the statement of an accused person immediately after the occurrence relevant as part of the transaction under Article 27 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Whether the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be extended when a death sentence is converted to a term of imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Gul Shinwari vs TMO Kohat etc2020 MLD 703, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 34, 2019 PHC 324 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ali Hussaini and 6 others vs Provincial Environmental Protection2019 CLD 647 · Punjab Environmental Tribunal · 2019-04-15Read full judgment →
• Shahab-U-Din vs The State2019 YLR 1277 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-08
  reasonable doubtchain of custodyforensic analysis delayunlicensed armsexplosive substancesacquittalindependent witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for offenses related to the possession of explosive substances and unlicensed arms. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of incriminating materials beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly considering the lack of independent witnesses and procedural lapses in the chain of custody. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing significant infirmities: the failure to associate independent witnesses despite the availability of nearby residences, the lack of evidence regarding the safe custody of recovered items at the police station, and an unexplained two-month delay in sending the explosive substances to the forensic expert. Furthermore, the court noted that the police official responsible for transporting the weapons for ballistic analysis was not examined, breaking the chain of custody. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reaffirming the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered explosive substances to a forensic expert create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Is the failure of the prosecution to examine the official responsible for transporting weapons for ballistic analysis fatal to the chain of custody?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to associate independent witnesses despite their availability at the time of recovery?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman through Special Attorney vs Painda alias Raja and 3 others2019 YLR 1337 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-11Read full judgment →
• Shah Nazar and another vs The State2019 PLD Balochistan 34 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-03-04
  narcotics transportationpossession and control of vehiclejoint possessioncredibility of official witnessesdiscovery of factburden of proof in narcotics casescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court CNS Balochistan convicting the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life for the transportation of 80 kilograms of Charas concealed in a vehicle. The core legal questions involved whether the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle driven and occupied by the appellants constituted joint possession, whether the testimony of official witnesses requires independent corroboration, and the admissibility of information leading to discovery under the law of evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the driver of a vehicle is in control and possession of its contents, attributing knowledge of the transported narcotics to both the driver and the front-seat passenger who failed to offer an explanation. The court affirmed that official witnesses are as good as private witnesses and that information leading to the discovery of facts from an accused in custody is admissible. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person on the driving seat of a vehicle held responsible for the transportation of narcotics found concealed therein?
  • Does the testimony of Anti-Narcotics Force officials require mandatory independent corroboration by private witnesses?
  • Under what circumstances is information received from an accused in police custody regarding the discovery of a fact admissible under the law of evidence?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act once the prosecution establishes the initial recovery of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Kutrio vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary2019 PLC (C.S.) 1209 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-13
  proforma promotionsuperannuationdepartmental promotion committeecivil servantdisciplinary proceedingsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by a civil servant seeking directions for the issuance of a promotion notification to the post of Deputy Director Admin (BPS-18) after being recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee and approved by the competent authority. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant who superannuates after the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee before the issuance of the notification is entitled to proforma promotion, and whether an approved promotion notification can be withheld merely due to the pendency of enquiry proceedings. The Court held that once a civil servant's promotion is approved by the competent authority and they subsequently superannuate, they are entitled to proforma promotion and exemption from assuming charge under Rule 7-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. Furthermore, disciplinary proceedings abate upon retirement as the individual ceases to be a civil servant. The petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether any civil servant who superannuates after the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee before issuing the notification of promotion is entitled for proforma promotion?
  • Whether, after recommendation of promotion of the petitioner in BS-18 by the Departmental Promotion Committee and approved by the competent authority, his promotion notification can be withheld merely on the pendency of enquiry proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 106 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-07
  post-arrest baildacoityidentification parademuffled facesfurther inquiryrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 395, 397, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding an armed dacoity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was connected to the crime through a doubtful identification parade and recovery of alleged stolen items, warranting further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that since the culprits' faces were muffled during the incident, the identification parade was open to question, and the recovery of items without proper identification memos was insufficient at this stage. The court decided to admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the initial identification of unknown accused with muffled faces is doubtful and recoveries lack formal identification memos, the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail, especially when the investigation is complete and trial is delayed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the identification parade of accused with muffled faces is open to question?
  • Is the recovery of alleged stolen items without an identification memo sufficient to incriminate an accused for purpose of bail?
  • Does a delayed trial combined with a completed investigation qualify a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs SHO/Incharge Investigating Officer and 10 others2019 P Cr. L J 648 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-01
  quashing of orderpolice reportB classcognizance of offenceMagistrate jurisdictioninvestigationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate accepting a police report for disposal of an FIR under "B" class. The core legal question revolved around whether the Magistrate properly exercised jurisdiction under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in evaluating the police report and relying on inadmissible material such as newspaper clippings instead of focusing on prima facie commission of the offense. The Sindh High Court held that the Magistrate erred by conducting a deep analysis of evidence and relying on unverified newspaper reports, reiterating that the determination of guilt or innocence is the exclusive domain of the trial court, whereas the Magistrate's role at the cognizance stage is limited to a summary assessment of available material. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate can conduct a deep analysis of facts and evidence while exercising jurisdiction under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a newspaper clipping be given weight and relied upon as direct evidence without examining its author in court?
  • What is the precise legal scope and function of an Investigating Officer during a criminal investigation?
  • Whether an order accepting a police report for disposal of a case under B-class based on flawed evaluation is sustainable at law?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad & others vs Muhammad Tayyab & others2019 SC AJK 126 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-22Read full judgment →
• Shah Khan vs Javed Iqbal and 2 others2019 YLR 2814 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-05-07
  registration of FIRcognizable offenceJustice of the Peaceduty of SHOCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition against the order of the Justice of the Peace Gilgit, which dismissed a petition under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR against the private respondents. The core legal question was whether the Justice of the Peace and the police were justified in refusing to order or register an FIR on the ground that no eye-witnesses were named or that the dispute was of a civil nature. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the SHO is duty-bound under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to register an FIR once information disclosing a cognizable offence is provided, without delving into deeper appreciation of merits such as the absence of eye-witnesses or the existence of civil litigation. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order of the Justice of the Peace and directed the SHO to register the FIR and investigate the matter on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the SHO is bound to register an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when information discloses a cognizable offence?
  • Is it permissible for a Justice of the Peace to refuse registration of an FIR on the ground that no eye-witnesses were named in the application?
  • Does the existence of a civil dispute between the parties bar the registration of a criminal case if a cognizable offence is made out?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Faisal & another vs The Chancellor, Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan etc2020 YLR 229, 2019 PHC 196 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-30Read full judgment →
• Shah Fahad and another vs Pir Ghulam Kareem and others2019 YLR 2187 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-21Read full judgment →
• Shah Behram and another vs The State, etc2019 P Cr. L J 1743, 2019 KLR Criminal Cases 306 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-13
  Qatl-e-Amdbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencechance witnessmurder referenceappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences imposed by the trial court for Qatl-e-Amd. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence, and the prior acquittal of co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses whose testimony was inconsistent with the medical report regarding the absence of blackening on the deceased and the nature of injuries. Furthermore, the court applied the principle that if eye-witnesses are disbelieved against co-accused attributed similar roles, they cannot be relied upon against others. The court emphasized that motive and recovery are merely corroborative and lose significance once the primary ocular account is rejected. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants, and declined to confirm the murder reference, reiterating that the benefit of doubt is a fundamental right of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular testimony is inconsistent with the medical evidence?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused with similar roles render the testimony of eye-witnesses unreliable against remaining accused?
  • Can motive and recovery evidence sustain a conviction if the primary ocular account is rejected?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Bakhsh and others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2019 KLR Civil Cases 347, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 797 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-11-26
  time scale policygroup insurancesubstantive pay scaleestoppelapprobate and reprobateservice lawfinancial benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, government teachers in Balochistan, challenged a government notification restricting Group Insurance benefits to their substantive pay scale rather than the higher time scale grade they were granted. The core legal question was whether a time scale grant, intended as a financial incentive to alleviate stagnation, constitutes a promotion entitling an employee to higher insurance benefits based on that scale. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a clear distinction exists between a time scale grant and a promotion; the former is merely a financial benefit without advancement in rank or position. Consequently, the Court ruled that Group Insurance benefits must be calculated based on the substantive pay scale of the original designation. Furthermore, the Court applied the doctrine of estoppel, noting that the petitioners, having accepted the financial benefits of the time scale policy—which explicitly stipulated that insurance benefits would be based on substantive pay—could not approbate and reprobate by challenging the notification that implemented those specific terms.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of a higher grade under a time scale policy constitute a promotion to a higher rank or position?
  • Are employees entitled to Group Insurance benefits based on their time scale grade or their substantive pay scale?
  • Can a petitioner challenge a government notification after having accepted the financial benefits of the policy that the notification implements?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Alam Khan & others vs Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa &2019 PHC 332 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shafqat @ Shafaat vs The State2019 PLD Supreme Court 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-29
  qatl-i-amdcompounding of offencescompromisestare decisisacquittalta'azirafwsulhlarger bench
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a petition against a conviction under Section 302(b) PPC, where the legal heirs of the deceased subsequently filed a compromise application under Section 345 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to forgive the convict. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the acceptance of a compromise (compounding of an offence) results in the automatic setting aside of the conviction and a full acquittal, or merely saves the convict from punishment while leaving the record of guilt intact. Justice Qazi Faez Isa, in the lead opinion, held that while compounding brings the sentence to an immediate end, it does not automatically erase the conviction or equate to a factual acquittal, as Islamic injunctions and the language of Section 345(6) Cr.P.C. distinguish between remission of punishment and obliteration of guilt. However, noting a conflict with a prior three-member bench decision (PLD 2018 SC 703), the Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench to resolve the jurisprudential conflict, while ordering the petitioner's release in the interim.

  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat @ Shafaat vs StatePLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-07-30
  qatl-i-amdcompounding of offenceSection 345 CrPCstare decisiscriminal convictionIslamic jurisprudenceafw and sulhacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner was convicted for qatl-i-amd (murder) under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Following a compromise between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased, the core legal question arose: whether the acceptance of a compromise under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically results in the setting aside of the conviction and acquittal of the convict, or merely ends the sentence. The Court, per Qazi Faez Isa, J., held that while a compromise ends the sentence, it does not automatically erase the conviction or result in an acquittal that obliterates the guilt, as forgiveness (afw) and compounding (sulh) remit punishment but do not create a factual fiction of innocence. However, due to the principle of stare decisis and the existence of a contrary three-member bench judgment in Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2017, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench. Gulzar Ahmed, J., in a separate opinion, disagreed, citing the binding nature of the Suo Motu judgment and acquitted the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acceptance of a compromise in a murder case under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically result in the setting aside of the conviction?
  • Does the compounding of an offence under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 erase the record of guilt?
  • Is a three-member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan bound by a previous judgment of another three-member bench on the same point of law?
  • Does the pardon of a convict by the heirs of a victim equate to an acquittal that obliterates the underlying criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique vs The State2019 SHC 272 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-19Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad Khan and 3 others vs Director General, Lahore2019 YLR 1488 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
• Shafi-Ul-Ibrar through L.Rs vs Central Government through Secretary2019 MLD 1371 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-16Read full judgment →
• Shafi Ullah vs Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Peshawar and 2 others2019 PTD (Trib.) 739 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-08-01Read full judgment →
• Shabir-ur-Rahman vs The State etc2019 PHC 418 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-02Read full judgment →
• Shabir Jan Afridi and Muhammad Yousaf vs The State2019 PHC 202 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-02Read full judgment →
• Shabib Hussain son of Muhammad Hanif vs The State etc2019 PHC 240 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-08
  qatl-e-amdanti-terrorismsectarian murdercapital punishmentred-handed arrestforensic ballisticseyewitness testimonymurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for the qatl-e-amd of a religious scholar under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, resulting in a death sentence, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt through prompt FIR lodging, eyewitness testimony, red-handed arrest of the appellant at the scene with the crime weapon, and forensic corroboration. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through consistent ocular accounts, prompt reporting eliminating deliberation, positive forensic firearm reports, and recovery of identification documents on the spot. The court laid down the principle that the substitution of a real culprit charged directly and singularly is a rare phenomenon in criminal jurisprudence, and that committing a sectarian-motivated murder of a religious leader constitutes an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, warranting capital punishment without mitigating circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prompt lodging of an FIR eliminates the possibility of consultation and false implication?
  • Does the murder of a religious leader for sectarian reasons constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Whether the substitution of a real culprit charged directly and singularly is a common occurrence in criminal cases?
  • Does a positive FSL report matching crime empties with the recovered weapon strongly corroborate the ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed vs THe state2019 SHC 518 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-13
  criminal appealunlicensed weaponrecovery proceedingsbenefit of doubtacquittalmashirnamaprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, who was found guilty by the trial court for the possession of an unlicensed weapon, allegedly recovered while he was in custody for a separate theft case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the weapon beyond a reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the evidence. The High Court observed that the recovery proceedings were highly suspicious: no independent witnesses from the locality were cited as mashirs, the mashirnama's authorship was disputed by the prosecution's own witnesses, and the person responsible for transporting the weapon to the forensic expert was not examined. Furthermore, the appellant had already been acquitted in the main theft case. Relying on the principle established in Tariq Pervaiz vs the State (1995 SCMR 1345), the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, affirming that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession.

  Questions settled

  • Is the failure to examine the person who transported the weapon to the forensic expert fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does the lack of independent witnesses in recovery proceedings create a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when prosecution evidence is inconsistent?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed and others vs Cholistan Development Authority and others2020 CLC 243, 2019 LHC 2959 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-06Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed and another vs The State2019 SHC 170 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-08Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs The State & another2020 P Cr. L J 45, 2019 LHC 3203 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-23
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencedying declarationidentificationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of night-time ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of an injured witness, and the impact of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the identification of the appellants in the dark via torchlight unreliable and noted that the alleged motive of theft remained unproven. Crucially, the court observed that the prosecution withheld the deceased's statement, invoking an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, the court determined that the ocular account was belied by medical evidence regarding the distance of the shots. The court established that injuries on an eyewitness indicate presence but not necessarily truthfulness, and that any material lacuna in the prosecution's case, such as a conflict between ocular and medical evidence, mandates the benefit of the doubt for the accused. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of firearm injuries on an eyewitness constitute affirmative proof of the witness's credibility?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution withholds a statement made by the deceased to the police?
  • Is an identification made in the dark via torchlight sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration?
  • Does a material conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabaz Wali Khan, etc vs Govt. of Pakistan Establishment Division Regional2019 PLC (C.S.) 1467, 2019 LHC 1169 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07
  tarkainheritance of service benefitsbenevolent fundgroup insurancegratuityhouse rent allowancelegal heirscivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the legal heirs (adult sons and married daughters) of a deceased employee of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), challenging the refusal of their claims for gratuity, Federal Employees Benevolent Fund, Group Insurance Fund, and House Rent Allowance, seeking a declaration that these claims constitute 'Tarka' (part of the estate of the deceased). The core legal question was whether post-death service benefits and allowances payable under applicable rules are heritable as 'Tarka' and distributable among all legal heirs, or restricted to specified family members. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that financial benefits and grants which do not become payable during the lifetime of the employee, but accrue upon or as a consequence of death—such as the Benevolent Fund, Group Insurance, gratuity, and specific allowances—are not part of the deceased's estate and cannot be treated as 'Tarka'. Instead, they are payable only to designated nominees or defined family members in accordance with service rules and regulations, as laid down in authoritative jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service benefits and allowances accruing upon the death of an employee form part of the estate as 'Tarka'?
  • Can the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance claims be treated as heritable assets distributable among all legal heirs?
  • Whether gratuity payable after the death of a government servant is heritable under general inheritance law?
  • Are adult sons and married daughters entitled to claim House Rent Allowance as part of the deceased employee's estate?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Saeed ul Hassan vs Sh. Mohammad Imran etc2020 YLR 854, 2019 LHC 3776 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-09Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdul Waheed vs Custodian Evacuee Property, Lahore and others2020 PLJ Supreme Court 56, 2019 SCMR 1745 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-14
  evacuee propertyrestoration of propertypermanent residencecustodianproperty statusconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over built-up properties in Lahore initially owned by a pre-partition owner who died in India in 1945. Following the 1947 Partition, the properties were declared evacuee and allotted to displaced persons, but were subsequently restored in 1948 to the original owner's family subject to conditions regarding permanent residence and non-alienation. Extensive litigation ensued over decades concerning whether the properties re-acquired evacuee status due to the heirs' subsequent movements, relocations to India and England, and contradictory stances taken before revenue and judicial authorities. The Supreme Court held that the properties re-acquired evacuee status because the heirs failed to establish that they made Pakistan their permanent place of residence, and their return was found to be temporary and intended to circumvent evacuee laws. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the High Court and dismissed the constitutional petition, ruling that properties restored conditionally revert to evacuee status upon breach of residency conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether property once restored to its original owners can re-acquire the status of evacuee property due to the subsequent movements and non-residence of the owners?
  • Can an order of restoration of evacuee property be made subject to conditions regarding permanent residence in Pakistan?
  • What is the effect of shifting stands and contradictory statements by claimants regarding their permanent place of residence in evacuee property proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• SESSI United Staff Union Sindh (Cba) through General Secretary and another vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Labour and 6 others2019 PLC 158 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-06
  interim injunctioncollective bargaining agentreferendumdisputed questions of factconstitutional jurisdictionworkmen statusprime facie caseirreparable loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an injunction application filed by the SESSI United Staff Union Sindh seeking to suspend a voter list and stay a scheduled referendum for a Collective Bargaining Agent, arguing that objections regarding the inclusion of certain hospital workers and disputed members remained undecided. The core legal questions concern whether disputed questions of fact regarding the status of workers can be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction, and whether the plaintiffs established the necessary ingredients for the grant of an interim injunction. The court dismissed the injunction application, holding that the determination of whether specific employees qualify as workmen involves disputed questions of fact that cannot be resolved under extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The court reaffirmed the principle that an interim injunction requires the co-existence of a strong prima facie case, balance of inconvenience, and irreparable loss, none of which were satisfied given that the petitioners' legal term had long expired and the maintainability of their petition itself was questionable.

  Questions settled

  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the status of employees as workmen be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • What are the mandatory ingredients required for the grant of an interim injunction?
  • Whether an interim injunction can be granted when the maintainability of the main petition itself is questionable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sesons Edible Oil Limited (Formerly Wali Oil Mills Limited) through Authorized Attorney vs The Federal Board of Revenue through Chairman, FBR, Islamabad and 3 others2019 PTD 1619 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Senator Muhammad Ali Durrani vs Government of Pakistan and others2019 KLR Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-06-12
  undeclared foreign assetsforeign exchange reservestax amnesty schemesuo motu proceedingsrepatriation of assetscapital flighttax evasion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from suo motu proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the unregulated outflow of foreign exchange, accumulation of undeclared foreign assets by Pakistani citizens, and declining national foreign exchange reserves. The Court had appointed a Committee of Experts to deliberate and recommend legislative and executive measures. The Committee submitted its final report identifying ten core factors causing foreign exchange leakage, including misuse of foreign currency accounts, under-invoicing, tax law loopholes, and informal transfer channels like Hundi and Hawala. Following the Court's intervention, the Federal Government promulgated the Foreign Assets (Declaration and Repatriation) Ordinance, 2018, later reenacted as the Foreign Assets (Declaration and Repatriation) Act, 2018, alongside amendments to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and other regulatory frameworks. The core legal question was whether the Court should examine the legality of the voluntary disclosure scheme and unaddressed fiscal deficiencies without a concrete legal challenge. The Court held that while it welcomes public interest measures protecting foreign exchange reserves, it will not unilaterally adjudicate upon the fiscal scheme in the absence of a concrete challenge, directing the relevant authorities to address remaining legislative gaps.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court unilaterally adjudicate upon the legality and propriety of a voluntary asset disclosure scheme in the absence of a concrete challenge?
  • What are the primary legislative and regulatory factors contributing to the unregulated outflow of foreign exchange from Pakistan?
  • What constitutes the legal framework and immunity provided under the Foreign Assets (Declaration and Repatriation) Act, 2018?
  Read full judgment →
• Selat Marine Services Co. LLC through Authorized Attorney vs M.T. Bofors2019 PLD Sindh 533 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-29Read full judgment →
• Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, Karachi vs Messrs2019 P.S.C. 560, 2019 SCMR 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-02-12
  locus standiquasi-judicial authorityfunctus officioinsurance claimjudicial reviewappellate authoritymaladministration
  Summary & questions settled

  The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside SECP's appellate orders regarding insurance claims. The core legal question was whether the SECP, acting as an appellate adjudicatory authority under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, has the standing to challenge a High Court's decision that reversed its orders in a dispute between private parties (insurers and insured). The Supreme Court held that the SECP, as an independent and impartial adjudicatory forum, lacks the standing to act as an aggrieved party or defend its own orders in adversarial litigation between private litigants. The Court emphasized that statutory authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions become functus officio after passing orders and are not required to defend their decisions before higher courts. The key principle laid down is that tribunals and appellate authorities are not adversarial parties and cannot challenge judicial review decisions of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as they must remain neutral and impartial in disputes between private parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate adjudicatory authority have the standing to challenge a High Court judgment that reverses its order in a private dispute?
  • Is a statutory authority required to defend its own orders in adversarial proceedings before a High Court or Supreme Court?
  • Can an Insurance Ombudsman or the SECP act as an aggrieved party against a High Court decision under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan, Karachi vs M/s East West2019 SCP 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-02-12
  statutory authority standingfunctus officiojudicial reviewInsurance Ordinance 2000appellate jurisdictionnon-adversarial roleSECP
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) against a High Court judgment that set aside its appellate orders regarding insurance claims. The core legal question is whether a statutory adjudicatory body, acting in an appellate capacity under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, possesses the legal standing to challenge a High Court judgment that reverses its own orders in a dispute between private parties. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the SECP and the Insurance Ombudsman are independent, impartial, and non-adversarial forums. The Court established the principle that once these bodies issue a decision, they become functus officio and are not parties to the litigation. Consequently, they lack the standing to defend their orders before higher courts; such defense is the responsibility of the aggrieved private party. Statutory authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions cannot act as adversaries in judicial review proceedings against their own decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statutory adjudicatory body have the standing to challenge a High Court judgment that sets aside its own order?
  • Is the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan an adversarial party in a dispute between an insurer and an insured?
  • At what point does the Insurance Ombudsman or the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan become functus officio regarding a complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Planning and Development Department, Muzaffarabad and 22019 KLR Supreme Court 301 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service tribunalcompulsory retirementcompetent authorityappointing authoritydisciplinary proceedingsremoval from servicecivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Service Tribunal whereby the tribunal set aside the penalty of censure and compulsory retirement imposed upon respondent No. 1, a driver, under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001. The core legal question was whether the Secretary of the Planning and Development Department constituted the competent authority to initiate proceedings and impose major penalties on a driver whose appointing authority under the relevant rules was the Additional Development Commissioner, Chief of Section, or Assistant Chief. The Supreme Court held that under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001 and notifications issued thereunder by the Prime Minister, the competent authority is the designated appointing authority. Since the Secretary was not the appointing authority of the respondent, he lacked jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings or pass the penalty order. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary proceedings under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001 can only be validly initiated and conducted by the statutory competent authority designated for that specific cadre.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Secretary of a department is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a driver under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001?
  • Does an officer other than the designated appointing authority have the jurisdiction to pass a penalty order of compulsory retirement against a civil servant?
  • Who constitutes the competent authority under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Health Department vs Dr. Muhammad Khalid Masood and others2019 MLD 390, 2019 PLJ Lahore 481, 2019 LHC 72 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-22Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Azad Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly Muzaffarabad2019 P.S.C. 1203 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-09-05Read full judgment →
• Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad vs Iftikhar Ahmed Tabassam, etc2019 SCP 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-21
  service lawgovernment accommodationpenal rentsubstantial question of lawpublic importanceabuse of processArticle 212(3)civil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter concerns the unauthorized retention of government accommodation by a retired civil servant beyond the period permitted under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002. The core legal question was whether the respondent was liable to pay standard rent with penal charges for such retention, and whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in exempting him from these charges based on a previously granted stay order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the respondent was liable for the penal rent as the stay order became ineffective upon the withdrawal of the underlying appeal. The Court ruled that the Tribunal’s decision to entertain an application in a withdrawn appeal constituted an abuse of process. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that the jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution is restricted to substantial questions of law of public importance. It clarified that matters involving the interpretation of service rules and the abuse of judicial process, which affect a class of civil servants, transcend individual disputes and satisfy the threshold for Supreme Court intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unauthorized retention of government accommodation by a retired civil servant beyond the permitted period attract liability for standard rent and penal charges?
  • Can a Service Tribunal entertain an application in an appeal that has already been withdrawn?
  • What constitutes a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a stay order granted by a Tribunal survive the withdrawal of the main appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad vs Iftikhar Ahmed Tabassam2019 PLD Supreme Court 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-21
  accommodation allocation rulespenal rentunauthorized retentionservice tribunalsubstantial question of law of public importancesupreme court jurisdictionwithdrawal of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Revenue Division addresses whether a retired civil servant is liable to pay standard rent with penal charges for unauthorized retention of government accommodation beyond six months post-retirement. The respondent had retained official accommodation on the basis of a stay order obtained during a pending service appeal, which he subsequently withdrew. Following the withdrawal, the department demanded standard rent under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002. The Federal Service Tribunal erroneously set aside the demand, holding that the occupation was protected by the earlier stay order. The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal of the appeal nullified the interim stay order ab initio, rendering the continued retention unauthorized and subject to penal rent under the rules. Furthermore, the Court examined the scope of Article 212(3) of the Constitution, ruling that the interpretation of service rules affecting a class of civil servants and issues involving abuse of process constitute a substantial question of law of public importance. The appeal was allowed and the department's demand for standard rent was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retired civil servant is liable to pay standard rent with penal charges for retaining government accommodation beyond the permissible six-month period after retirement?
  • Does the withdrawal of a service appeal automatically vacate an interim stay order granted during its pendency?
  • What constitutes a substantial question of law of public importance for invoking the appellate jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in service matters?
  • Can the Federal Service Tribunal entertain an application in a service appeal that has already been unconditionally withdrawn?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Revenue Division / Chairman, FBR and another vs Muhammad2019 KLR Supreme Court 350, 2020 PLJ Supreme Court 19, 2019 P.S.C. 876, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-26
  service lawsenioritymutual transfervoluntary transferEstacodediscriminationcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service dispute regarding the determination of seniority for a civil servant who was transferred between posts via mutual consent. The respondent, initially appointed as a Preventive Officer, sought to have his seniority as an Inspector of Customs reckoned from his original date of appointment in 1988, rather than the date of his voluntary transfer in 1991. The Service Tribunal had ruled in his favor, citing discriminatory treatment compared to other officers. The Supreme Court examined the relevant service rules, specifically paragraph 6(i)(a) of the Estacode, which mandates that when a transfer is voluntary, seniority in the new office commences from the date of transfer. The Court held that since the respondent’s transfer was based on his own volition and mutual consent, he was not entitled to count his previous service towards seniority. Furthermore, the Court clarified that an alleged past error in granting seniority to others cannot be used to establish a claim of discrimination or to override established service principles. The appeal was allowed, and the Service Tribunal's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant who voluntarily transfers to a new office via mutual consent have the right to count previous service towards seniority in the new post?
  • Can a claim of discrimination be sustained based on the incorrect application of service rules to other employees?
  • Under the Estacode, what is the distinction between voluntary and compulsory transfer regarding the calculation of seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Finance Department, Muzaffarabad and 2 others vs Khawaja2020 PLC (C.S.) 76, 2019 P.S.C. 1707 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-07
  pension increaseoffice memorandumamendment by substitutioncivil servantlachescontinuing cause of actionretirement benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court arises from a judgment of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court, which accepted a writ petition filed by a retired civil servant seeking a 20% increase in pension pursuant to an office memorandum dated 01.08.2009. The core legal question centered on the nature and effective date of an amendment introduced through a subsequent office memorandum dated 14.06.2013, which substituted criteria regarding pension increases based on retirement dates, and whether the claim was barred by laches. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that since the amendment operated through substitution of paragraph 1 of the original memorandum dated 01.08.2009, it took effect from 01.07.2009, rendering the respondent—who retired on 01.10.2001—entitled to the 20% increase. The Court laid down the principle that an amendment by way of substitution relates back to the original instrument unless specified otherwise, and that pension is a continuous right, meaning the principle of laches does not apply to successive monthly denials of rightful pension, particularly when the defense of laches was never raised in the pleadings before the lower court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amendment introduced through an office memorandum by way of substitution takes effect from the date of the original memorandum or prospectively?
  • Does the principle of laches apply to a claim for pensionary benefits by a retired civil servant?
  • Can a legal point or objection not raised in the written statement or pleadings before the lower court be allowed to be raised for the first time before the apex court?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Finance Department and 2 others vs Khawaja Muhammad2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 93 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Secretary Establishment Division and others vs Dr. Imdad Ali Raza2019 PLC (C.S.) 111, 2018 SCMR 1998 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-03-01
  civil servicemisconductunauthorized absencecompulsory retirementextraordinary leavedisciplinary proceedingsservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that reinstated a civil servant removed from service due to unauthorized absence. The core legal question was whether the respondent's prolonged absence from duty, purportedly for higher education and family medical reasons, constituted misconduct warranting removal from service, and whether the authority's decision to remove him was legally sustainable given his long service record. The Supreme Court held that while the respondent's unauthorized absence could not be justified or taken for granted, his removal from service was disproportionate given his twenty-one years of unblemished service. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment and the authority's removal order, and substituted the penalty with compulsory retirement. The key principle laid down is that while civil servants cannot treat extraordinary leave as a right or justify prolonged unauthorized absence on casual pretexts, the disciplinary authority must balance the gravity of misconduct against the length and quality of a civil servant's total service record when determining the appropriate penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim extraordinary leave as a matter of right?
  • Does unauthorized absence from duty constitute misconduct justifying removal from service?
  • Can the Supreme Court substitute a penalty of removal from service with compulsory retirement based on the length of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Education & others vs Sikandar Khan2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 367 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2018-05-18Read full judgment →
• Secretary Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly and another2019 PLC (C.S.) 1339 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-09-05
  service lawwithholding of salaryadministrative negligenceappointment on meritnon-joinder of partiespublic employmentAzad Jammu and Kashmir
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment directing the payment of salary to respondents appointed by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly. The respondents were selected for posts of Reporter and Computer Operator following an advertisement and interview process. Subsequently, the Assembly withheld their salaries, contending that the Finance Department had not formally approved the creation of these posts. The core legal question was whether the authority could deny remuneration to employees for its own failure to secure necessary administrative approvals. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondents, having been appointed on merit and performed their duties, could not be penalized for the administrative lapses or internal procedural failures of the appointing authority. The Court affirmed the principle that no individual should suffer due to the fault or negligence of the authority. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition was also liable to be dismissed due to the non-joinder of a necessary party. The judgment reinforces that public authorities cannot benefit from their own irregularities to the detriment of employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appointing authority withhold the salary of an employee on the ground that the post was not approved by the Finance Department after the employee has already been appointed and performed duties?
  • Is an employee liable to suffer for the administrative lapses or procedural irregularities committed by the appointing authority?
  • Does the failure to implead a necessary party in a petition for leave to appeal render the petition liable to be dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary (C&W) Punjab Lahore etc vs Zafar Iqbal, etc2019 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 47 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 2018-10-09
  exparte judgmentsetting aside exparte orderlimitation actgrievance petitionregularization of servicelabour appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Punjab Labour Court dismissing the appellants' application for setting aside exparte proceedings and an exparte judgment passed in a grievance petition for regularization of service. The core legal question concerns whether the appellants provided sufficient grounds and explanation for the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte judgment. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the appellants failed to substantiate the alleged ill health of their representative with proof, and the application filed after seven and a half months was barred by limitation, as the law of limitation must be strictly applied. The Tribunal affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the delay of each day was not plausibly explained and that limitation is not a mere technicality. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for setting aside an exparte judgment is maintainable when filed after an inordinate delay without sufficient cause?
  • Does the law of limitation apply strictly to applications for setting aside exparte judgments in labor matters?
  • Whether unproven ill health of a representative constitutes a sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing a restoration application?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others2019 PLD Islamabad 316 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-12-12
  Exit Control Listfundamental rightsfreedom of movementright to travelNational Accountability Bureaumechanical application of mindoffshore companieswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, a dual citizen of Pakistan and the United Kingdom and a Special Assistant to the Prime Minister, challenging a Memorandum dated 04.08.2018 issued by the Ministry of Interior that placed his name on the Exit Control List (ECL) under Section 2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981. The placement was recommended by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on the grounds that the petitioner was under inquiry regarding offshore companies and might abscond. The petitioner contended that he had regularly attended inquiry proceedings and that the restriction violated his fundamental right to travel. The High Court observed that NAB itself subsequently recommended a one-time permission for the petitioner to travel abroad, thereby negating its own apprehension of absconsion, and that the Ministry of Interior had acted mechanically without independent application of mind. The Court held that the right to travel is a fundamental right under Articles 9 and 15 of the Constitution, and mere pendency of an inquiry does not justify its curtailment. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned Memorandum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere pendency of an inquiry or investigation by the National Accountability Bureau is a sufficient ground to place a citizen's name on the Exit Control List?
  • Does the Ministry of Interior have a duty to independently apply its mind and record reasons before placing a citizen's name on the Exit Control List on the recommendation of another agency?
  • Whether the right to international travel constitutes an integral part of the right to life and liberty under Articles 9 and 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can the statutory remedy of review under Section 3 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 be considered an adequate or efficacious alternative remedy if the impugned order is not a speaking order?
  Read full judgment →
• Saudi Pak Industrial & Agricultural Investment Company Ltd vs Chenab2019 LHC 3983 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-02Read full judgment →
• Sartaj Khan vs The State2019 YLR 2287 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-10
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealcontrol of narcotic substances actburden of proofrecovery of narcoticsevidence of excise officialssection 103 crpc
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for transporting 35 kilograms of Charas in a truck trailer. The core legal questions concerned the liability of a driver for narcotics concealed within a vehicle, the impact of non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding independent witnesses, and the competence of excise officials as witnesses and investigators. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the driver of a vehicle is legally responsible for its contents, including concealed narcotics. The Court affirmed that the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, are excluded in narcotics cases, and that excise officials are competent witnesses whose testimony cannot be discarded absent proof of enmity. Furthermore, the Court held that once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case of recovery, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, to prove innocence. The conviction was upheld as the evidence was deemed confidence-inspiring.

  Questions settled

  • Is the driver of a vehicle legally responsible for narcotics found concealed within that vehicle?
  • Does the exclusion of independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, vitiate a conviction in narcotics cases?
  • Can a complainant in a narcotics case also act as the investigating officer?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once the prosecution establishes a prima facie recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarhad Development Authority N.W.F.P. (now K.P.K) thr. Coo/ CEO (Officio)2020 P SC 941, 2020 SCMR 265, 2019 SCP 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-07
  compulsory acquisitionland acquisitionmarket valuecompensationpotential valueReferee CourtKhyber Pakhtunkhwa
  Summary & questions settled

  The Sarhad Development Authority challenged the Peshawar High Court’s judgment regarding compensation for land acquired for the Nowshera Industrial Estate. The core legal questions concerned whether sale transactions occurring after the Section 4 notification could be considered for compensation assessment and whether the Supreme Court could adjudicate disputed questions of fact raised for the first time in appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court’s decision. It held that under the amended Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 applicable in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the market value is determined based on the date of taking possession, not the date of the Section 4 notification. Consequently, post-notification transactions are relevant. The Court further ruled that it would not entertain disputed questions of fact not previously agitated before the Referee Court or High Court. The judgment established that compensation assessment must account for potential land value, contemporaneous transactions in the vicinity, and price escalation during acquisition, emphasizing that no rigid mathematical formula exists for determining market value in compulsory acquisitions.

  Questions settled

  • Can sale transactions occurring after the issuance of a Section 4 notification be considered when determining compensation for acquired land?
  • Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to determine disputed questions of fact that were not raised before the lower courts?
  • In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, is the market value of acquired land determined on the date of the Section 4 notification or the date of taking possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz, etc vs Senior Member Bor, etc2019 PLJ Lahore 671, 2020 YLR 1232, 2019 LHC 2243 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-12Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz and another vs Mst. Naseema Shahab and 5 others2019 MLD 1550 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-04-19Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad vs Muhammad Yousaf and 2 others2019 MLD 415 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-23Read full judgment →
• Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind vs The Election Tribunal Balochistan, Quetta2019 SCP 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-05
  election candidatedisqualificationArticle 62(1)(f)dishonestynomination paperseducational qualificationsburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for provincial and national assembly constituencies and the subsequent dismissal of his constitutional petitions by the High Court, which upheld his disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question concerns whether a candidate can be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) for alleged dishonesty regarding educational credentials without positive evidence or a judicial finding of deliberate deceit. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and allowed them, setting aside the lower judgments. The ratio decidendi is that disqualification under Article 62(1)(f), which entails a lifetime bar, requires a judicial declaration of dishonesty founded on positive oral or documentary evidence demonstrating a deliberate and conscious false statement or deceitful conduct, rather than mere conjecture, presumption, or unverified admissions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 can be sustained without positive evidence of dishonesty?
  • Does a candidate's omission or non-denial constitute a judicial admission of a false statement for the purpose of electoral disqualification?
  • Can a presumption of dishonesty replace the requirement of recording evidence to establish a lifelong bar from contesting elections?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Niaz Ahmed and another vs Saqib Shafi & others2019 SC AJK 124 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-22Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Khalil Secondary School Teacher, Govt. Boys2019 P SC 1698, 2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 101 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service rulesright of promotionvested rightamendment of ruleseducational qualificationsservice tribunalcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal whereby the appellants' appeal challenging the vires of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Elementary and Secondary Education Department Teaching Cadre Service Rules, 2016 was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the Government's amendment of service rules, enhancing minimum qualifications and curtailing promotion quotas, unlawfully snatched a vested right of promotion claimed by the appellants. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that a civil servant has no vested right to promotion or to demand that service rules remain unchanged to suit their career progression, provided the rules are framed competently and are not ultra vires the Constitution or parent legislation. The Court laid down the principle that the Government possesses the prerogative to amend or alter service rules and qualifications according to administrative needs, and an aggrieved civil servant challenging such rules must prove specific inconsistency with the Constitution or parent Act rather than mere personal disadvantage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant has a vested right to promotion under previously existing service rules?
  • Can the Government alter or enhance minimum qualifications and curtail promotion quotas through amended service rules?
  • What must an aggrieved civil servant prove to declare service rules illegal or ultra vires the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Bux Mahar vs Mst. Saman Muhammad Mahar and another2020 P Cr. L J 1079, 2019 SHC 268 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-16
  child custodyguardian and wardshabeas corpuswelfare of minorsnatural guardians
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a constitutional petition challenging an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge directing the petitioner to produce minor children in a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for habeas corpus. The core legal question concerned the appropriate legal remedy and forum for a custody dispute between natural parents, noting that both parties had initiated misconceived proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Sections 5 and 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 instead of invoking Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890. The court held that custody disputes between parents must be adjudicated under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 rather than through habeas corpus or general guardianship appointment provisions. The court laid down that where parties approach incorrect forums for child custody, the High Court may convert and transfer such proceedings to the competent Family Court to be tried as an application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 in the interest of the welfare of the minors.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is the appropriate remedy for a parent seeking custody of a minor from the other natural parent?
  • Can a court convert a misconceived petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 into an application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890?
  • Do natural parents require an order of the court to support their right to act as guardians of their minor children under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Kalay Khan vs The State2020 YLR 1719, 2019 SHC 428 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-01
  explosive substancesillicit weaponspolice encounterrecovery witnesscredibility of police officialsanti-terrorismcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under Section 23(i)A of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, and Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 6(2)(ee) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution case stemmed from a police patrol where the appellants were allegedly found in possession of Owan bombs and pistols. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated, that private witnesses were not associated in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the police testimonies were unreliable. The Sindh High Court held that the testimonies of police officials were trustworthy and corroborated by expert bomb disposal and forensic reports, and the absence of private witnesses at odd night hours was satisfactorily explained. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials can be relied upon for conviction in the absence of private mashirs under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the recovery of explosive devices and unlicensed weapons at odd night hours justify the non-association of private public witnesses?
  • Whether minor contradictions in the ocular testimony of police witnesses are fatal to the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Subhani Bhatti and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and 6 others2019 MLD 1255 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-21Read full judgment →
• Saqib Saleem and others vs Chairman Ajkrsp, Prime Minister of Azad2019 PLC (C.S.) 1316 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-11-16
  wrongful terminationservice rulesmisconduct inquirydownsizingfinancial constraintsAJKRSPemployment law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the termination of service of various employees of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rural Sports Programme (AJKRSP). The core legal question was whether the organization lawfully terminated the petitioners' services under the AJKRSP Employee Service Rules, 2009. Specifically, the court examined whether termination for alleged misconduct under Clause 8.06 requires a formal inquiry, and whether termination for downsizing under Clause 8.08 is permissible. The court held that while the organization possesses the power to downsize due to financial constraints, it must strictly adhere to procedural requirements. Consequently, the termination of Saqib Saleem under Clause 8.06 was set aside because the organization failed to conduct the mandatory inquiry to substantiate allegations of misconduct. Conversely, the court upheld the termination of Yasir Rafique and others under Clause 8.08, finding the organization's financial constraints and downsizing measures to be bona fide. The key principle laid down is that where service rules prescribe a specific procedure for termination based on misconduct, that procedure is mandatory, and failure to follow it renders the termination unlawful.

  Questions settled

  • Does the termination of an employee under Clause 8.06 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rural Sports Programme Employee Service Rules, 2009 require a formal inquiry?
  • Can an organization terminate a regular employee under Clause 8.08 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rural Sports Programme Employee Service Rules, 2009 due to financial constraints?
  • Is a termination order based on allegations of misconduct sustainable if the employer fails to conduct a formal inquiry as prescribed by the service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Raza, Director Nimir Industrial Chemical Limited vs Deputy2019 CLD 1240 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Saqib Latif Awan vs Azad. Govt. of State of Jammu and Kashmir,through its Chief Secretary, and 7 others2019 PLJ AJ&K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Saqib Jameel, etc vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1401 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-28
  post-arrest bailprocuration of minorfurther inquirycriminal procedureadvance punishmentdelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in a criminal case registered under Section 366-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of the procuration of a minor girl. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the circumstances of the investigation and the evidence presented. Upon review, the Court observed an unexplained 21-hour delay in reporting the incident, the absence of any recovery from the petitioners, and the lack of specific overt acts attributed to them. Furthermore, the medical report indicated no attempt of rape, and the investigation was complete. The Court held that the petitioners' culpability required further inquiry at trial, and their continued incarceration would amount to advance punishment. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the prosecution's case requires further inquiry into the guilt of the accused within the meaning of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and where investigation is complete, the accused should not be detained indefinitely pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in reporting an incident justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when the investigation is complete and no recovery has been effected?
  • Is the detention of an accused pending trial considered advance punishment when the case requires further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Iqbal and others vs The State and others2019 P Cr. L J 316 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-18
  pre-arrest bailmala fideFIR delaycivil litigationfraud and forgeryinvestigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in relation to FIR No. 289/2018, registered for offences under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the seven-year delay in FIR registration, the pendency of a civil suit regarding the same subject matter, and the lack of incriminating evidence found during the investigation. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the existence of parallel civil litigation, and the Investigating Agency's opinion that no evidence existed against the petitioners established a case for mala fide. The key principle laid down is that at the pre-arrest bail stage, the element of mala fide need not be proven by positive, solid evidence but can be deduced and inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can the element of mala fide at the pre-arrest bail stage be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case?
  • Does a significant and unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the subject matter of the criminal case is already the subject of pending civil litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary of Education, Peshawar and 4 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1215 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-19
  civil servantpromotionservice tribunalconstitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicewrit petitionbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, filed a writ petition seeking promotion from BPS-15 to BPS-16 after his departmental appeal against the denial of promotion was rejected. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to adjudicate a service matter concerning promotion, or whether such jurisdiction is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal Act, 1974. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, ruling that matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of civil service, including promotion, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming the principle that the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, as established by the Supreme Court in I.A. Sharwani and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition regarding the promotion of a civil servant?
  • Is a dispute regarding the promotion of a civil servant considered a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal Act, 1974?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, bar the High Court from adjudicating service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah vs Naik Muhammad and others2019 YLR 2699 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-25Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah vs Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and another2019 PLJ SC 347, 2019 SCMR 944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-10
  service lawdismissal from serviceabuse of authoritypolice misconductdisciplinary proceedingsPunjab Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a police official, from service by the CCPO, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary dismissal was justified given the admitted facts of the petitioner's conduct. The petitioner had stopped three individuals late at night without any reasonable suspicion or allegation of a cognizable offense and detained them at a police station. The Supreme Court held that these admitted actions constituted a serious abuse of authority, implying an intent to extract an undue advantage. The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on precedent involving different factual circumstances, noting that where the underlying misconduct is admitted, further inquiry is unnecessary. The Court affirmed the dismissal, establishing the principle that the abuse of authority by law enforcement officials to interfere with the lives of ordinary citizens without legal basis warrants severe disciplinary action, including dismissal from service, and does not necessitate further evidentiary inquiry when the material facts are undisputed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the detention of citizens by a police official without allegation of a cognizable offense constitute an abuse of authority justifying dismissal?
  • Is further departmental inquiry necessary when the material facts constituting misconduct are admitted by the delinquent official?
  • Can a disciplinary dismissal be upheld where the official's conduct demonstrates an intent to extract an undue advantage from citizens?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Khan vs Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 22019 MLD 781 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-26Read full judgment →
• Sana Khan Atiq vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore2019 [M] C.L.R. 28 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-13Read full judgment →
• Sana Aizad and others vs Additional District Judge VII/Guardian Appellate2019 IHC 210 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-01Read full judgment →
• Samuel Parvaiz vs Province of Sindh and others2019 SHC 600 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-27Read full judgment →
• Samsonite Ip Holdings S.a.r.1. through Attorney and another vs Famous2020 P C T L R 1419, 2019 CLD 1060 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-24Read full judgment →
• Samiullah and others vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 265, 2019 MLD 1377 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-03-16
  narcoticschain of custodyforensic science laboratory reportsafe transmissionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealprocedural lapse
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the recovery of 40 kilograms of Charas. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and safe transmission of the narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and whether the conviction could be sustained given the procedural lapses. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody and transmission, noting a 20-day delay in sending samples for analysis—violating the 72-hour requirement under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001—and the failure to produce the official responsible for transmitting the samples. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' ownership or possession of the vehicle used. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that any procedural deviation in mandatory legal acts creates doubt, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory beyond the 72-hour limit prescribed by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, render the analysis report doubtful?
  • Is the failure to produce the official who transmitted narcotic samples to the laboratory fatal to the prosecution's case regarding the proof of safe custody?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the accused's ownership or possession of the vehicle from which the contraband was recovered?
  • Does a deviation from the mandatory procedure prescribed by law for handling evidence entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiullah and others vs Aqal Mand & others2020 [M] C L R 1425, 2020 YLR 529, 2019 PHC 182 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-14Read full judgment →
• Sami Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 SCMR 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-07
  customs duty exemptionSRO 575(I) 2006locally manufactured goodsEngineering Development Boardfiscal exemptionLetter of Credittax concession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment denying customs duty and sales tax exemptions to the petitioner for imported 'Air Handling Units' under SRO 575(I) 2006. The core legal question was whether an importer remains entitled to fiscal exemptions under the said SRO when the Engineering Development Board (EDB) certifies the goods as locally manufactured after the Letter of Credit was established but before the goods declaration was filed. The Supreme Court, by majority, dismissed the petition, holding that the exemption is unavailable if the imported goods are locally manufactured. The Court ruled that the timing of the EDB certification is immaterial; if the item was already being manufactured locally at the time the Letter of Credit was opened, the importer is disentitled to the concession. The principle laid down is that the exemption under SRO 575(I) 2006 is intended to encourage local industry, and where a local manufacturer is capable of supplying the goods, the importer cannot claim the benefit, regardless of when the certification process was initiated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an importer is entitled to customs duty exemption under SRO 575(I) 2006 if the imported goods are certified as locally manufactured by the Engineering Development Board?
  • Does the timing of the Engineering Development Board's certification regarding local manufacture affect the entitlement to fiscal exemptions under SRO 575(I) 2006?
  • Can an importer claim customs duty exemption for goods that are locally manufactured but were not listed in a Customs General Order at the time of opening the Letter of Credit?
  Read full judgment →
• Samar Hayat vs The State2020 P Cr.L J 477, 2019 LHC 3948 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-24
  narcotic substancesrepresentative sampleenhanced sentenceprevious convictioncriminal procedurecontraband recoverysentencing procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing 2115 grams of Charas. The core legal questions concerned whether a sample taken from bulk contraband consisting of multiple pieces is representative of the whole for conviction purposes, and whether an enhanced sentence for a previous conviction can be imposed without strictly following the procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that where contraband is recovered in multiple pieces, a sample is not representative of the bulk; thus, conviction is limited to the quantity actually tested. Furthermore, the trial court erred in awarding an enhanced sentence without complying with the mandatory procedural requirements of Sections 221(7) and 265-I of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court clarified that Section 75 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, is inapplicable to offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Consequently, the conviction was modified from Section 9(c) to Section 9(a) of the Act, reflecting the quantity of the tested sample.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sample taken from bulk contraband consisting of multiple pieces considered a representative sample for the purpose of conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • What is the mandatory procedure for imposing an enhanced sentence based on a previous conviction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does Section 75 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 apply to offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can an accused be convicted for the entire bulk of recovered contraband if only a small portion was sent for forensic analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Samad Ali vs The State2019 MLD 670 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-30
  benefit of doubtexplosive substancesunexplained delaychain of custodysafe transitindependent witnessesfoisting of weaponacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and fourteen-year sentence under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 6(2)(cc)/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and Section 23(i)-A of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, rendered by the Anti-Terrorism Court No. XII, Karachi. The prosecution alleged that police recovered an un-numbered TT pistol and a live hand grenade from the appellant's possession. Upon reviewing the evidence, the High Court identified critical flaws: an unexplained three-day delay in sending the pistol for ballistic examination, unaccounted chain of custody for the hand grenade before defusal, absence of independent private witnesses in a populated area, overwriting on the Bomb Disposal clearance certificate, and unaddressed defence pleas of prior enmity with local police. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish safe custody, safe transit, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Extending the benefit of doubt, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending a recovered firearm for ballistic testing render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Whether failure to establish safe custody and safe transit of seized arms and explosives entitles the accused to acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based solely on police witnesses' testimony when recovery occurred in a populated area without independent witnesses?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to grant acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Fazal vs Judge Family Court, Sheikhupura etc.2019 PLJ Lahore 579 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Salman Fazal vs Judge Family Court, Sheikhupura and another2019 CLC 1915 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Salman Farooq vs The State & anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1196, 2019 LHC 1508 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-08
  post-arrest bailabductionrapeNikahjactitation of marriagefurther inquirymatrimonial dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arising from FIR No. 302 of 2018 registered under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where the alleged victim contracted a Nikah with the petitioner, subsequently instituted a suit for jactitation of marriage, and the dispute stems from a matrimonial issue transformed into a criminal case. The court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, allowing the bail petition. The key principle laid down is that where a matrimonial dispute involving a love marriage is criminalized by parents out of vengeance and the alleged abductee has acknowledged a Nikah and filed a suit for jactitation of marriage, the accused makes out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when a criminal case arises out of a matrimonial dispute involving a disputed marriage?
  • Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the alleged abductee has contracted a Nikah with the accused?
  • Can a petitioner be denied bail merely on the gravity of the offence under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when tentative assessment suggests a case of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Salim Ahmed and another vs Nasim Imtiaz and 7 others2019 CLC 1266 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-18Read full judgment →
• Saleh Khan vs State & another2020 MLD 194, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1332 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-27
  murderocular evidenceinterested witnesspartial compromiseta'zirforensic evidenceunnatural deathcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the murder of his wife under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence from related witnesses, the impact of a partial compromise among legal heirs, and the sufficiency of evidence in the absence of a proven motive. The court held that the conviction was sound, finding the prosecution's ocular account consistent with medical reports and forensic evidence regarding the weapon of offense. The court affirmed that a partial compromise in a ta'zir case does not warrant acquittal but may influence sentencing, which had already been mitigated to life imprisonment. Furthermore, the court established that relatives are not automatically interested witnesses absent evidence of an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused. Additionally, it held that when an unnatural death occurs within the accused's residence, the burden lies on the accused to provide a plausible explanation, failing which they are held responsible for the homicidal death.

  Questions settled

  • Does a partial compromise among legal heirs in a case of ta'zir entitle the accused to acquittal?
  • Is a relative of the deceased automatically considered an interested witness in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to prove the motive for a crime automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • What is the evidentiary burden on an accused when an unnatural death occurs within their own residence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Zada and others vs The State etc2019 SCMR 1309, 2019 SCP 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-06-10
  Criminal Petition for Leave to AppealQatl-e-amdAttempt to murderEye-witness testimonyInjured witnessCorroborationAcquittalConviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved Criminal Petitions for Leave to Appeal challenging convictions for qatl-e-amd and attempt to murder, and also an acquittal of a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the High Court's decision to maintain convictions and sentences for Saleem Zada, Khawat Shah, and Swat Shah, while acquitting Sher Zamin, was legally sound based on the evidence presented. The Supreme Court dismissed both sets of petitions, upholding the convictions and sentences of Saleem Zada, Khawat Shah, and Swat Shah, and refusing to interfere with the acquittal of Sher Zamin. The Court held that the testimony of a sole, injured eye-witness, found to be confidence-inspiring and corroborated by investigative conclusions and medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the convictions. The acquittal of a co-accused, seemingly out of abundant caution due to 'mute presence', was deemed not to offend any principle of law in the absence of extraordinary grounds to recall freedom.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a sole, injured eye-witness be sufficient to sustain a conviction for qatl-e-amd and attempt to murder?
  • Whether an acquittal based on 'mute presence' and 'abundant caution' offends principles of law?
  • What evidentiary weight is given to an injured eye-witness whose presence at the crime scene cannot be doubted?
  • Can prompt reporting of an incident and consistent medical evidence corroborate an eye-witness account?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Wazir Professor Community, Medicine and 6 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health Peshawar and 2 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1336, 2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 256, PLJ 2019 · Peshawar High Court
  medical teaching institutionremoval of deandelegation of powersdisciplinary proceedingsregular inquirynatural justicemajor penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three connected writ petitions relating to disciplinary and procurement issues at the Ayub Medical Teaching Institution (AMTI). The core legal questions involved the authority of the Chairman of the Board of Governors (BoG) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against and dismiss the Dean of the Medical Teaching Institution, and whether major penalties could be imposed without a regular inquiry. The Peshawar High Court held that under Section 9(6) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Institutions Reforms Act, 2015, the power to appoint and remove the Dean vests exclusively in the BoG, which cannot be delegated to the Chairman, and that disciplinary matters entailing major penalties involving controversial facts require a regular inquiry rather than a hasty show-cause procedure. The court set aside the show-cause notice and the termination letter, establishing the principle that statutory powers granted specifically to a governing board cannot be sub-delegated without express authority, and that natural justice mandates regular inquiries for major disciplinary penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chairman of the Board of Governors has the authority to initiate disciplinary action against or remove the Dean of a Medical Teaching Institution under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Institutions Reforms Act, 2015?
  • Can a statutory governing board delegate its powers of appointment and removal regarding statutory managerial positions without express statutory provision?
  • Is a regular inquiry mandatory before imposing a major penalty of dismissal on an officer when controversial facts and allegations are involved?
  • Whether the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011 are applicable to the removal of a Dean holding a tenure managerial post in a Medical Teaching Institution?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ullah and another vs The State and another2019 YLR 1494 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-12-11
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencebenefit of the doubtcriminal appealjuvenile offenderrecovery of crime weaponforensic science laboratorymurderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter comprises a jail criminal appeal filed by the appellant Saleem Ullah against his conviction under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 394 read with section 397 of the same Code, along with a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, alleged recoveries of motorcycle parts, a mobile phone, and a pistol, alongside medical evidence. The core legal questions revolved around the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence, the reliability of last-seen testimony, and the integrity of delayed weapon recoveries and forensic reports. The Federal Shariat Court held that the circumstantial chain was incomplete, the last-seen evidence was uncorroborated and untrustworthy, the recoveries were doubtful and inadmissible, and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken, conclusive chain of facts pointing solely to the guilt of the accused, and that grave doubts in the prosecution case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the revision petition for enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an uncorroborated last-seen piece of evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • What are the essential legal requirements for establishing a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances in cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does a delayed recovery of a crime weapon and an unsealed or delayed forensic science laboratory report lose its evidentiary value?
  • Can a statement made before police regarding the disclosure and recovery of incriminating articles be used to establish the guilt of the accused under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Shehzada vs Province of Sindh & Others2019 CLC 2077, 2020 CLD 894, 2019 SHC 102 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar Qureshi vs The State and another2019 YLR 1104 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-07
  registration of FIREx-Officio Justice of Peacecognizable offencedishonoured chequequashing of orderstatutory duty of SHO
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed to challenge an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace declining the applicant's request to direct the Station House Officer to register an FIR against the proposed accused regarding a dishonoured cheque and associated allegations. The core legal question was whether the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and the police were justified in refusing to record a statement and register an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that civil litigation was pending and the dispute was civil in nature. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable as deeper appreciation of evidence and merits is not required at the stage of registering an FIR, and the police are statutorily bound to record information disclosing a cognizable offence. The court set aside the order and directed the SHO to record the statement and proceed in accordance with law, while providing protective directives regarding arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace can refuse to direct the registration of an FIR by delving into the merits of a dispute?
  • Is the Station House Officer legally bound to record information under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it discloses a cognizable offence?
  • Does the existence of prior civil litigation between the parties bar the registration of a criminal case if a cognizable offence is made out?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ahmed and another vs Judge Family Court,Muzaffarabad and 52019 P.S.C 830, 2019 YLR 618 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-12Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Hussain vs Mst. Rubino Shaheen and 02 others2020 CLC 803, 2019 PHC 334 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →