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.

• Sajjan Solangi vs The StatePLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 499, 2019 SCMR 844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-26
  criminal appealillegal weaponsbenefit of doubtrecovery witnessfirearm expert opinionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition impugning a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioner's criminal appeal and maintained his conviction and sentence under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The core legal question concerns the sustainability of a conviction based on a disputed and unverified weapon recovery from an open, accessible place without corroborating expert opinion or proper exhibits. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies in recovery witnesses, the accessible nature of the place of recovery, the failure to exhibit the weapon, and the absence of an expert report confirming the weapon's working condition. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitting the petitioner with immediate release. The key principle laid down is that recovery from an accessible open place without independent corroboration, unexhibited weapons, and lack of expert opinion regarding the operable condition of a firearm creates serious doubt in the prosecution case, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a weapon from a place accessible to the general public sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Is expert opinion regarding the working condition of a recovered firearm necessary to maintain a conviction under the arms legislation?
  • Whether contradictions between recovery evidence and witness statements in court vitiate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjan and another vs The State2019 YLR 2442 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-18
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirymatrimonial disputedelayed FIRcriminal procedureprima facie casetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by two applicants, Sajjan and Amjad, who were accused of offenses under sections 376, 511, and 506(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the evidentiary material available. The High Court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the interim order. The court reasoned that the prosecution's narrative—that an elderly father-in-law attempted to commit zina with his daughter-in-law while her parents were present in the same house—was inherently improbable and lacked credibility. Furthermore, the court noted a significant twenty-two-day delay in lodging the FIR without a plausible explanation and observed that the parties were involved in strained matrimonial disputes. Consequently, the court determined that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution's story did not inspire confidence, and the applicants successfully established a prima facie case for the grant of relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can a court grant pre-arrest bail when the prosecution's narrative appears inherently improbable and lacks credibility?
  • Is a case eligible for bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution story does not inspire confidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs State2019 YLR 2617, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 644 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-27
  murder referencedeath sentencebenefit of doubtchance witnessocular accountcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal appeal against a conviction and death sentence for murder, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the credibility of eye-witnesses, the motive, and the evidentiary value of the recovery of the weapon. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The eye-witnesses were determined to be 'chance witnesses' who failed to provide a plausible reason for their presence at the crime scene, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the alleged motive was unsubstantiated, and the recovery of the weapon was deemed inconsequential due to the absence of blood-stain descriptions in the recovery memo. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits without relying on defence weaknesses. If a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be accepted without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the failure to mention blood stains on a recovered weapon in the recovery memo render the recovery evidence inconsequential?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case independently without relying on the weaknesses of the defence?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali vs Vice Chancellor thr. Registrar University of Malakand at2020 PLJ SC 275, 2020 P SC 272, 2020 SCMR 124, 2019 SCP 360, 2020 PLC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-24
  disability quotaemployment lawstatutory interpretationpublic sector employmentUniversity of Malakandmerit-based appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for a Lecturer position under the disability quota by the University of Malakand, which had argued that the two percent quota could not be applied to a single advertised post. The Supreme Court examined the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Act, 2012. The Court held that the two percent quota for disabled persons is calculated based on the total number of persons employed by an establishment, not on the number of posts advertised at a specific time. The Court emphasized that the procedural requirements of Section 12, including registration with the Employment Exchange and assessment by the Provincial Council regarding fitness for work, are essential to implementing the quota. The University was directed to formulate a policy to allocate the required quota based on its total employee strength, while maintaining merit and standard eligibility criteria for appointments. The petition was disposed of with instructions for the University to reconsider the petitioner's case under the new policy.

  Questions settled

  • Is the disability employment quota calculated based on the total number of employees in an establishment or the number of posts advertised at a specific time?
  • Does the definition of 'establishment' under the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance 1981 include a university?
  • What is the legal significance of the assessment by the Provincial Council regarding a disabled person's fitness for work under Section 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance 1981?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali vs Arif and 4 others2019 YLR 952 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmed vs The Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2019 PTD 1198 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2019-04-12Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs HBL, etc2019 CLD 824, 2019 LHC 1573 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-21Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad & others vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1493 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-23
  narcotics possessionchemical examiner reportburden of proofreasonable doubtevidentiary presumptioncriminal appealacquittalprocedural compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for narcotics possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question is whether a conviction can be sustained based on a Government Analyst's report that fails to specify the protocols and tests applied, in violation of Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The ratio decidendi is that a chemical examiner's report lacking detailed protocols and test methodologies is inconclusive, unreliable, and inadmissible, thus failing to meet the evidentiary presumption under Section 36(2) of the Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms that while the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 shifts certain burdens, the prosecution retains the initial onus to prove its case, and any failure to provide a valid, compliant laboratory report creates reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Government Analyst's report failing to detail the protocols and tests applied meet the evidentiary presumption under Section 36(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained if the prosecution's chemical analysis report is found to be inconclusive and non-compliant with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Does the prosecution retain the initial burden of proof in cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 despite the provisions of Section 29 of the Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajidullah Memon vs Secretary Irrigation & others2019 SHC 558 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
• Sajid Zaman vs The State2019 YLR 1282 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-01-31
  criminal appealnarcotics controldelayed chemical analysisbenefit of the doubtmalkhanaacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this criminal appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, subsequently modified by the trial court to Section 9-B of the same Act, resulting in rigorous imprisonment for one year and nine months with a fine. The core legal question revolved around whether the unexplained and substantial delay in dispatching the recovered narcotic samples for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, in violation of Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, vitiates the conviction and entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt. The Islamabad High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that failure of the prosecution to send the contraband for chemical analysis within the mandatory period stipulated by the rules, without plausible explanation, creates serious doubt in the prosecution's case, entitling the accused to an acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered narcotic samples for chemical analysis vitiate the conviction?
  • Is strict compliance with Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 mandatory for the prosecution?
  • Does a violation of the prescribed timeframe for dispatching drug samples entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Khan vs The State etc2019 YLR 1838, 2019 PHC 26 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-04Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain vs The State2019 SC AJK 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-01-21Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ali vs Federation of Pakistan & others2019 SHC 148 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-15Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ali Gillani vs Deputy Inspector General of Police Telecommunication, Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 6 others2019 P.S.C. 686 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service lawcivil servantdepartmental representationseniority disputelimitation periodservice tribunalcompetent authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a Service Tribunal judgment concerning the promotion and seniority of police personnel. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, having already invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, could simultaneously file a representation before the same departmental authority that issued the impugned order, and whether such a representation was competent under the law. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the Service Tribunal erred by failing to apply judicial mind to the procedural impropriety of the respondent's actions. The Court ruled that a representation cannot be filed before the same authority that passed the original order, as Section 21(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, mandates that representations must be directed to the authority next above the one that issued the order. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that such a representation, filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and during the pendency of an appeal, was legally incompetent. Consequently, the Court set aside the Service Tribunal's judgment, declaring the departmental order resulting from the invalid representation to be of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant file a representation before the same authority that issued the original order?
  • Is a representation filed before the same departmental authority competent under Section 21(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976?
  • Does a civil servant have the right to file a representation during the pendency of an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The State etc2019 PCRLJ 1436, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 701, 2019 LHC 499 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-06
  summoning of witnessadditional evidencecriminal revisionjust decision of the caseprivate complaintfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Section 435 read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon an unlisted witness in a private complaint. The core legal question was whether a trial court is obligated under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon a witness whose testimony appears essential for the just decision of the case, notwithstanding inadvertent omission from the witness list or procedural delays. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the trial court to summon the witness. The court held that Section 540 comprises a discretionary first part and a mandatory second part, obligating the court to summon any witness whose evidence is essential to the just decision of the case regardless of technical omissions, in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 imposes a mandatory obligation on the court to summon a witness whose evidence is essential for the just decision of the case?
  • Can a witness whose name was inadvertently omitted from the list of witnesses be summoned under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the power of the court to summon additional evidence under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 depend strictly upon formal applications by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Masood Khan Luni vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2019 PLJ SC 141, 2019 P.S.C. 977, 2019 SCMR 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-29
  election petitionriggingfree and fair electionnull and voidelectoral malpracticepolling station takeoverElection Commission of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) declaring the election for constituency PB-05, Duki null and void due to widespread irregularities. The core legal question was whether the election was conducted in a free, fair, and transparent manner, or if the ECP was justified in setting aside the results. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the election process was fundamentally compromised by serious law and order lapses, the intimidation of election staff, the takeover of polling stations by candidate supporters, and biased conduct by presiding officers. The Court affirmed that elections must be held in a free, fair, and transparent environment, ensuring the electorate can exercise their franchise without fear or intimidation. The ratio established is that where the integrity of the electoral process is undermined by violence and rigging, the ECP is empowered and obligated to declare the election null and void to preserve the credibility of the democratic process and reflect the true will of the people.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the authority to declare an election null and void upon finding that it was not held in a free and fair manner?
  • What constitutes sufficient grounds for the Election Commission of Pakistan to declare an election result void?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan if no illegality or defect is shown in the exercise of its powers under the Elections Act 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajawal vs Judge Family Court District Multan and another2020 YLR 359, 2019 PLJ Lahore 581 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-08Read full judgment →
• Saima Ashraf vs Additional District Judge and 2 others2019 YLR 640 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-25Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs Malikan Botokhail through Representatives and others2019 MLD 365 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-04-04Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs Inspector General, Punjab Police, Lahore and 21 others2020 [M] C L R 339, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 1345 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-07
  Intra Court Appealsvested rightappointmentrecruitment processconstitutional jurisdictionexecutive policypolice constables
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court via Intra Court Appeals filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, challenging a judgment of the learned Single Judge in Chambers that dismissed the constitutional petitions of the appellants. The core legal question revolves around whether candidates who successfully qualified the National Testing Service test and interview for the posts of Police Constable/DC Operators acquire a vested right to appointment preventing the department from scraping the recruitment process and issuing a fresh advertisement with improved eligibility criteria. The court held that the employer retains the discretion to scrap a recruitment process before finalization, and merely passing an examination or interview does not confer a vested or fundamental right to appointment enforceable through constitutional jurisdiction unless the competent authority has approved the selection. The court further held that re-designation of posts and fixing different criteria fall within the executive policy-making domain of the provincial government. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate who qualifies a written examination and interview acquires a vested right to appointment enforceable in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can an employer scrap a recruitment process before its finalization?
  • Does the re-designation of a post and fixing of different criteria fall within the executive policy-making domain of the provincial government?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Mohib Kakakhel vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2020 CLC 937, 2019 PHC 422 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
• Saifal Mugheri vs Abdul Ghani and 3 others2019 P Cr. L J 1598 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-26
  Ex-Officio Justice of Peacejurisdictiondemarcation of landrevenue authoritiespolice powersSection 22-A Cr.P.C.criminal miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by the Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. The core legal question was whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace possesses the jurisdiction to issue directives to revenue authorities, specifically regarding the demarcation of land, under the powers conferred by Section 22-A(6)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful jurisdiction and set it aside. The ratio of the decision is that the jurisdiction of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is strictly confined to issuing directions to police authorities concerning the non-registration of criminal cases, the transfer of investigations, or neglect, failure, or excess committed by police officials. The key principle laid down is that the powers of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6)(iii) do not extend to revenue officials or the determination of civil rights, as jurisdiction is a power vested solely by law, and acts performed outside this statutory scope are void.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace have the jurisdiction to issue directions to revenue authorities regarding land demarcation?
  • Is the scope of Section 22-A(6)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limited solely to the oversight of police authorities?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace intervene in the determination of civil rights between parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif-ur-Rehman vs Addl. District Judge, Toba Tek Singh and two others2019 SCP 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-17
  dowry articlesfamily courtappeal maintainabilitystatutory interpretationbeneficial legislationpurposive interpretationgender sensitivityfamily disputes
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged an order partly accepting a constitutional petition, which had reduced the amount awarded for dowry articles from Rs. 400,000/- to Rs. 300,000/-. The primary legal question addressed was the interpretation of Section 14(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, specifically whether the wife's appeal for enhancement of a dowry decree, initially for Rs. 25,000/-, was maintainable. The Supreme Court held that the embargo on the right of appeal under Section 14(2) applies only to the husband (judgment-debtor) against whom a decree has been passed, and not to the wife (decree-holder) who is dissatisfied with the quantum or denial of relief. The Court emphasized that beneficial provisions in statutes, like the Family Courts Act, 1964, must be interpreted purposively and liberally to advance their object of expeditious dispute resolution and protection of women, rather than frustrating their beneficial nature. Consequently, the wife's appeal was deemed validly filed, and the civil appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal filed by a wife seeking enhancement of a dowry decree maintainable under Section 14(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, if the initial decree amount was below the statutory threshold for appeal?
  • Does the embargo on the right of appeal under Section 14(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, apply to a wife dissatisfied with the quantum or denial of relief?
  • How should beneficial provisions in a statute, such as the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, be interpreted?
  • Can a judgment-debtor appeal a decree for dissolution of marriage, dower, dowry, or maintenance if the amount awarded is less than the amount mentioned in Section 14(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif-Ur-Rehman alias Shoya vs The State2019 MLD 729 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-06-22
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryevidentiary doubtco-accused releasecriminal procedureappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Saif-ur-Rehman, who was charged under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly firing upon and injuring two individuals. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case and the investigation's findings. The Court observed that while the complainant was injured, establishing his presence at the scene, the police had released a co-accused, Peer Dad, under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to deficient evidence, despite similar allegations of effective firing against him. The Court held that the release of the co-accused by the police cast significant doubt on the authenticity of the complainant's version of events. Consequently, the Court determined that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where a complainant's narration of an occurrence is undermined by the police's exclusion of a co-accused based on deficient evidence, the case against the remaining accused may be treated as one for further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the release of a co-accused by the police under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 create sufficient doubt to warrant bail for the remaining accused?
  • Can a case be considered one of 'further inquiry' when the complainant's version of events is partially undermined by police investigation findings?
  • Does the presence of injuries on a complainant necessarily validate their entire account of the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah vs The State2020 YLR 151, 2019 PHC 216 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-27Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah vs The State and othersPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 591, 2019 SCMR 1458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-07-18
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurderpolice investigationno recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on the police's investigative findings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and granted bail, noting that despite being nominated in the First Information Report for firing at the deceased, the police investigation concluded that the petitioner arrived after the incident was nearly over and did not cause any injury. Furthermore, the petitioner had been incarcerated since October 2016 with no recoveries made from him. The Court held that these circumstances rendered the petitioner's involvement a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, justifying the grant of bail subject to a bail bond.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the police investigation concludes they arrived after the incident and caused no injury, despite being nominated in the FIR?
  • Does the lack of recovery from an accused during investigation support a finding that the case requires further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Can a delay in filing a criminal petition for bail before the Supreme Court be condoned upon a showing of sufficient cause?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Shujaat and Ors vs Govt. of Sindh & Others2019 SHC 324 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-30
  seniorityregularization of servicescontract employeescivil servantretrospective seniorityad-hoc appointmentservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, formerly employed on a contract basis, filed a petition seeking a direction to the respondent department to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointments rather than from the date of their regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013. The core legal question was whether the period of contractual service could be counted towards seniority for civil servants who were subsequently regularized. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners’ claim for retrospective seniority was legally misconceived. The court determined that during their contractual tenure, the petitioners were not civil servants as they worked on project-based posts rather than sanctioned budgetary posts. The court affirmed the principle that, pursuant to the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation & Seniority) Rules, 1975, the seniority of a civil servant must be reckoned strictly from the date of regular appointment. Consequently, the court held that no appointment made on an ad-hoc or contract basis can be regularized retrospectively, and such service periods cannot be counted towards the seniority of a civil servant.

  Questions settled

  • Can the period of contractual service be counted towards the seniority of a civil servant?
  • Does the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 allow for the retrospective counting of seniority?
  • Can an appointment made on an ad-hoc or contract basis be regularized retrospectively?
  • Are persons employed on a contract basis considered civil servants under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Alam vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1064 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-22
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesfurther inquiryrecovery weightcharasprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1160 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the recovery of narcotics, which marginally exceeded the threshold for a lesser offence, warranted the denial of bail, particularly when the weighing procedure—specifically whether the weight included the packaging material—remained ambiguous. The Court held that the ambiguity regarding the net weight of the recovered substance, combined with the fact that the quantity only slightly exceeded the limit for the lesser offence under Section 9(b), rendered the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the weight of recovered narcotics marginally exceeds the threshold for a lesser offence, and the inclusion of packaging material in the total weight is unclear, the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of narcotics marginally exceeding the threshold for a lesser offence constitute a case of further inquiry for bail purposes?
  • Can bail be granted when it is unclear whether the weight of recovered narcotics includes the packaging material?
  • Is a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 established when the net weight of recovered contraband is ambiguous?
  Read full judgment →
• Saida Gul vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1345 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-04-12
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlheroine recoveryconscious knowledgesecret cavitiestentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court through a bail petition filed by Saida Gul seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 160 dated 4.3.2019 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Badhber, Peshawar. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the contraband was recovered from secret cavities of a vehicle driven by a co-accused, with the petitioner sitting on the front seat, and where the question of conscious knowledge and direct possession requires further inquiry at trial. The court held that since the contraband was not recovered from the direct possession of the petitioner, his conscious knowledge is yet to be established, he is not a previous convict, and investigation is complete, the petitioner makes out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that tentative assessment at the bail stage favors an accused where direct possession and conscious knowledge of narcotics hidden in a vehicle by a co-accused remain to be determined through recording of evidence at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when narcotics are recovered from secret cavities of a vehicle driven by a co-accused rather than from the direct possession of the petitioner?
  • Does the lack of previous convictions and completion of investigation warrant the grant of bail in narcotics cases where conscious knowledge is yet to be determined?
  • Is further inquiry into the link between a passenger and the driver of a vehicle carrying contraband a ground for bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad through Attorney vs Government of Khyber2019 YLR 2881 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-06-20Read full judgment →
• Said Karam alias Ajarr vs State and another2019 P Cr. L J 1710, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 781 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-03
  dying declarationcorroborationchance witnessinterested witnessabscondencemurderbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The prosecution's case primarily hinged on the dying declaration of the deceased complainant and the testimonies of two eye-witnesses. The core legal questions involved the veracity and corroboration of the dying declaration in the presence of severe injuries, and the reliability of interested and chance witnesses. The Peshawar High Court held that the dying declaration was shrouded in mystery and lacked confidence-inspiring corroborative ocular evidence, and the testimonies of the eye-witnesses suffered from material contradictions and unnatural conduct. The Court laid down that a dying declaration is a weaker type of evidence requiring reliable corroboration, and abscondence alone cannot cure fundamental defects in the prosecution case. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction without confidence-inspiring corroborative evidence?
  • Can the testimony of chance and interested witnesses be relied upon without convincing explanations for their presence and absence of material improvements?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused alone cure the defects and doubts in the prosecution's case?
  • Whether medical evidence supporting a dying declaration is sufficient when the physical condition and orientation of the injured at the time of making the statement are doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Saga Shipping & Trading Corporation Ltd., & Mr. Naveed Ahmed vs Walia2020 CLC 275, 2019 SHC 112 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-07Read full judgment →
• Safdar Zaman, etc. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2019 YLR 1625, 2019 IHC 14 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-01-17Read full judgment →
• Safdar Mehmood etc. vs Tanvir Hussain, etc.2019 SCMR 1978, PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 555 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-29
  criminal appealmurderacquittalbenefit of doubtreappraisal of evidenceeyewitness identificationFIR delayspecific injury attributionpost-mortem delaycommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment consolidates two criminal appeals concerning a murder and injury incident from 2007, rooted in a blood feud. The core legal question revolved around the reappraisal of evidence, particularly the reliability of eyewitness identification in darkness, attribution of specific injuries, and the impact of discrepancies in the timing of the First Information Report (FIR) and post-mortem examination. In Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2019, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction under Section 302(b) PPC and acquitting the appellant, Fayyaz Ahmed, by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court found it inconceivable that eyewitnesses could identify specific injuries caused by different accused in darkness without a secured light source, noting contradictions between the FIR time and medical evidence. In Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2018, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's acquittal of Tanvir Hussain for offenses under Sections 302(b) and 148 PPC, and his reduced sentence under Section 324 PPC, which he had already served. The Court emphasized that specific injury attribution in darkness was not substantiated beyond reasonable doubt and declined to enhance the sentence after a 12-year delay.

  Questions settled

  • Can specific injuries be reliably attributed to individual accused persons by eyewitnesses when an incident occurs in darkness without a secured light source?
  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR, contradicted by medical evidence showing earlier police contact, raise caution in appreciating prosecution evidence?
  • Is the prosecution's case against an accused weakened if co-accused have been acquitted and others declared proclaimed offenders?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the investigating agency has declared the appellant innocent and no recovery was made from their custody?
  • Should a sentence for an offense be enhanced after a substantial delay (e.g., 12 years) if the accused has already served the reduced sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Iqbal vs The State etc2019 MLD 1518, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1222, 2019 LHC 864 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-13
  criminal appealnarcotics controlconscious possessionsafe custody of samplesbenefit of doubtchain of custodyforensic analysis reportacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to imprisonment for life for the alleged possession of 90 bags of Bhang. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's conscious and exclusive possession of the premises where the narcotics were allegedly recovered, and whether the chain of custody and forensic analysis reports were legally proved. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove ownership or exclusive possession of the Dera, that serious flaws and lack of specific markings on the samples created fatal doubts regarding the identity of the case property, and that the prosecution failed to establish safe custody of the samples from the time of seizure until receipt at the Forensic Science Agency. The key principle laid down is that in narcotics cases, the prosecution must strictly prove safe custody and unbroken chain of transmission of samples, and any material contradiction or failure to establish conscious possession entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure of the prosecution to prove ownership or exclusive possession of the premises from where narcotics are recovered vitiates the conviction?
  • Does the absence of specific markings or numbers on recovered samples create a fatal doubt regarding the identity of the case property?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to establish safe custody and unbroken chain of transmission of samples from the spot to the forensic laboratory?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when material contradictions exist in the testimony of recovery witnesses and investigating officers in a narcotics case?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Iqbal vs The State and others2019 MLD 1518 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-13
  narcoticscriminal appealconscious possessionsafe custody of samplesbenefit of the doubtacquittalchain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to imprisonment for life for the alleged possession of narcotics. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established conscious possession and ownership of the premises from where the contraband was recovered, and whether the chain of custody and forensic analysis reports were legally proved. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove ownership or exclusive possession of the recovery site, failed to establish safe custody and proper marking of the seized samples, and suffered from fatal flaws regarding the forensic analysis report. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that failure to establish safe custody of samples, lack of specific marking on seized property, and inability to prove conscious possession entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt, resulting in the setting aside of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to establish the safe custody of recovered narcotic samples from the time of seizure till forensic analysis vitiates the trial?
  • Does the absence of proof regarding exclusive possession and ownership of the place of recovery negate the charge of conscious possession?
  • Whether inconsistencies in marking and identifying seized narcotic parcels create a fatal doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to connect the forensic science laboratory report with the substance allegedly seized from his possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Baloch alias Ali vs The State, etc2019 SCP 184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-09
  abduction for ransombenefit of the doubtidentification evidencecriminal appealmurderous assaultchild witnessanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the conviction of the appellants under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for abduction for ransom and murderous assault. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and participation of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given that they were nominated after a momentary glimpse at a marriage ceremony and were not apprehended at the scene when the victim child was recovered. The Court held that the identification of the appellants was fraught with doubt, the child witness's testimony required cautious scrutiny due to his impressionable age, and criminal liability cannot be based on moral satisfaction rather than evidentiary certainty. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted on the principle of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for abduction and murderous assault can be sustained when the identification of the accused is based on a momentary glimpse at a prior event?
  • Does the testimony of a child witness of impressionable age require cautious scrutiny regarding the identification of accused persons?
  • Can criminal liability be established on the basis of moral satisfaction rather than evidentiary certainty?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Baloch alias Ali and another vs The State and othersPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 578, 2019 SCMR 1412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-05-09
  criminal appealkidnapping for ransombenefit of the doubtidentification evidencechild witnessrebuttable presumptionmurderous assault
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from convictions under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for kidnapping for ransom and murderous assault. The core legal question was whether the identification and nomination of the appellants by the complainant, based on a momentary glimpse at a prior marriage ceremony, alongside the testimony of a child witness of impressionable age, met the rigorous standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants. The ratio decidendi is that criminal liability must be established on strict evidentiary certainty rather than moral satisfaction; where the source of nomination of accused persons is fraught with doubt and vulnerable witness testimony lacks corroborative certainty, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, and convictions cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on identification arising from a momentary glimpse at a prior social gathering?
  • Whether the testimony of a child witness of impressionable age requires cautious scrutiny before being relied upon for a capital conviction?
  • Is criminal liability established on moral satisfaction or strict evidentiary certainty?
  • What is the legal effect on a prosecution case when the source of nomination of the accused is found to be doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali vs The State2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 294 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2018-07-19Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali Khan and 6 others vs Provincial Government through Chief2019 YLR 169 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-04-30Read full judgment →
• Safarish Ali vs The State etc2020 MLD 474, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 196, 2019 LHC 2665 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-13
  exhumationautopsyQatl-bis-Sababcriminal investigationcognizable offencecompounding of offencespowers of Magistrate
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition challenged orders directing the exhumation and autopsy of the deceased, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi. The petitioner, the deceased's husband, had previously successfully requested the Magistrate to dispense with an autopsy based on the consent of legal heirs, claiming the death was accidental. Subsequently, the deceased's mother applied for an autopsy, alleging intentional murder, which the Magistrate granted. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate possesses the jurisdiction to dispense with an autopsy solely based on the wishes of legal heirs in a cognizable offense. The Court held that the initial order refusing the autopsy was illegal and without jurisdiction. It affirmed that offenses against the human body are matters of public interest, and the State machinery must ensure proper investigation. Consequently, the Court upheld the exhumation order, ruling that legal heirs cannot compound offenses or waive mandatory investigative procedures before a court of competent jurisdiction has taken cognizance of the matter. The petition was dismissed, and the police conduct was criticized.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate dispense with an autopsy based solely on the wishes of the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • Is the offense of Qatl-bis-Sabab a cognizable offense requiring mandatory state investigation?
  • Can legal heirs compound an offense against the human body before a court of competent jurisdiction has taken cognizance?
  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to order the exhumation of a body for autopsy after initially refusing it?
  Read full judgment →
• Safar son of Basar Lund vs The State2019 SHC 550 · Sindh High Court
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRdeath referencemurder trialweapon recoverywitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dadu, for offences under sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant was accused of murdering the deceased and injuring a prosecution witness. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, the impact of unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the evidentiary value of a disputed weapon recovery. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that unexplained delays in reporting the crime and recording witness statements create inherent presumptions of deliberation and consultation, significantly weakening the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the failure to examine a key injured witness and the lack of forensic correlation between the recovered weapon and crime scene empties entitled the appellant to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reaffirming that a single reasonable doubt necessitates acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a presumption of deliberation and consultation?
  • What is the legal consequence of a significant delay in recording prosecution witness statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  • Does the failure to examine a key injured witness negatively impact the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Mushtaq Abbasi vs Abdul Rauf Sabir and 2 others2019 CLC 985 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-28Read full judgment →
• Saeed Muhammad vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 484 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-18
  mitigation of sentencecriminal revisionnon-compoundable offencecompromisefinality of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner/convict to challenge the order dated 12.11.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby his application for mitigation of sentence was dismissed. The core legal question involved whether a sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, which survived after earlier acquittals based on a compromise for compoundable offences, could be mitigated or reviewed at this stage. The Lahore High Court held that since the conviction and sentence under Section 394 had attained finality up to the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the offence is not compoundable in nature, the merits of the conviction and sentence cannot be reviewed anymore. The court laid down the principle that a final and non-compoundable conviction upheld by the apex court is not open to subsequent review or mitigation through criminal revision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sentence for a non-compoundable offence can be mitigated after the conviction has attained finality up to the Supreme Court?
  • Can a criminal revision be maintained to review the merits of a conviction already affirmed by the apex court?
  • Whether an offence under Section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 is compoundable under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed alias Saido and 6 others vs Abdullah2019 [M] C.L.R. 1381 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
• Saeed Akhtar Chughtai vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PLC (C.S.) 1095, 2019 PHC 5 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-24
  writ of mandamuswrit of quo warrantotermination of contract servicecontractual employeeadditional chargemaster and servantconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the termination of the petitioner's service as Chief Financial Officer (CFO) illegal and to seek reinstatement, alongside a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of respondent No.6 as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) PEDO. The core legal questions involved the legality of terminating a contract employee prior to the completion of the term and the validity of holding a public office via an additional charge under the PEDO Act. The Peshawar High Court held that a master is legally competent to terminate a contract employee in accordance with the stipulated terms and conditions of service, and contractual employees cannot seek reinstatement or regularisation through a constitutional petition in the absence of enabling law. Furthermore, the Court held that assigning an additional charge as a stop-gap arrangement by the competent authority for the smooth functioning of an institution is permissible when regular appointments are pending. The petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contractual employee seek reinstatement through a constitutional petition upon termination of service?
  • Whether a master has the right to terminate the services of a contract employee in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment?
  • Does the Chief Minister have the power to assign an additional charge of the office of Chief Executive Officer as a stop-gap arrangement under the PEDO Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed Khan vs VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and 22019 CLC 643 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 664 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-13Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima2021 [M] C L R 476, 2019 LHC 1705, 2019 PLD Lahore 723 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-23Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad and others vs Chairman O.G.D.L. and others2020 PLC 27, 2019 PLC 277 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-07-31
  unfair labour practicedisciplinary proceedingsfake educational certificatesshow-cause noticemisconductNIRC jurisdictionwrit jurisdictionservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions filed by employees of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (O.G.D.C.L.) challenging orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) which dismissed their petitions against disciplinary proceedings initiated for the submission of fake educational certificates. The core legal question was whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, specifically the issuance of show-cause notices for submitting bogus degrees, constitutes an 'unfair labour practice' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, thereby granting the N.I.R.C. jurisdiction to intervene. The Court held that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings for misconduct is a lawful right of the employer and does not constitute an unfair labour practice. The Court affirmed that the mere issuance of a show-cause notice is not an adverse action and is not ripe for judicial interference. The key principles laid down are that disciplinary proceedings are a routine administrative function; that submission of fake credentials constitutes serious misconduct regardless of whether the qualification was required for the specific post; and that courts should not interfere in disciplinary processes prematurely.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a show-cause notice for alleged misconduct constitute an unfair labour practice?
  • Can an employee challenge disciplinary proceedings before the NIRC on the ground of trade union activities without proving a direct nexus?
  • Is the submission of a fake educational certificate considered misconduct even if the certificate was not a prerequisite for the appointment?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a show-cause notice before the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq and 5 others vs Mst. Ulfat Jan widow and 38 others2019 P.S.C. 1115 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-17Read full judgment →
• Sadiq and 5 others vs Mst. Ulfat Jan (Widow) and 38 others2019 YLR 1912 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-17Read full judgment →
• Sadia Kanwal and 3 others vs Superintendent of Police Sudnoti and 32019 MLD 259 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-09-26
  quashment of FIRinherent powersZina (Enforcement of Hadd) Actquestions of factalternate remedyabuse of process of lawcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed before the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under sections 10 and 19 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985. The core legal question was whether an FIR and ongoing criminal proceedings could be quashed under inherent powers when cross-suits relating to jactitation of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights were pending between the parties and a challan had already been submitted before the trial court. The Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding the commission of the offence and the marital status of the parties cannot be resolved in a petition for quashment, especially after the submission of a challan, and that the petitioners had an alternate remedy available under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that quashment of an FIR under inherent powers is an exceptional remedy not to be invoked when factual controversies require trial evidence, nor should it block the normal process of law where a challan has been submitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a challan has already been submitted before the trial court?
  • Is it the function of the High Court or Shariat Court in a quashment petition to determine the truthfulness of allegations and innocence of the accused involving disputed questions of fact?
  • Does the availability of an alternate remedy under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the exercise of inherent powers for quashment of criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadi Ahmad and another vs The State2019 PLJ SC Cr.C. 438, 2019 SCMR 1220, 2019 SCP 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-23
  murderrobberylast seen evidenceconfessional statementbenefit of doubtasphyxiaidentification testcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of Sadi Ahmad and Mukhtar Ahmad for the murder of a cab driver during a robbery. The prosecution's case rested on 'last seen' evidence, recoveries of weapons, and a confessional statement made by Mukhtar Ahmad during the trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan scrutinized the evidence and found significant gaps. The court observed that the 'last seen' evidence lacked proximity in time and space and failed to inspire confidence. Furthermore, the medical evidence (asphyxia) contradicted the recovery of weapons, and the identification of the accused following a purported road accident was not established. The court rejected the confessional statement of Mukhtar Ahmad, noting it was exculpatory, inconsistent with the prosecution's original narrative, and later repudiated during his Section 342 Cr.P.C. examination. Holding that convictions cannot be based on moral satisfaction alone without proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Read full judgment →
• Sadheer Ahmed & Others vs Inspector General of Police & Others2019 SC AJK 22 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-06Read full judgment →
• Saddam vs The State2019 MLD 1034 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-12-10
  terrorismconfessional statementpolice custodyadmissibility of evidencecriminal appealacquittalAnti-Terrorism Act 1997
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for an attack on a police check post. The core legal question concerns the admissibility and evidentiary value of a confessional statement recorded by a police officer under Section 21-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, as the prosecution failed to provide reliable ocular or circumstantial evidence, and the sole reliance on a police-recorded confession was legally flawed. The court ruled that a confession made before a police officer is not admissible as substantive evidence for conviction, as it lacks the voluntary nature and procedural safeguards of a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court affirmed that Section 21-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, in its current form, is violative of constitutional protections against self-incrimination and due process. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confessional statement recorded before a police officer under Section 21-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 admissible as evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a confessional statement recorded by a police officer?
  • Does a confession made before a police officer carry the same evidentiary value as a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the provision of Section 21-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, which allows for confessions before police officers, ultra vires to the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadaruddin and 3 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home2019 YLR 951 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-26Read full judgment →
• Sabir Iqbal vs Cantonment Board, Peshawar, through its Executive Officer, etc2019 PLD Supreme Court 189, 2019 PLJ SC 415, 2019 P.S.C. 1032, 2019 SCP 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-04
  service lawremoval from servicedoctrine of proportionalitydisciplinary proceedingscantonment servantsjudicial reviewexecutive discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld the petitioner's removal from service as a Telephone Operator in the Cantonment Board, Peshawar, following an absence from duty. The core legal questions involve whether the authorized officer could competently pass an order of removal without forwarding the case to the authority under the applicable rules, whether disagreement with an inquiry officer's report requires reasons and a fresh opportunity of hearing, and whether the penalty of removal violated the doctrine of proportionality. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the removal order was passed without jurisdiction due to procedural omissions and violated the principle of proportionality by imposing an excessively harsh penalty for a one-day absence. The Court laid down that administrative discretions must satisfy the test of proportionality, ensuring a fair balance between the objective and the means adopted, without resorting to unduly oppressive or drastic measures.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an authorized officer can impose a major penalty without forwarding the case to the competent authority under the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954?
  • Is an authorized officer required to issue a fresh notice and provide reasons when disagreeing with the recommendations of an inquiry officer?
  • Does the doctrine of proportionality apply to the exercise of administrative and executive discretion in disciplinary matters?
  • Whether the penalty of removal from service for unauthorized absence of a single day meets the test of proportionality and necessity?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Iqbal vs Cantonment Board, Peshawar through Executive Officer2019 PLD Supreme Court 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-04
  disciplinary proceedingsproportionalityjudicial reviewmajor penaltyadministrative discretionunauthorized absencereinstatementcantonment service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Telephone Operator in the Cantonment Board, Peshawar, was removed from service following a single day of unauthorized absence. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and an inquiry officer recommended a minor penalty of salary deduction. However, the authorized officer imposed the major penalty of removal from service. The petitioner's departmental appeal was dismissed as time-barred, and the Peshawar High Court upheld the removal. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the removal order was legally flawed because the authorized officer failed to forward the case to the competent authority for major penalties as required by the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954. Furthermore, the Court held that if an authorized officer disagrees with an inquiry officer's findings, they must provide reasons and grant the accused a fresh opportunity of hearing. Additionally, the Court applied the doctrine of proportionality, ruling that removing an employee for a single day's absence was a disproportionate and unreasonable exercise of executive discretion. Consequently, the Court set aside the removal order and reinstated the petitioner without back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of proportionality apply to the exercise of executive discretion in disciplinary matters?
  • Is an authorized officer required to provide reasons and a fresh hearing if they disagree with the findings of an inquiry officer?
  • Must an authorized officer forward a case to the competent authority when imposing a major penalty under the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954?
  • Can a court set aside a disciplinary removal order if the punishment is wholly out of proportion to the misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs The State2019 PCr. LJ 1441 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-02-09
  post-arrest bailcharas gardanarcotics controlfurther inquiryprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Sabir Hussain, who was booked under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vide FIR No. 02/2019 registered at Police Station ANF Gilgit, following the alleged recovery of 2700 grams of charas "Garda". The core legal question revolves around whether the recovery of charas "Garda" constitutes a narcotic substance attracting the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the case falls within the scope of further inquiry. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that charas "Garda" does not fall within the definition of charas as it requires baking or a chemical process, and the quantity of actual charas extracted varies, thus bringing the case within the ambit of further inquiry. The court consequently admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, laying down the principle that charas "Garda" warrants further inquiry regarding its classification and quantitative analysis under narcotics laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does charas Garda fall within the definition of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Whether the recovery of charas Garda brings the case within the ambit of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Is an accused found in possession of charas Garda entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain and another vs The State2019 YLR 1795 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-30
  narcotic traffickingpossession of narcoticscriminal appealpolice witnessinvestigating officerrecovery proceedingschemical examiner reportburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns criminal appeals filed against a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, for the possession and transportation of a large quantity of Charas. The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds including the absence of independent witnesses, the complainant acting as the investigating officer, and alleged delays in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It affirmed that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded in narcotic cases, and that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony cannot be discarded solely due to their employment. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a complainant is not legally barred from acting as the investigating officer, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. As the appellants failed to rebut the prosecution's evidence or establish mala fides, the Court maintained the conviction and sentence, emphasizing that the initial burden of proof was discharged by the state.

  Questions settled

  • Is the provision of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to cases involving the recovery of narcotics?
  • Can a complainant also act as the investigating officer in a criminal case?
  • Does the testimony of police officials require corroboration by independent witnesses to be admissible in narcotic cases?
  • Does a delay of two days in sending recovered narcotics to the Chemical Examiner invalidate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali vs Addl. District Judge,etc.2019 [M] C.L.R. 1311 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali vs Additional District Judge and others2019 YLR 1900 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Saadullah vs The State2019 KLR Criminal Cases 127 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
• Saadullah vs State through Advocate General of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PLJ Peshawar 176 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• S.N.G.P.L vs Wafaqi Mohtasib, etc2020 [M] C L R 254, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 168 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-18Read full judgment →
• S. M. Inam-Ul-Haq vs Mirza Amjad Baig and another2019 MLD 1914 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ryk Mills Limited through Authorized Officer vs Director General, Environmental Protection Agency and others2019 CLD 498 · Punjab Environmental Tribunal · 2018-05-24Read full judgment →
• Rustam Ali etc vs Ghulam Waris etc2019 LHC 2401 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-20Read full judgment →
• Rukhtaj son of Khan Dad, r/o Ghari Daulat Zai, District Mardan vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 696, 2019 PHC 382 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-18
  criminal appealQatl-e-Amdchance witnessinterested witnessocular evidenceadverse inferenceacquittalreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular account provided by the complainant and supporting recoveries. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, noting that the complainant, being a related and 'chance witness' who failed to provide a cogent explanation for his presence at the crime scene, was unreliable. Furthermore, the Court observed that the prosecution withheld the best available evidence by abandoning the injured witness, necessitating an adverse inference. The Court also found that the recovered weapon did not match the crime scene evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms that where the presence of an eyewitness is doubtful, their testimony must be discarded, and corroborative evidence cannot substitute for credible direct evidence when the primary ocular account is rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a related and chance witness be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution abandoning an injured eyewitness?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon that does not match the crime scene evidence provide sufficient corroboration for a conviction?
  • When can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for withholding evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rukhsar Hussain alias Roosi vs The State through 'Advocate-General of Aj&K and another2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 132 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Roshan Ali vs The State2019 MLD 1542 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-18
  jail appealmurdercapital punishmentocular evidencemedical evidencerelated witnessescircumstantial evidencerecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the murder of two women. The prosecution case was that the appellant entered the complainant's house and brutally inflicted injuries using a sharp-edged wooden piece, resulting in the instantaneous death of both victims. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related eye-witnesses, the consistency between ocular and medical evidence, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence including prompt FIR lodging and prompt arrest with weapon recovery. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the ocular account of natural witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, prompt FIR, and recovery of blood-stained articles, proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a shadow of doubt. The ratio laid down is that minor contradictions do not discredit otherwise consistent and reliable eye-witness testimony of related witnesses when corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, and that relationship alone is insufficient to discard a natural witness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a murder trial?
  • Does inconsistency between the motive stated in the FIR and evidence affect the core prosecution case when ocular evidence is otherwise trustworthy?
  • Can minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses be a ground for outright acquittal?
  • Whether prompt lodging of the FIR and immediate arrest of the accused with weapon recovery serve as strong corroborative circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Lakhani vs Saeed Ullah Shah and 51 others2019 MLD 2042 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-11Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Buriro vs Syed Murad Ali Shah and others2019 SCMR 1939 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-23
  quo warrantodual nationalityrenunciation of citizenshipArticle 62(1)(f)Returning Officercourt of lawlifetime disqualificationbona fidesalternative remedydoctrine of merger
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition seeking a writ of quo warranto against respondent No. 1, who had renounced his Canadian citizenship after the 2013 elections and subsequently won in the 2018 General Elections. The petitioner argued that an order passed by a Returning Officer in 2013 disqualifying respondent No. 1 under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution constituted a permanent disqualification. By a majority of two to one, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The majority held that a Returning Officer is a summary statutory forum, not a court of law, and a summary order without evidence or recorded findings of dishonesty cannot impose a permanent lifetime disqualification under Article 62(1)(f). Additionally, the Returning Officer's order merged into the Election Tribunal's order, which only disqualified the respondent under Article 63(1)(c). Furthermore, a writ of quo warranto was not maintainable where the petitioner bypassed statutory election appeal remedies out of personal political rivalry, lacking bona fides.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order passed by a Returning Officer in summary proceedings constitute a declaration by a court of law for the purposes of lifetime disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution?
  • Can a writ of quo warranto under Article 199 of the Constitution be maintained when motivated by personal political rivalry and where the petitioner bypassed statutory election remedies?
  • Does an order of disqualification passed by a Returning Officer survive independently after an Election Tribunal decides an appeal on a distinct constitutional ground under the doctrine of merger?
  Read full judgment →
• Rooh-ul-Amin son of Muhammad Amin, r/o Nandrak (Jalaroona) AkoraPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1385, 2019 PHC 352 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-04
  criminal appealmurderchance witnessdelay in FIRbenefit of doubtfalsus in omnibusmedical evidence contradictionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the credibility of chance witnesses, the effect of unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the application of the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The Peshawar High Court held that the eyewitnesses were unconvincing chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, that the First Information Report was a suspect document crafted after preliminary investigation and autopsy, and that the prosecution failed to establish the charge. The court laid down that unexplained delay in reporting a crime casts serious doubt on the presence of eyewitnesses, that chance witnesses must provide cogent explanations for their presence, and that the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus forms an integral part of criminal jurisprudence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report render it a suspect document?
  • Can the uncorroborated testimony of chance witnesses who fail to justify their presence at the crime scene form the basis of a murder conviction?
  • Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the time of death undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the trial court disbelieves the prosecution evidence against a co-accused but relies upon the same tainted evidence to convict another?
  Read full judgment →
• Roidar Khan vs National Bank of Pakistan Jadid Abadi Branch Bannu2019 CLD 693, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 134, 2019 PHC 19 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-23Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ullah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1443 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-12Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Akbar Arain vs The Chairman National Highways Authority & others2019 SHC 372 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-17Read full judgment →
• Riffat Shaheen vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2019 PLC (C.S) 835, 2019 SCMR 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-07
  government accommodationallotment of quartersvested rightrepeal of rulesconstitutional petitionseniority quota
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Peshawar High Court's judgment dismissing her constitutional petition. The petitioner, a government employee's spouse, sought transfer in her name of government accommodation originally allotted to her husband, who retired on 01.04.2017. Her application under the KPK Residential Accommodation at Peshawar (Procedure for Allotment) Rules, 1980 was not acceded to, and subsequently the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018 was promulgated, repealing previous rules and not providing for automatic retention or out-of-turn allotment to spouses of retired civil servants, though safeguarding rights via a special seniority quota. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no vested right to retain the accommodation under the repealed Rules of 1980, that her case was governed by the Act of 2018, and that she was entitled to accommodation only in accordance with her seniority on the waiting list. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a spouse of a retired civil servant have a vested right to retain government accommodation under repealed rules?
  • Whether the repeal of previous allotment rules extinguishes pending applications for out-of-turn government accommodation?
  • Are spouses of retired civil servants entitled to automatic retention of government accommodation upon retirement of the original allottee under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018?
  Read full judgment →
• Rifat Hussain vs The State2019 SCP 324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-12
  criminal leave to appealhomicidedelayed FIRpost-mortem delayre-appraisal of evidencecriminal justice administration
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Riffat Hussain, sought leave to appeal against his conviction for homicide under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, which was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question revolved around the re-appraisal of prosecution evidence in light of contentions regarding delayed reporting of the crime, delayed autopsy, shifting of the dead body, absence of crime scene casings, elimination of a co-accused in a police encounter, and the non-appearance of the Investigating Officer, which allegedly caused prejudice to the defense. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-appraise the prosecution evidence with a view to ensuring the safe administration of criminal justice. The key principle laid down is that the apex court will re-appraise evidence in criminal cases where material circumstances such as unexplained delays and procedural lapses escape the notice of the courts below, potentially prejudicing the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in reporting the crime and conducting the autopsy render eyewitness accounts doubtful?
  • Whether the non-appearance of the Investigating Officer causes serious prejudice to the accused in a criminal trial?
  • Can the Supreme Court re-appraise prosecution evidence upon granting leave to appeal in a homicide case?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz-ur-Rehman Qureshi and 14 others vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir2019 CLC 1466, 2019 KLR Supreme Court 395, 2019 PCTLR 726, 2019 P.S.C. 667 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-11-29Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs Federation of Pakistan2019 SHC 474 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-06Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 50 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-14
  post-arrest bailcriminal trial delaypre-trial sentencecross-injuriesmedico-legal certificaterecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Riaz Hussain, who was charged under Sections 337F(i), 337F(ii), 337F(iv), 337A(i), and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged assault on his wife. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail pending trial, considering the nature of the injuries, the existence of cross-injuries sustained by the petitioner, and the delay in the trial process. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the complainant had also inflicted injuries on the petitioner, the recovery of the weapon was delayed by three months, and the petitioner had been incarcerated since July 2017 without the trial concluding. The Court established the principle that where the guilt of an accused is yet to be determined and there is no evidence that the delay in trial is attributable to the accused, continued incarceration prior to the establishment of the charge may amount to a pre-trial sentence, thereby justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of cross-injuries sustained by the accused in a domestic dispute support a grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can a significant delay in the trial process, not attributable to the accused, justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the delayed recovery of an alleged weapon of offence affect the strength of the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain Bukhari, Inspector vs Riaz Chief Secretary (Home), Home2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 55, 2019 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 22 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  service appealdepartmental inquirypenalty of withholding promotionproportionality of punishmentPunjab Service Tribunalpolice disciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a service appeal filed against the departmental penalty of withholding of promotion for one year under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999, arising from allegations of wandering in civilian clothes during a crime scene visit and failing to finalize a criminal investigation. The core legal question is whether the appellant's actions, including responding to a crime scene in civvies and handling a transfer of investigation, warranted disciplinary punishment and whether the penalty was proportionate. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the appellant's prompt response to a crime scene after office hours in civilian clothes demonstrated vigilance rather than dereliction of duty, and that he was not responsible for the investigation delays. The Tribunal laid down the principle that in service matters, penalties must be commensurate with the gravity of charges, and extreme or disproportionate penalties for minor acts defeat the reformatory concept of punishment. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the impugned penalty orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether responding to a crime scene in civilian clothes after office hours constitutes misconduct warranting a departmental penalty?
  • Does a police officer interfere with investigations improperly by merely forwarding a request for transfer of investigation?
  • Whether minor acts or technicalities justify the imposition of disciplinary penalties in service matters?
  • What is the reformatory concept of punishment in service law regarding the proportionality of penalties?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hanif Rahi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law2019 IHC 1, 2019 PLD Islamabad 230 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-01-22
  production orderparliamentary privilegejudicial reviewinternal proceedings of Parliamentconstitutional petitiontrichotomy of powersright of representation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the vires of Rule 108 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly 2007, which empowers the Speaker to issue production orders for incarcerated members of Parliament to attend assembly sessions. The petitioner specifically sought to prevent two elected representatives, currently in the custody of the National Accountability Bureau under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, from attending National Assembly proceedings and chairing the Public Accounts Committee. The Court examined whether the issuance of production orders and the internal proceedings of the National Assembly are justiciable. The Court held that the petition is not maintainable, ruling that Article 69 of the Constitution bars courts from inquiring into the internal proceedings of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). The Court affirmed that the Speaker’s discretion under Rule 108 constitutes a parliamentary proceeding immune from judicial review. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that preventing elected members from attending sessions violates the constitutional rights of their constituents to be represented, particularly when the members remain unconvicted and eligible to hold office.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a production order by the Speaker of the National Assembly under Rule 108 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly 2007 constitute a proceeding immune from judicial review under Article 69 of the Constitution?
  • Can a court interfere with the internal proceedings of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) regarding the attendance of incarcerated members?
  • Does the arrest of an elected member of the National Assembly under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 automatically disqualify them from attending parliamentary sessions?
  • Is the Speaker of the National Assembly subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court when exercising powers to regulate the conduct of business in the House?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 46 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-05
  murder appealdecomposed dead bodybenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidenceunexplained delay FIRidentification of corpseadmissibility of photocopiesacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant against his conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Mansehra. The prosecution alleged that the appellant killed his wife over suspicions of illicit relations and dumped her body in a well. The Peshawar High Court examined whether the circumstantial and medical evidence, recovery of the crime weapon, and testimony of identification were sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court observed major contradictions: the lady doctor testified that the recovered body was fully mutilated, decomposed, and unrecognizable, rendering the alleged visual identification by the uncle unreliable. No DNA test or anatomy expert evaluation was conducted. Additionally, an unexplained ten-day delay occurred in reporting the incident, the alleged informant was not examined, and photocopies of documents were wrongly relied upon without original proof. The Court held that suspicion cannot replace legal proof and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on visual identification testimony when the medical evidence confirms the dead body was completely decomposed and unrecognizable?
  • Whether photocopies of documents are admissible in evidence to establish a fact without the production of original documents or proof of secondary evidence grounds?
  • Does an unexplained, prolonged delay in lodging an FIR create a reasonable doubt entitling the accused to acquittal in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed and others vs The State and others2019 P Cr. L J 118 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-03-12
  murdersole eye-witnessrelated witnessmedical corroborationmotivenon-recovery of weaponcriminal appealsentence enhancementproclaimed offenderattachment of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of criminal appeals against a trial court's judgment convicting the appellants under section 302(b) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a revision petition for the enhancement of sentences. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a sole, related eye-witness testimony, the impact of unestablished motive, and the legal effect of non-recovery of the crime weapon. The Balochistan High Court held that the testimony of a single eye-witness, even if related to the deceased, is sufficient to maintain a conviction if it is unimpeachable, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by medical evidence. Furthermore, the court held that proved motive is not essential when direct ocular testimony is reliable, and the non-recovery of the crime weapon does not invalidate the prosecution case if independent evidence establishes guilt. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals, upheld the convictions, and declined to enhance the sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be based solely on the testimony of a single eye-witness who is a blood relative of the deceased?
  • Is proof of motive essential for securing a murder conviction when there is direct and reliable ocular testimony?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to recover the crime weapon prove fatal to an otherwise well-supported criminal case?
  • Whether the sentence of imprisonment for a term of years can be enhanced in the absence of strong and exceptional grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed and others vs Sajid Hussain and others2019 CLC 216 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-14Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs Ghulam Haider, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 639 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-12
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationmala fidefirearm injurycriminal procedurespecific role
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to five respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in a case involving charges under Sections 324, 337-F(iii), 337-A(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the lower court erred in confirming the pre-arrest bail of the accused despite specific allegations of firearm injuries and the absence of established mala fide intent. The Court held that while the allegations against Respondents No. 2 to 5 were general and lacked sufficient evidentiary support to warrant bail cancellation, the case against Respondent No. 1 was distinct due to specific allegations of firearm injury corroborated by medical reports. Furthermore, the Court found the lower court’s order regarding Respondent No. 1 legally flawed for failing to address the essential requirement of mala fide or ulterior motive. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition regarding Respondents No. 2 to 5 but allowed it against Respondent No. 1, recalling his pre-arrest bail. The judgment reaffirms that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted without the court being satisfied of mala fide intent by the complainant or police.

  Questions settled

  • Is the absence of a finding regarding mala fide or ulterior motive sufficient grounds to recall an order granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be cancelled for an accused specifically nominated in an FIR with corroborated medical evidence of injury?
  • Does the lack of specific evidence or medical corroboration for an accused's role justify the refusal to cancel their pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs Executive District Officer (Health), Bahawalnagar and others2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 150 · Lahore High Court · 2009-04-21
  service lawtermination of servicewithdrawal of appointmentaudi alteram partemnatural justicelocus poenitentiaeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed against the withdrawal of an appointment order and termination of services of the petitioner as a Laboratory Technician by the Executive District Officer (Health). The core legal questions relate to whether an appointment order once acted upon can be unilaterally withdrawn without adopting proper statutory procedures, and whether the principle of audi alteram partem applies when dispensing with the services of an employee. The Lahore High Court held that once an appointment order is issued and acted upon, creating rights, the authorities cannot arbitrarily rescind or withdraw it without following the prescribed legal procedure, such as under the relevant removal from service laws, nor can they terminate services without issuing a show-cause notice or affording an opportunity of being heard. The court laid down the principle that an employee cannot be penalized or ousted without due process for alleged irregularities committed by the department itself in the initial appointment, and an unreasoned termination order passed without hearing is mala fide and without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appointing authority unilaterally withdraw or rescind an appointment order after it has been acted upon and the employee has assumed duties?
  • Whether the services of a contractual employee can be dispensed with without adopting the procedure provided under the relevant removal from service laws?
  • Does the failure to afford an opportunity of being heard render a termination order legally void?
  • Can an employee be penalized or terminated from service due to an irregularity committed by the department itself during the appointment process?
  Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali and Ghulam Hyder Joyo vs Governor Sindh/Chancellor & others2019 SHC 482, 2020 PLC (C. S. ) 764, 2019 SHC 494 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-09
  quo warrantovice chancellor extensionprovincial cabinetexecutive authorityconstitutional interpretationsindh agriculture university act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought a writ of quo warranto against the extension of the tenure of respondent no. 5 as Vice Chancellor of Sindh Agriculture University for a further term of four years under a notification dated 10-04-2018. The core legal questions involved whether the extension required the appointee to be an agriculturist, whether it violated an ECP recruitment ban, and whether the extension made on the advice of the Chief Minister alone complied with Section 27(1) of the Sindh Agriculture University Act, 1977 as amended in 2014, which required the action to be taken by the "Government". The court held that the extension notification was issued without lawful authority and set it aside because, following the precedent in Mustafa Impex, the term "Government" under the constitutional framework of Article 129 means the Provincial Cabinet as a collective entity, and executive powers vested in the Government cannot be exercised by the Chief Minister in isolation. The key principle laid down is that statutory powers vested in the Provincial Government must be exercised by the Provincial Cabinet and cannot be bypassed or solely executed by the Chief Minister.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term "Government" in a provincial statute refer to the Provincial Cabinet rather than the Chief Minister alone?
  • Can the Chief Minister exercise statutory executive powers of the Provincial Government independently without the approval of the Provincial Cabinet?
  • Whether the extension of tenure of a Vice Chancellor under Section 27(1) of the Sindh Agriculture University Act, 1977 requires a decision by the Provincial Cabinet?
  • Does the rule in Mustafa Impex regarding the Federal Government's collective decision-making apply equally to the Provincial Government under Article 129 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Rhuppiah vs Secretary of State for the Home Department2019 P.S.C. 1515 · Supreme Court of United Kingdom · 2018-11-14Read full judgment →
• Relacom Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs The Commissioner Inland2019 PCTLR 1277, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1741 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-08-30Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Fed: of Pakisatan & others2019 SHC 496 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-10Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah Rehan vs Muhammad Zia-ud-Din2019 SHC 94 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-26
  criminal appealdefamationburden of proofreopening of trialcourt witnessfinequashment of conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, West Karachi, under Section 500/499 of the Pakistan Penal Code for alleged defamation. The core legal questions involved whether the complainant successfully proved the charge of defamation beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the trial court acted lawfully by reopening the trial after the close of evidence to examine a court witness. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to produce or prove the existence of the foundational defamatory documents or pamphlets, and that the trial judge improperly assumed the role of a prosecutor by reopening the case and improperly awarding the fine directly to the complainant. The court laid down the principle that in criminal cases, the burden of proof rests squarely on the complainant to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and a trial judge cannot arbitrarily cure prosecution lacunae or manipulate procedure after the conclusion of the trial. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for defamation can be sustained when the complainant fails to produce or prove the original defamatory document or pamphlet?
  • Can a trial court reopen a criminal trial after the conclusion of evidence and the recording of the accused's statement to summon a court witness without legal justification?
  • Whether a fine imposed as a criminal punishment can be ordered to be paid directly to the complainant instead of being deposited in the government treasury?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused in a criminal trial before the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Nawaz Khan vs Mst. Syeda Khurshid Begum through Legal Heirs2019 CLC 52 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-05Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Khan vs Muhammad Ramzan, etc2020 YLR 925, 2019 PHC 342 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Jan vs Wali-ur-Rehman & others2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 206 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2018-06-27Read full judgment →
• Rehan Ahmed Baig vs Mst. Sabeen Naz2019 SHC 128 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
• Regarding functioning of Patwaris, Kanungos and Tehsildars in urban area2019 KLR Supreme Court 241, 2019 PLD Supreme Court 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land revenueurban arearevenue authoritiesmutationstransfer of propertyrecord of rightsabadi dehsuo motu
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant matter arises from a suo motu notice regarding the functioning of revenue authorities (Patwaris, Kanungos, and Tehsildars) and the maintenance of revenue records in urban areas such as Lahore, where land is not subject to land revenue. The core legal question revolves around whether revenue authorities possess the statutory authority to maintain records, conduct demarcations, or enter property mutations in urban rating areas exempted from land revenue. The Supreme Court held that urban properties falling within the ambit of the Punjab Urban Immoveable Property Tax Act, 1958, are exempt from land revenue, and revenue authorities are consequently not authorized to enter mutations or perform functions relating to the transfer of property in such areas. The Court laid down the principle that urban areas not governed by the Land Revenue Act, 1967, are instead regulated by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Registration Act, 1908, meaning oral mutations are invalid, and revenue records in such localities serve solely for record-keeping rather than property transfers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether revenue authorities have the jurisdiction to enter property mutations in urban areas governed by the Punjab Urban Immoveable Property Tax Act, 1958?
  • Does the inclusion of land within municipal limits ipso facto exclude it from the operation of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  • Are oral mutations valid for the transfer of property in urban areas where the Land Revenue Act does not apply?
  • What statutes govern the transfer of property and devolution of rights in urban areas exempt from land revenue?
  Read full judgment →