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.

• Regarding alarming high population growth rate in the country vs State2019 SCP 10 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-03
  population growthfundamental rightsright to lifefamily planningsocio-economic progresssuo motu
  Summary & questions settled

  This suo motu matter addressed the alarming high population growth rate in Pakistan and its severe detrimental effects on national resources, infrastructure, and socio-economic development. The core legal question examined the linkage between unchecked population expansion and the fundamental right to life, along with other constitutional rights. The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is not merely restricted to vegetative existence but encompasses the right to a meaningful life with basic amenities, adequate living standards, clean drinking water, health, and education, which are severely compromised by overpopulation. The Court laid down the principle that economic prosperity and population planning are sine qua non for the meaningful enjoyment and implementation of all fundamental rights, endorsing a comprehensive set of national recommendations formulated by an expert task force to curb population growth, enhance contraceptive prevalence, and promote reproductive health.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fundamental right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution include the right to basic amenities and a minimum standard of living that is threatened by overpopulation?
  • Can socio-economic principles and directives of state policy be integrated with fundamental rights to address national crises like population explosion?
  • Whether the State is obligated to take active policy measures and implement family planning programs to safeguard the constitutional rights of its citizens?
  Read full judgment →
• Regarding Alarming High Population Growth Rate in the Country vs N_a2019 SCMR 247, 2019 SCP 10, 2019 PLJ SC 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-03
  population growthfamily planningright to lifefundamental rightssuo motusocio-economic progresssustainable development
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the alarming and rapid population growth rate in Pakistan, which has positioned the country as the fifth most populous nation globally with over 200 million people, threatening severe socio-economic consequences, resource depletion, and widespread poverty. The core legal question revolves around whether the unchecked population growth infringes upon fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution, which encompasses the right to a meaningful life with basic amenities such as food, education, healthcare, clean drinking water, and employment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that economic prosperity and population control are prerequisites for the realization of fundamental rights, and initiated suo motu proceedings to relaunch a national population planning campaign. The Court approved a comprehensive set of policy recommendations formulated by an inter-provincial Task Force and endorsed by the Council of Common Interests. The key principles laid down include that the right to life under Article 9 extends beyond mere existence to guarantee a dignified standard of living, and that the state and all relevant stakeholders have a constitutional obligation to implement robust population control and family planning measures to secure sustainable national development.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fundamental right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan include the right to adequate resources, basic amenities, and a standard of living that is dependent on population control?
  • Can the state's obligations to enforce fundamental rights be effectively fulfilled in the face of an unchecked population explosion?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can initiate suo motu proceedings to address alarming national issues such as rapid population growth and direct the formulation of a uniform national population policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Razia Sultana and another vs Chief Executive Officer and 5 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 152 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-11
  contract employeereinstatementfake and fabricated orderdepartmental inquirynatural justiceconstitutional petitionfraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order dated 22.02.2017, wherein the Respondent department refused to reinstate the Petitioner No. 1, a contract-based Science and Math Teacher, despite a prior court direction. The core legal question was whether the Petitioner was entitled to reinstatement based on an order dated 30.08.2016, which the department alleged was fake and fabricated. The Court found that two successive inquiries confirmed the reinstatement order was bogus and self-managed, with the official purportedly issuing it denying any such action. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Petitioners were afforded opportunities to participate in the inquiry but failed to appear, refuting the claim of being condemned unheard. The Court held that a contract employee relying on a fraudulent document to secure reinstatement is not entitled to relief under Article 199. The principle laid down is that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to protect or enforce rights derived from documents established as fraudulent through departmental inquiries, particularly where the petitioner has failed to substantiate their claim or participate in the inquiry process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract employee seek reinstatement based on an order that has been proven to be fake and fabricated through departmental inquiries?
  • Does the failure of a petitioner to participate in an inquiry committee proceeding after being notified preclude them from claiming they were condemned unheard?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable to enforce an order that has been declared null and void by the issuing authority due to fraudulent entry?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Muhammad Gorar and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Chairman and others2019 PLJ Karachi 110, 2018 SHC 790, 2018 CLC 1777 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-05Read full judgment →
• Rawalpindi Development Authority ("Rda") vs Federation of Pakistan2019 PTD 1734 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-17Read full judgment →
• Rawal Institute of Health Sciences vs Ministry of National Health Services2019 IHC 22 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-01Read full judgment →
• Rawal Institute of Health Sciences (Pvt.) Limited through Chairman vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Health Services, Islamabad and 2 others2019 MLD 1217 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-18Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bakhsh vs The State2021 KLR Criminal Cases 238, 2019 PLD Balochistan 63 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28
  NAB Ordinancetrial in absentiaabscondingproclamation and attachmentservice of warrantscriminal appealAccountability Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, passed in absentia by the Accountability Court-1, Balochistan. The core legal question was whether the trial court could lawfully convict the appellant under Section 31-A for absconding without properly following the mandatory procedures for service of warrants under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and without recording evidence in accordance with the law to prove the essential ingredients of abscondence. The High Court held that the trial court failed to fulfill the statutory requirements for service, did not examine the process server, and erroneously convicted the appellant without recording legal evidence or affording an opportunity of defense, violating fundamental rights to liberty. The appeal was accepted, and the conviction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 without proof of intentional abscondence?
  • Does a trial in absentia violate the fundamental right to liberty under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when mandatory procedures for serving warrants under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are not followed?
  • Can unserved warrants alone be treated as evidence to convict an accused without examining the process server and following the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • From what date does the period of limitation run for filing an appeal against a judgment of conviction passed in absentia?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid vs Mst. Farah Naz2019 CLC 1384 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-27Read full judgment →
• Rashid Hussain and others vs PTCL and others2019 PLC 249 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-18
  Voluntary Separation Schemeeviction proceedingsemployer-employee relationshipsummary evictionconstitutional petitionPTCLresidential accommodation
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged orders passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and the Judicial Magistrate, which directed the petitioners to vacate residential accommodations provided by the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL). The petitioners, former employees who opted for a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS), contended they were entitled to retain the housing and that Standing Order 16 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was inapplicable to them. The core legal question was whether the summary eviction procedure under Standing Order 16 applies to employees who voluntarily separated from service. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the VSS constituted a complete cessation of the employer-employee relationship, rendering the petitioners liable to vacate the premises upon the expiry of the agreed grace period. The Court affirmed that Standing Order 16 provides a valid summary mechanism for employers to recover possession of residential units from former employees. It was held that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is discretionary and cannot be invoked to perpetuate the unauthorized retention of company property.

  Questions settled

  • Does Standing Order 16 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 apply to employees who have opted for a Voluntary Separation Scheme?
  • Can a former employee retain company-provided residential accommodation after the cessation of their employment under a Voluntary Separation Scheme?
  • Is the summary procedure for eviction under Standing Order 16 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applicable to employees who have voluntarily separated from service?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to interfere with eviction orders where no jurisdictional error is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1166 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-17
  narcotics possessionchain of custodychemical examiner reportburden of proofcriminal appealacquittalsafe custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of narcotics. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody for the recovered contraband and its samples, thereby validating the Chemical Examiner's report. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the recovered substance. Specifically, the court noted that the recovery memo and complaint were silent regarding the sealing of the bulk property, and there were unexplained discrepancies in the transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution bears the initial onus of proof, even under The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Any break in the chain of custody or lapse in the control of possession of the sample renders the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable and incapable of sustaining a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to seal the bulk of recovered narcotics at the spot create a fatal break in the chain of custody?
  • Does the initial onus of proof remain with the prosecution in cases under The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, despite the provisions of Section 29?
  • Does an unexplained discrepancy in the transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner render the forensic report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction under The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained if the safe custody of the recovered substance is not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Mst: Khursheed Bibi etc2019 CLD 505, 2019 PHC 46 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-28Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmed vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, etc2020 MLD 108, 2019 LHC 2976 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-26Read full judgment →
• Rao Abdul Waheed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet2019 IHC 72 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-21
  deputationsalary protectionrepatriationright to livelihoodfundamental rightsautonomous bodycivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by Rao Abdul Waheed seeking the release of his unpaid salary and allowances for various periods while serving on deputation and after repatriation, against the Federation of Pakistan, the Board of Investment (B.O.I.), and the Frequency Allocation Board (F.A.B.). The core legal questions involved the entitlement of a deputationist to salary protection matching their parent department and the liability of government departments and autonomous bodies for non-payment of salaries during administrative delays and disputes. The Islamabad High Court held that a deputationist is entitled to receive at least the salary package of their parent department, and departments cannot withhold salaries due to administrative omissions or lack of security clearance without proper departmental proceedings. The court directed the B.O.I., the Cabinet Division, and F.A.B. to pay the salary differentials and arrears respectively for their assigned periods, laying down the principle that the right to receive a salary from employment is an integral component of the right to life and livelihood guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a deputationist is entitled to salary protection equivalent to the pay package of their parent department?
  • Does the non-payment of salary by an employer violate the fundamental right to life and livelihood under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Who is liable to pay the salary of an employee during the intervening period when departments fail to settle repatriation and posting matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Zahid Habib and 5 others vs Government of the Punjab and 32019 CLC 654 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-14
  land acquisitionintra court appealalternative remedyconstitutional petitionmaintainabilityreference to court
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged an order of a learned Single Judge who dismissed a constitutional petition against land acquisition proceedings. The Appellants contended that the acquisition violated their fundamental rights under the Constitution, alleged political motivation, and claimed a lack of transparency in the acquisition process. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable to challenge land acquisition proceedings when an alternative statutory remedy exists. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable because the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides a comprehensive mechanism under Section 18 for aggrieved parties to challenge measurements, compensation amounts, or apportionment of compensation by seeking a reference to the Court. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an adequate alternative remedy is available under the governing statute. Furthermore, as the Appellants had already filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Court dismissed the appeal in limine, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against land acquisition proceedings when an alternative remedy is available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Can a person aggrieved by a land acquisition award seek a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Does the existence of an alternative statutory remedy preclude the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Sanaullah Khan vs The State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 300, 2019 LHC 4122 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-23
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlfurther inquiryrecovery memosphysical remandbenefit of doubtpolitical victimization
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Rana Sanaullah Khan, a Member of National Assembly, registered under sections 9(c)/15/17 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with Sections 186/189/225/353 PPC. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the massive quantity of alleged contraband and arguable lapses in the prosecution's case. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry due to patent defects in the prosecution's conduct, notably the failure to prepare recovery memos at the spot, the absence of a request for physical remand to investigate any narcotics network, and the fact that co-accused had already been granted bail. The court laid down the principle that the seriousness of an allegation does not bar the grant of bail if the prosecution's case appears doubtful on the surface, and that the benefit of a doubtful circumstance must be extended to the accused even at the pre-trial bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does a withdrawal simplicitor of a bail petition bar the filing of a second bail petition on the same grounds?
  • Can bail be granted in a narcotics case involving a prohibitory clause when serious lapses appear on the face of the prosecution record?
  • Is the seriousness of an allegation alone sufficient ground to refuse bail when the prosecution case otherwise calls for further inquiry?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to prepare recovery memos at the spot of the alleged seizure in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Nadeem Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2019 PTD 1264 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-03Read full judgment →
• Rana Fahad Hussain vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretaty, Revenue Division_Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others2019 PTD 1882 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-13Read full judgment →
• Rana Adnan Ali vs National Bank of Pakistan2019 CLD 912, 2019 LHC 1146 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-11Read full judgment →
• Rana Abdul Khaliq vs The State, etcPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 506, 2019 SCMR 1129, 2019 SCP 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-13
  pre-arrest baildishonor of chequemala fideextraordinary remedybail cancellationabuse of processcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a challenge to a Lahore High Court order granting pre-arrest bail to a respondent accused under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code following the dishonor of a bank cheque. The High Court had confirmed the bail on the grounds that the respondent did not misuse ad interim relief and would likely be entitled to post-arrest bail if taken into custody. The Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the impugned order, holding that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect innocent persons from arrests motivated by mala fide or ulterior motives. The Court clarified that pre-arrest bail is not a substitute for post-arrest bail and cannot be granted in routine criminal cases without a demonstration of abuse of process. Finding that the considerations for judicial protection were missing and that the High Court misapplied legal precedents, the Supreme Court cancelled the respondent's bail, emphasizing that the absence of misuse of ad interim bail is not a sufficient ground for confirmation.

  Read full judgment →
• Rakhesh Kathotia and others vs Sebi2019 PCTLR 864 · Securities Appellate Tribunal · 2019-05-27Read full judgment →
• Rajmeer Khan and another vs Noor-Ul-Haq and others2019 SCMR 1949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-04
  cross-version casebenefit of doubtfree fightcriminal appealappreciation of evidencemurderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves cross-appeals arising from a criminal incident where both the complainant and accused parties filed FIRs against each other, alleging murder and injuries. The core legal question concerned the reliability of evidence in a cross-version case where both parties attempted to conceal the truth and minimize their respective roles. The High Court had previously characterized the incident as a "free fight" entailing individual liability. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the evidence presented by both sides was heavily tainted with falsehood, making it impossible to discern the truth or establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court held that where the prosecution's case is inextricably mixed with untruths, the only viable course is to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly, the Court acquitted the appellant Mushtaq Khan, while dismissing the appeal regarding Noor-ul-Haq, finding no legal error in the High Court's decision to acquit him of specific charges due to the absence of expert medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • In a cross-version case where both parties conceal the truth, is it legally permissible to reconstruct the story to determine individual liability?
  • What is the consequence when the prosecution's evidence is so heavily mixed with falsehood that the truth cannot be discerned?
  • Is an expert report mandatory to sustain a conviction under Section 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when medical clarity regarding the injury is lacking?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajib Ali Naich and others vs The State2019 MLD 306 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-21
  fair trialabsconding accusedrecording of evidencecross-examinationremandprocedural illegalitySection 512 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and death sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, where the trial court relied on evidence recorded during the trial of co-accused persons to convict the appellants, including one who was arrested later. The core legal question is whether evidence recorded in the absence of an accused can be used against them upon their subsequent appearance without recalling the witnesses for cross-examination. The Court held that the trial court committed a procedural illegality by adopting previously recorded evidence without providing the appellants a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, thereby violating the principles of a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The Court established that while Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides a limited exception for recording evidence against absconders, the general rule remains that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial with a mandate to recall prosecution witnesses for examination and cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence recorded in the trial of co-accused persons be used against an accused who subsequently joins the trial without recalling the witnesses?
  • Is it mandatory for prosecution witnesses to be examined in the presence of the accused to satisfy the requirements of a fair trial?
  • Under what specific circumstances can evidence recorded in the absence of an accused be admitted against them?
  • Does the failure to recall witnesses for cross-examination after an absconding accused is arrested constitute a fatal procedural error?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajee (Pvt) Limited vs The Registrar of Designs & Another2019 CLD 458, 2019 SHC 8 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
• Rajab Ali vs The State2019 YLR 154 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-09-17
  criminal appealmurder convictionforensic evidenceocular testimonytime-barred appealmotiveballistic report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Hunza/Nagar, which found the appellant guilty of murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular, medical, and forensic evidence, and whether the appeal was maintainable given the significant delay in filing. The Court held that the prosecution proved its case through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence confirming bullet injuries, and forensic matching of the recovered weapon with crime scene empties. The motive, rooted in a pathway dispute, was also established. The Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred due to a three-year delay without an application for condonation. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence—comprising direct eyewitness accounts, corroborative medical reports, and forensic ballistic analysis—is consistent and reliable, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and an appeal filed with excessive, unexplained delay is liable to be dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal appeal maintainable if filed with a three-year delay without an application for condonation of delay?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon and forensic matching of crime empties constitute sufficient evidence to uphold a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Zaffar Iqbal, Driver Police Constable No, 135, District Mirpur vs Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarabad and 6 others2019 P.S.C. 1276 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service appeallimitation periodcompulsory retirementdismissal in limineservice tribunal jurisdictionsingle member bench
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's service appeal in limine. The appellant, a police constable, was compulsorily retired from service on November 8, 2014. He challenged this order before the Service Tribunal on August 9, 2018, following a departmental appellate order dated July 27, 2018. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation and lack of maintainability. The core legal questions were whether the appeal was time-barred despite the subsequent departmental appellate order, and whether a single member of the Service Tribunal was empowered to dismiss an appeal in limine. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the appeal was time-barred, as the limitation period runs from the date of the original grievance (the retirement order) rather than the subsequent departmental decision, relying on established precedent. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under the relevant statutory framework, a single member of the Service Tribunal is competent to dismiss an appeal in limine. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal run from the date of the original departmental order or the date of the appellate departmental order?
  • Is a single member of the Service Tribunal competent to dismiss an appeal in limine under the Service Tribunals Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Zaffar Iqbal Driver Police Constable No. 135 District, Mirpur vs Inspector General of Police & 6 others2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 66 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service appeallimitationcompulsory retirementService Tribunaldismissal in liminesingle member bench
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court arises from a judgment of the Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal in limine on the grounds of limitation and non-maintainability. The appellant, a police constable, was compulsorily retired from service after an inquiry vide order dated 08.11.2014. His departmental appeal was rejected on 27.07.2018, following which he approached the Service Tribunal. The core legal questions involved whether the limitation period runs from the date of the original adverse order or the appellate departmental order, and whether a single member of the Service Tribunal is competent to dismiss an appeal in limine. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the limitation period runs from the date of the original order by which the civil servant is aggrieved, making the appeal time-barred, and that a single member is legally competent to dismiss an appeal in limine under the relevant statutory provisions. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal runs from the date of the original departmental order or the appellate order?
  • Is a single member of the Service Tribunal competent to dismiss an appeal in limine under the Service Tribunals Act?
  • Does the filing of a departmental representation extend the period of limitation for challenging the original punishment order before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Umar Hayat vs Azad Govt. & others2019 P.S.C 694, 2019 SC AJK 20 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
• Raja Pervez Ashraf vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 PLD Islamabad 24, 2020 PLJ Islamabad 91, 2019 IHC 132 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-09-05Read full judgment →
• Raja Khan vs Shah Nawaz and 10 others2019 CLC 2061 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-05Read full judgment →
• Raja Khalid Mehmood Khan and 9 others vs Muhammad Hussain and 22019 P.S.C. 720 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Raja Imran Akhtar vs National Highway Authority and others2020 [M] C L R 62, 2019 CLC 1189 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-08-22Read full judgment →
• Raja Farhat Iqbal vs The State2019 SCMR 2063, 2019 SCP 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-15
  homicidewithdrawal of appealreview petitionfinality of judgmentcounsel authorityparole
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, who was acquitted of homicide by the trial court but subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court of Sindh, sought to challenge his conviction. His appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was withdrawn by his counsel in 2009, and his subsequent review petition was dismissed in 2019, partly because he had already been released on parole. The applicant filed a subsequent application (Cr.M.A. No. 1404 of 2019) challenging the office's refusal to entertain his request after the dismissal of his review petition. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of a review petition forecloses all subsequent legal avenues for the applicant. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a client cannot escape the consequences of a course of action adopted by their duly engaged counsel simply by claiming they did not instruct the counsel to do so, especially after a significant delay. Consequently, the application was dismissed as hopelessly misconceived.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a review petition by the Supreme Court foreclose all subsequent attempts and avenues for relief by an applicant?
  • Can an applicant escape the legal consequences of a decision made by their duly engaged counsel on the ground that they did not instruct the counsel to take that course of action?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Ansar Hussain vs Public Service Commission through Chairman &2019 PLJ AJ&K 125 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-07Read full judgment →
• Raisham Khan and others vs Mir Azad Khan and others2019 YLR 2772, 2019 PHC 156 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Ali vs Muhammad Ali and 5 others2019 YLR 404 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-22
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencedelay in FIRabsence of medical evidenceinterested witnessesinterference in acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This acquittal appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Golarchi at Badin, which acquitted respondents Nos. 1 to 5 of charges under Sections 504 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondents destroyed a water course, issued threats, and physically assaulted the complainant. Upon reviewing the evidence, the High Court observed that there was an unexplained 11-day delay in lodging the FIR, a complete absence of medical evidence or injury reports, and material contradictions among the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who were close relatives of the complainant. Furthermore, no independent locality witnesses were examined, and no recovery was made to connect the accused to the crime. Upholding the trial court's judgment, the High Court held that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and cannot be interfered with unless it is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or based on a misreading of evidence causing gross miscarriage of justice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required for an appellate court to interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does an order of acquittal create a double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused?
  • Can an acquittal based on an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and lack of medical evidence be set aside in appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Khan and another vs Gul Badshah and 5 others2020 [M] C L R 151, 2019 MLD 496 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-08Read full judgment →
• Rahim Khan and 8 others vs Station Commander, Station Headquarter, Zhob Cantt. and another2019 [M] C.L.R. 917, 2019 CLC 114 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-09-05Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bux Soomro vs The State through Director General (NAB)2019 MLD 358 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-16
  suspension of sentenceaccountability courtshort sentenceNAB referencewrit jurisdictionbail pending appealNational Accountability Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition seeking the suspension of a four-year sentence awarded to the petitioner by an Accountability Court following a conviction under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to suspend a sentence in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) case, given the statutory framework and the petitioner's request for relief pending the disposal of his appeal. The Court held that it has the jurisdiction to suspend the sentence, relying on the principle established in Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 607), which clarifies that the jurisdiction of superior courts cannot be ousted by sub-constitutional legislation. Furthermore, the Court determined that a four-year sentence constitutes a short sentence, and given the heavy backlog of cases, the likelihood of an early hearing of the appeal is minimal. Consequently, the Court granted the suspension of the sentence, ordering the petitioner's release on bail subject to the furnishing of solvent surety and the deposit of his passport.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to suspend a sentence in a case prosecuted under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can a sentence of four years be considered a short sentence for the purpose of granting suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  • Does the omission of the words 'High Court' from Section 9(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, divest the High Court of its power to grant bail or suspend a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheel Anwar etc vs The State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 677, 2019 LHC 516, 2019 YLR 1385 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-06Read full judgment →
• Rahan Masih vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1594 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-26
  narcotics possessionreduction of sentencefirst offendercriminal appealcharasrecovery witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, which convicted the appellant, Rehan Masih, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1340 grams of charas, sentencing him to four years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the charge beyond reasonable doubt and whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the circumstances. Upon review, the Lahore High Court found the prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimony of recovery witnesses and the positive chemical analysis report, to be consistent and reliable, thereby upholding the conviction. However, regarding the sentence, the Court exercised judicial discretion to reduce the term of imprisonment to the period already served. The Court reasoned that the appellant was a first-time offender, the recovered substance was less harmful than heroin, and the remaining sentence was short. The principle laid down is that while maintaining a conviction for narcotics possession, appellate courts may reduce sentences to the period already undergone for first-time offenders where the circumstances justify leniency.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already served in a narcotics case involving a first-time offender?
  • Is the positive report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency sufficient to support a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Does the recovery of charas, being less harmful than heroin, constitute a valid ground for leniency in sentencing?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafia Bibi vs Director General (Health), KPK2021 PLC (C.S.) 57, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 64, 2019 PHC 386 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07
  regularization of servicescontractual employeeconstitutional petitionLady Health Visitornon-discriminationoutsourced employeesBasic Health Units
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Lady Health Visitor (LHV) employed under an outsourced project (SRSP/PPHI) at a government-owned Basic Health Unit, sought regularization after the government assumed direct control of the facility. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization despite her outsourced status and whether the government could deny this based on a retrospective application of new qualification criteria (Matric with Science). The Court held that the petitioner was effectively an employee of the Health Department performing essential services, and that the government could not discriminate by regularizing similarly placed employees while excluding her. Furthermore, the Court ruled that new qualification rules could not retrospectively invalidate the petitioner's previously valid LHV certificate. The key principles established are that the government must act fairly and without discrimination in employment matters, and that project employees performing permanent, essential functions in government facilities are entitled to regularization when the government assumes administrative control, provided they held the requisite qualifications at the time of their initial appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Can qualification criteria for a post be applied retrospectively to invalidate the existing valid certificates of employees?
  • Does an employer-employee relationship exist between the government and staff hired through an outsourced agency to work in government-owned facilities?
  • Is the government permitted to discriminate by regularizing some project employees while terminating others who are similarly placed?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafi Ullah vs The State & another2019 PCr.LJ 1608, 2019 LHC 2132 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-18Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Hussain Raja and others vs Mujib-ur-Rehman Kiani2019 IHC 192 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-22Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali & others vs Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi and 3 others2019 PLJ Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
• Rabnawaz vs State, and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1066 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-29
  suspension of sentencestatutory bailcircumstantial evidencepost-conviction baildelay in appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of the execution of a sentence imposed by the trial court. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 302(b), 376, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving life imprisonment and other terms of rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the theory of 'last seen,' an extra-judicial confession, and alleged recoveries, following a six-day delay in reporting the incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence pending the final disposal of his appeal. The Court held that the evidence required re-appraisal, noting the delay in reporting and the lack of evidence suggesting the petitioner was a hardened criminal. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had earned a statutory right to bail due to the delay in the appeal process, which was not attributable to him. Consequently, the Court suspended the execution of the sentence and granted bail, emphasizing the right to liberty pending appeal when the final hearing is not in immediate sight.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convict entitled to suspension of sentence pending appeal when the final hearing is not in sight?
  • Does a delay in the disposal of an appeal not attributable to the convict entitle them to bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a sentence be suspended where the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence that requires re-appraisal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Mubri Khan etc2019 P Cr. L J 894, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 585, 2019 LHC 244 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-30
  Section 250 Cr.P.C.compensation to accusedfalse and frivolous accusationshow cause noticewritten judicial orderscriminal revisionprocedural compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the judgment of a Judicial Magistrate and the subsequent appellate order of an Additional Sessions Judge, which imposed compensation of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following the acquittal of the respondents in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate can impose such compensation without adhering to the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 250 Cr.P.C. and whether an oral order suffices for such imposition. The Lahore High Court held that the Magistrate failed to issue a formal show-cause notice or record a specific, reasoned finding that the accusation was false, frivolous, or vexatious, as required by law. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that judicial orders must be in writing to be valid, as oral proceedings lack legal sanctity and prevent effective judicial review. Consequently, the Court set aside the compensation order, establishing that strict procedural compliance and written documentation are essential prerequisites for imposing compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate impose compensation on a complainant under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without issuing a formal show-cause notice?
  • Is an oral order passed by a Magistrate in criminal proceedings legally valid?
  • What are the mandatory procedural requirements for a Magistrate to impose compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to record a specific finding that an accusation was false, frivolous, or vexatious invalidate an order for compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and others vs The State and others2019 MLD 1474, 2019 KLR Criminal Cases 330 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-19
  murder trialbenefit of doubtchance witnessesdelayed FIRpost-mortem prior to FIRimprovements in testimonyweapon recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b), 324, and 337D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to death along with other punishments, while acquitting the co-accused. The Lahore High Court examined the consolidated criminal appeals and murder reference. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the implications of discrepancies between the time of post-mortem examination and the registration of the First Information Report, the evidentiary value of delayed Section 161 statements, improvements made by witnesses, and the corroborative weight of weapon recovery sent concurrently with crime empties to the forensic laboratory. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to untruthful ocular testimony, fabricated chronology of FIR registration, uncorroborated medical evidence, and inconsequential weapon recovery. The key legal principles laid down include that a post-mortem conducted prior to the FIR shatters the prosecution's case, that delayed police statements without plausible explanation lose evidentiary value, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does conducting a post-mortem examination prior to the registration of the First Information Report vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Can the uncorroborated testimony of chance witnesses who made dishonest improvements be relied upon to uphold a murder conviction?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the weapon and crime empties are sent to the forensic laboratory on the same day?
  • Does the presence of injuries on an eyewitness conclusively establish their truthfulness?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and others vs Rusmat Ali2019 IHC 198 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-12Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and 3 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1195 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-16
  pre-arrest bailtheftmala fidecircumstantial evidenceunexplained delay in FIRcriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in relation to F.I.R. No. 263/2018, registered at Police Station Jahanian, Khanewal, for an alleged offence of theft under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and allegations of mala fide. The Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged with an unexplained delay of two days, the occurrence happened at night, and the prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession without the examination of a foot-tracker. Furthermore, the investigation revealed a financial dispute between the parties, and the petitioners had fully cooperated with the investigation without any recovery being made from them. The Court held that mala fide can be deduced from the facts and circumstances where positive evidence is difficult to produce at the pre-arrest stage. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioners had not misused the concession of ad-interim bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can mala fide be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the absence of recovery and cooperation with the investigation support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. a relevant factor in considering a pre-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Dino vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 CLC 1233, 2019 SHC 124 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-02Read full judgment →
• R (on the Application of Miller) and another vs The Prime Minister and others2019 SCMR 1887 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain & another vs State & another2020 YLR 546, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1499 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-24
  murderdeath sentence conversionmitigating circumstancesfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusocular testimonymedical evidence conflictbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals against the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the acquittal of a co-accused, and a murder reference. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular and medical evidence, the effect of partial disbelieving of prosecution testimony on the remaining accused, and the determination of mitigating circumstances for sentencing. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and motive, proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the acquittal of a co-accused and the rejection of recovery evidence. The court established that the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' does not apply universally, and courts must sift the grain from the chaff. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction, the court altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life in view of mitigating circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of a co-accused based on a conflict with medical evidence warrants the automatic acquittal of the main appellant?
  • Does the rejection of recovery evidence vitiate an otherwise reliable ocular account supported by medical evidence?
  • Can the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' be applied universally in criminal trials in Pakistan?
  • What constitutes sufficient mitigating circumstances to commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life for a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurat-ul-Ain, Lecturer, Public Administration Department, University_184a30f42019 P.S.C. 981 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Qurat-ul-Ain vs Qazi Zain-ul-Abadeen and 4 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 400, 2020 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 112, 2019 P.S.C. 919 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-04
  service matterselection criteriaGold Medalretrospective effectvested rightlecturer appointmentuniversity syndicate
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal evaluates the correctness of the High Court's judgment directing the university management to delete five marks of distinction awarded to the appellant and act according to the Selection Board's recommendations. The core legal question was whether a subsequent policy notification altering the criteria for awarding additional marks for a Gold Medal could be applied retrospectively to take away an accrued right of a candidate during an ongoing selection process. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that rules or policies creating or taking away vested rights operate prospectively and cannot be given retrospective effect to prejudice a right that has already accrued to a candidate. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment and establishing the principle that subsequent amendments to selection policies cannot defeat accrued merit rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can a policy notification altering selection criteria be given retrospective effect to affect accrued rights?
  • Whether additional marks for a Gold Medal can be awarded contrary to the prevailing policy at the time of the selection process?
  • Does a candidate who secures top merit position acquire a vested right for appointment that cannot be taken away by subsequent rule amendments?
  Read full judgment →
• Quaid-e-Azam Thermal Private Limited through its Chief Executive Officer, Lahore, Pakistan vs Federal Board of Revenue through its Chairman, Lahore & others2019 PCTLR 424, 2019 PCTLR 854, PTCL 2020 CL. 316, 2020 PTD 165, 2019 LHC · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-10Read full judgment →
• Qazi Munir Ahmed vs Rawalpindi Medical College and Allied Hospital2019 PLC (C.S) 928, 2019 SCMR 648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-06
  Leave to appealContract employmentConstitutional petitionIntra Court AppealVoid orderLimitationAggrieved personNecessary partyReinstatementDamages
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan decided two petitions for leave to appeal challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside a Single Judge's order allowing a constitutional petition concerning the termination of a contract ECG Technician's services. The core legal questions involved the competence and timeliness of Intra Court Appeals (ICAs), the validity of the petitioner's initial appointment, and the appropriateness of invoking constitutional jurisdiction for contract employment disputes. The Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the High Court's Division Bench decision. It held that an aggrieved person, even if not a party to the original proceedings, can file an appeal, and if one of multiple appeals against the same judgment is timely, others can also be entertained on merits, especially against a void order, against which no period of limitation runs. The petitioner's appointment was found to be void, made without proper authority. Furthermore, the constitutional petition was deemed incompetent due to the non-impleadment of the Province of Punjab as a necessary party and because contract employees cannot seek reinstatement through constitutional jurisdiction, their remedy being a suit for damages.

  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Aziz ur Rehman vs The State2019 PHC 42 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-07Read full judgment →
• Qazi Aziz ur Rehman vs State2019 PHC 11 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-07Read full judgment →
• Qasim vs State2019 SHC 284 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-19
  criminal appealrapeabductionbenefit of doubthostile witnessDNA evidenceacquittalcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Badin, which convicted the appellant under Sections 457, 364-A, and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for house trespass, abduction, and rape. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the unreliable testimony of witnesses and compromised forensic evidence. The High Court observed that the complainant and mashirs did not support the prosecution's case, and the victim's identification of the appellant was doubtful. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to explain the delay in recording the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the delay in dispatching DNA samples. The Court held that since the co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence, the appellant was entitled to the same benefit of doubt. The Court reiterated the principle that if prosecution witnesses are disbelieved regarding one accused, they cannot be relied upon for another without independent corroboration, and that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can prosecution witnesses be relied upon to convict an accused if they have been disbelieved regarding a co-accused attributed a similar role?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution evidence is contradictory or unreliable?
  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in dispatching DNA samples to a chemical examiner undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim vs Ghulam Mustafa alias Gulo and 5 others2019 P Cr. LJ 1249 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-08
  criminal revisionrecording of evidenceattorney representationIllegal Dispossession Actcomplainant's evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the trial court, which dismissed the applicant's request to record his evidence through an attorney in a direct complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The applicant, citing old age and infirmity, argued he was incapable of understanding court proceedings and thus required representation. The core legal question was whether a complainant in a criminal case is legally permitted to record their evidence through an attorney. The High Court held that there is no provision in general or special law authorizing the recording of a witness or complainant's evidence through an attorney in criminal proceedings. The Court observed that the applicant's ability to file the complaint and the revision application in person contradicted his claim of incapacity. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision application, affirming that acts not permitted by law cannot be allowed under any pretext. The principle laid down is that the personal examination of a complainant or witness is mandatory in criminal trials, and no legal mechanism exists to delegate this evidentiary function to an attorney.

  Questions settled

  • Is a complainant in a criminal case permitted to record their evidence through an attorney?
  • Does the law allow for the delegation of evidence recording to an attorney in criminal proceedings?
  • Can a trial court allow a complainant to testify through an attorney on the grounds of old age and infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 169 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-22
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycross-versionunexplained delaysuppression of injuriescriminal assaultaggressor and aggressed
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 369 dated 8.8.2018 under Sections 379, 337A(i), A(vi), F(v), L(ii), 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar Chichawatni, District Sahiwal. The precise allegation was that the petitioners along with co-accused caused injuries to prosecution witnesses while armed. The core legal question was whether the petitioners made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting an unexplained three-day delay in lodging the FIR, previous litigation between the parties, the existence of an unwitnessed cross-version and injuries sustained by the accused party which were suppressed in the first information report, making it a case of two versions requiring further probe. The court laid down the principle that where a case involves suppressed cross-injuries and rival versions as to who was the aggressor, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR provide grounds for further inquiry in a post-arrest bail petition?
  • Whether the omission of injuries sustained by the accused party in the FIR makes the case one of further inquiry under criminal law?
  • Is bail to be granted when there are competing versions of an incident and it is yet to be determined at trial which party was the aggressor?
  Read full judgment →
• Qari Muhammad Yasin vs Abdul Latif and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 462 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-23
  damagessuit for recoverystatutory protectiongood faithdisciplinary committeespecial damagesnon-joinder of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Multan, which dismissed the appellant's suit for recovery of Rs. 40 crores as damages against the respondents. The appellant alleged that his Secondary School Certificate was fraudulently cancelled by the employees of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, at the behest of respondent No. 1 using a fictitious person, causing severe personal and professional loss. The core legal question was whether the respondents, including Board employees and private individuals, were liable in damages for the cancellation of the certificate, and whether statutory protection applied. The Lahore High Court held that the appellant failed to establish mala fides, necessary parties like the fictitious complainant were not joined, the action against deceased respondents abated, and the official respondents were protected under Sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 for acts done in good faith. Furthermore, the appellant failed to prove special damages. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that official acts performed bona fide under statutory authority and without proven malice do not attract liability for damages.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of an educational board are protected under statutory provisions for actions taken in good faith during inquiry proceedings?
  • Can a suit for special damages succeed without leading specific evidence to prove each item of claimed loss?
  • Does a personal action for damages abate upon the death of either party during the pendency of proceedings?
  • Whether the failure to implead a necessary party and establish mala fides defeats a claim for damages against public officials?
  Read full judgment →
• Qari Muhammad Sadiq Jameel vs The State and another2019 YLR 882 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-28
  criminal misappropriationforgerybenefit of doubtprimary evidenceadmissibility of documentsanticorruptionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for misappropriation and forgery under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges of cheating, forgery, and misappropriation beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from material contradictions, reliance on inadmissible photocopies of documents without proper proof, and a failure to establish individual liability or specific intent. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the alleged offences, particularly regarding cheating and forgery. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that conviction cannot be sustained on doubtful evidence and that the burden of proving the contents of documents rests strictly upon the party relying on them, requiring primary evidence unless secondary evidence is legally permissible.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on photocopies of documents without satisfying the legal requirements for secondary evidence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove individual liability in a joint charge warrant acquittal?
  • Is the benefit of doubt in a criminal case a matter of grace or a matter of right for the accused?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Qari Muhammad Ishaq Ghazi vs The State2019 SCMR 1646 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-06-27
  incendiary pamphletshate speechpossession of inflammatory materialanti-terrorismcredibility of police witnessespublic witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  Surprised by a police contingent, the appellant was found in possession of incendiary pamphlets inciting hatred towards a particular sect. He was indicted before an Anti-Terrorism Court, convicted under Section 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine, which conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court. Impugning these judgments before the Supreme Court after having completed his sentence, the appellant contended that mere possession without actual distribution does not attract Section 9 and challenged the non-association of public witnesses. The Supreme Court held that a plain reading of Section 9 establishes that possession of inflammatory material by itself constitutes an offence even before distribution, aiming to nip the evil in the bud. The Court further held that police officials are credible witnesses whose testimony can be relied upon in the absence of animus or flaw, particularly given societal apathy. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere possession of inflammatory material constitute an offence under Section 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 without actual distribution?
  • Are police officials considered credible witnesses to prove possession of inflammatory material in the absence of public witnesses?
  • Can a criminal appeal be heard on merits even after the appellant has completed the sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Qari Abdul Wahid vs Qari Abdulah Ishaq2019 SC AJK 156 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-11-04Read full judgment →
• Qamar-Ul-Islam vs Xith Additional District and Sessions2019 P Cr. L J 841 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-07
  contempt of courtsummary trialright to fair trialintentional insultconviction in absentiapublic justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a practicing advocate, challenged his conviction under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was recorded by the trial court under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned whether a trial court could convict an accused for contempt and intentional insult during judicial proceedings without conducting the mandated summary trial and in the absence of the accused. The Sindh High Court held that while a court has the absolute discretion to take cognizance under either Section 476 or Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, choosing Section 476 obligates the court to strictly follow the procedure prescribed for summary trials under Chapter XXII, which cannot be conducted at the back of the accused or on mere assumptions. The court laid down the principle that deviation from substantial statutory procedures infringes upon the guaranteed right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and abscondence or leaving the courtroom cannot replace legal proof or dispense with the requirement of a proper trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court taking cognizance under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is bound to follow the procedure prescribed for summary trials?
  • Can a valid conviction and sentence for contempt under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be recorded against an accused in his absence without completing a regular or summary trial?
  • Does the mere departure or abscondence of an accused from the courtroom dispense with the statutory requirement of conducting a trial and providing a fair hearing?
  • What is the distinction between the powers and procedures under Section 476 and Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar Zaman vs Zia-ur-Rehman etc2019 PHC 222 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-11Read full judgment →
• Qamar Alam and 2 others vs Malik Naseem and others2019 P.S.C. 996, 2019 CLC 991 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-09-04Read full judgment →
• Qaizar vs Tariq, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 774, 2019 YLR 2115, 2019 PHC 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-26Read full judgment →
• Qaizar Khan vs The State & another2020 YLR 2242, 2019 PHC 274, PLJ 2020 Cr.C.(Peshawar)371 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-15Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Nadeem vs The State, etc2019 LHC 2847 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-17
  appeal against convictionmurderdacoitybenefit of doubtidentification paradeocular evidencemedical evidencerecovery of weaponadmissibility of evidencedishonest improvements
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Qaiser Nadeem, for offences under Sections 302(b), 337-F(i), 394, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions revolved around the reliability of the ocular account, the validity of the identification parade conducted in darkness, the unexplained delay in the medical examination and statement recording of injured witnesses, and the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries from an open place and a photocopy of a forensic report. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The court held that identification made in darkness without any source of light was unreliable, rendering the identification parade inadmissible. It further found that the unexplained four-day delay in the medical examination and recording of statements of injured witnesses, coupled with their dishonest improvements, cast serious doubt on their presence at the scene. Recoveries from publicly accessible places were deemed unreliable, and a photocopy of a forensic report was held inadmissible under Section 510 Cr.P.C. The court concluded that the prosecution's case was not free of doubt, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can an identification parade conducted in darkness, without any source of light, be relied upon?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the medical examination and recording of statements of injured witnesses cast doubt on their presence at the scene?
  • Are recoveries of weapons from open and publicly accessible places reliable evidence?
  • Is a photocopy of a forensic report admissible in evidence under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • What is the effect of dishonest improvements made by prosecution witnesses on the reliability of their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Javed Khan vs The State thr. Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore &2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 103, 2020 PLD Supreme Court 57, 2020 PSC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-18
  narcotic substancesgovernment analyst reportforensic evidencecriminal convictionevidentiary valueprocedural compliancedrug trafficking
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenges the conviction of the petitioner under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question concerns whether a Government Analyst’s report, which fails to specify the detailed protocols of the tests conducted, satisfies the mandatory requirements of Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. The Supreme Court held that the report in the instant case was deficient as it lacked the necessary protocols, rendering it inconclusive and unreliable for sustaining a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence. The judgment establishes that for a Government Analyst’s report to be reliable, it must explicitly state the tests applied, the specific protocols used for those tests, and the results obtained. Furthermore, while Trial Courts may summon an analyst under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to clarify ambiguities in a report, this power cannot be used to allow the prosecution to fill evidentiary gaps or conduct fresh tests.

  Questions settled

  • Is compliance with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 regarding the specification of testing protocols mandatory?
  • What are the essential requirements for a valid Government Analyst report under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Can a Trial Court summon a Government Analyst under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to cure evidentiary gaps in a forensic report?
  • Does the admissibility of a Government Analyst's report equate to its evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Amin Butt vs National Accountability Bureau through D.G.2019 PLJ Lahore 211 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-23Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Abbas Khan vs The State2019 YLR 1490 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-07
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseillegal de-sealingtampering with evidencenon-bailable offencesjudicial discretionheinous offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns the applicant's request for post-arrest bail in a case involving the illegal de-sealing of a previously sealed travel agency office, where incriminating documents and passports were recovered. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to bail, particularly when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail, reasoning that the offence is of a serious and heinous nature, involving the applicant taking the law into his own hands and tampering with evidence, which affects the public at large. The Court emphasized that even if an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail is not a right but a matter of judicial discretion, and the circumstances of the case—specifically the recovery of documents and the nature of the fraud—warrant the refusal of bail. The principle laid down is that bail in non-bailable offences is not a right, regardless of whether the offence falls within the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Is bail a matter of right in non-bailable offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused claim bail as a matter of right simply because the offence charged is not punishable by death, life imprisonment, or ten years imprisonment?
  • Does the illegal de-sealing of a government-sealed premises and the recovery of incriminating documents constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Abbas vs The Member (Taxes), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore2021 PLJ Lahore 583, 2019 PTD 1628 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-12Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Abbas vs Member (Taxes), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore etc2019 PCTLR 775, 2019 LHC 2385 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-27Read full judgment →
• Qaim Muhammad son of Muhammad Hingorjo vs The State2019 SHC 538 · Sindh High Court
  Qatl-e-AmdLife imprisonmentSentence enhancementJudicial confessionMotiveCriminal appealMitigating circumstance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal and accompanying criminal revision application arise from the conviction of the appellant for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment. The appellant challenged the conviction, citing unreliable evidence and a coerced confession, while the complainant sought an enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence for conviction and whether the failure to prove the alleged motive warranted an enhancement of the sentence. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution witnesses credible and the appellant’s judicial confession voluntary and incriminating. However, the Court rejected the complainant's plea for sentence enhancement. The ratio established is that while a conviction may be sustained based on credible ocular evidence and a valid confession, the prosecution's failure to establish the motive serves as a significant mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the Court held that in the absence of a proven motive, the sentence of life imprisonment remains appropriate, and judicial caution must be exercised to avoid harsher penalties when the underlying cause of the occurrence remains unproven.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive for a murder constitute a mitigating circumstance against the enhancement of a sentence?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of related witnesses if they remain consistent under cross-examination?
  • Is a judicial confession, when corroborated by other evidence, sufficient to uphold a conviction for Qatl-e-Amd?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Khan Mandokhail vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 429 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-08
  direct complaintcriminal revisionlocus standifrivolous litigationcognizable offencevictimizationpreliminary inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Application challenged an order by the Special Court (Central-I), Karachi, which dismissed a direct complaint filed under Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The complainant alleged that the respondent, a government employee, engaged in unauthorized private business, tax evasion, and document forgery. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for failing to disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding and whether the complaint constituted an attempt to harass the respondent. The High Court upheld the dismissal, affirming that while a complainant need not have a direct nexus to a crime, the trial court is obligated to scrutinize complaints to prevent frivolous litigation and victimization. The Court held that the allegations were vague, general, and lacked the necessary evidential basis to justify summoning the accused. Furthermore, given the history of extensive civil and criminal litigation between the parties, the Court concluded the complaint was intended to pressurize the respondent rather than pursue a legitimate criminal grievance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the authority to dismiss a direct complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it lacks sufficient grounds for proceeding?
  • Is a complainant required to have a direct nexus to a crime to file a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What factors must a trial court consider when determining whether to issue process on a direct complaint to prevent the victimization of an accused?
  • Does the existence of prior civil and criminal litigation between parties justify the dismissal of a subsequent private complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bux alias Ghulam Shabbir vs Federation of Pakistan through Seceratory Misistry of Petroleum and Gas Government of Pakistan and 2 others2019 YLR 1844 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-03Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bux alias Baboo vs The State2019 MLD 481 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-31
  absconderAnti-Terrorism Courtconviction in absentiaviolation of Section 367 Cr.P.C.forfeiture of propertydue process
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Jacobabad, whereby he was convicted and sentenced under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for abscondance, along with the forfeiture of his properties. The core legal question was whether a conviction for abscondance under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 could be sustained when no charge was framed, no evidence was recorded, no point for determination was formulated in violation of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the trial in absentia violated fundamental rights under the Constitution. The High Court held that the conviction and sentence were illegal, violative of mandatory procedural requirements and constitutional safeguards, and could not be sustained. The court laid down the principle that a conviction under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 requires strict adherence to trial procedures, framing of charges, recording of evidence, formulation of points for determination under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and respect for constitutional protections against trial in absentia without due process.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 without a formal charge being framed and evidence being recorded?
  • Whether the forfeiture of moveable and immoveable property is permissible under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in the absence of a fine?
  • Does a judgment convicting an absconder without framing points for determination and providing reasons violate Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a trial and conviction conducted in absentia sustainable if it violates Articles 9 and 10(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and Section 10(11-A) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Hussain vs He Appointing Authority/Chief Justice of High2019 PLC (C.S.) 355 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-01-18
  civil servantpromotionselection postdetermination of meritseniorityservice tribunaljudicial service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenged the judgment of the Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal regarding promotion to the post of Civil Judge. The core legal questions involved whether the Selection Board properly determined merit and whether the Service Tribunal could interfere with an arbitrary selection where the record showed no reason for superseding a senior employee. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the Service Tribunal erred in refusing to set aside the arbitrary promotion merely because it could not substitute its opinion, since statutory powers permit modifying or setting aside illegal orders. The Court laid down that while promotion to a selection post is based on merit, seniority is a crucial factor to be considered, and when all other credentials of competing civil servants are equal, seniority serves as the deciding factor. The matter was remanded to the High Court to place before the Selection Board for re-examination in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal can set aside an order of appointment made on recommendations of a Selection Board if the selection is found to be arbitrary?
  • Can a civil servant claim seniority over another merely on the ground of passing a professional degree examination earlier?
  • Is seniority a relevant factor in determining merit for promotion to a selection post when credentials of competing employees are otherwise equal?
  Read full judgment →
• Pyramid Logistics (Private) Limited vs Azia-12 LLC & others2019 MLD 856, 2019 SHC 5 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-04Read full judgment →
• Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs Rajesh Kumar Jindal and others2019 KLR Supreme Court 99 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-01-08Read full judgment →
• Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Limited vs State and 5 othersPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 829 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-18
  appeal against acquittalspecial judge anti-corruptionright to speedy trialabuse of process of courtdelay in trialembezzlementremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an acquittal judgment passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, wherein the respondents were acquitted primarily on the ground of delay in concluding the trial amounting to an abuse of the process of the court. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of an appeal against acquittal by a private/aggrieved party in cases before a Special Judge, and whether delay per se warrants acquittal. The court held that under Section 10(1) of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, any aggrieved person, including a complainant, can file an appeal against an order of acquittal, and that mere delay does not constitute an abuse of the process of the court unless it is unjustified and not attributable to the accused's own dilatory tactics. The appellate court set aside the acquittal and remanded the matter back for retrial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an aggrieved person or private complainant is competent to file an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Special Judge under the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958?
  • Does delay per se in the conclusion of a criminal trial constitute an abuse of the process of the court warranting acquittal?
  • Can non-compliance with a High Court's administrative direction to conclude a trial within a specified timeframe create a substantive right of acquittal for the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Limited vs State and 2 others2020 YLR 321, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 761 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-18
  acquittalSection 249-A Cr.P.C.cooperative bankembezzlementjurisdictionAnti-Corruption Courtdepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment disposes of three criminal appeals filed by the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Limited (PPCBL) under Section 417(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the acquittal of several respondents by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, vide separate orders passed under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that the respondents had embezzled substantial bank funds and committed forgery and cheating. The trial court acquitted the accused midway through the trial after recording partial testimonies, relying heavily on the deposit of misappropriated amounts or calculation disputes. The core legal questions involved whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance without a complaint from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, and whether the acquittals under Section 249-A were legally sustainable without hearing the prosecutor and when sufficient incriminating evidence existed. The Lahore High Court held that Section 63 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 only bars ordinary courts from taking cognizance of offences specifically punishable under that Act, and does not oust jurisdiction regarding general penal offences such as those under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. Furthermore, the High Court held that orders of acquittal under Section 249-A passed without affording the prosecutor an opportunity of hearing and without proper evaluation of existing incriminating material are perverse and illegal. The appeals were accepted, the acquittals set aside, and the matters remanded to the trial court for conclusion according to law.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 63 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 bar ordinary courts from taking cognizance of offences punishable under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a complaint from the Registrar?
  • Can a trial court invoke Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused without affording the prosecutor an opportunity of a hearing?
  • Does the refund or deposit of allegedly misappropriated funds by an accused automatically warrant an acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Do departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution for the same acts constitute double jeopardy?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Food Authority through Assistant Director vs Zeeshan Munawar2019 PLC (C.S.) 681 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-05
  contractual employmentregularization of servicesautonomous bodiesconstitutional jurisdictionpick and choose policyfundamental rightsintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a single bench judgment directing the Punjab Food Authority to consider the regularization of contract employees. The core legal question was whether contract employees of an autonomous body are entitled to regularization pursuant to government notifications, notwithstanding contractual clauses explicitly barring such claims. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondents were entitled to be considered for regularization. It reasoned that the Authority could not rely on 'no-regularization' clauses to defeat the legitimate rights of employees, particularly when the posts were permanent and government policy mandated regularization for autonomous bodies. The Court established that public authorities are prohibited from adopting a policy of 'pick and choose' in regularization, as this violates the constitutional principles of equality and fair treatment. It further held that contractual stipulations preventing regularization are often unconscionable when used to deprive employees of their legal rights after years of service. Consequently, the Court affirmed the single bench's order for reinstatement and the constitution of a committee to process the regularization claims in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an autonomous body rely on a contractual clause barring regularization to defeat a government policy mandating the regularization of contract employees?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to hear petitions regarding the regularization of contract employees?
  • Is a public authority permitted to adopt a policy of 'pick and choose' when regularizing contract employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab etc vs Attique Zaidi etc2019 LHC 448 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-14Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh and another vs Messrs2019 SCMR 1885 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-08-07
  breach of contractdamagesreview petitionlimitationleave to appealAdvocate Generalpublic funds
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit founded on breach of contract and damages, which was partly decreed in favor of the respondent. Instead of filing a regular appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner, represented by the Advocate General's office, chose to file a review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was also delayed. The review petition was dismissed, and a subsequent appeal against that dismissal was also rejected by the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether indulgence could be granted to the government on the grounds of colossal public funds being involved, despite the incompetent handling of the litigation by the Advocate General's office. The Court held that the state is expected to appoint competent officers paid through public money to defend its interests, and the personal involvement of public servants in other matters does not justify professional negligence here. Consequently, the Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party file a review petition under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as a substitute for a regular appeal against a judgment and decree?
  • Whether the involvement of colossal public funds justifies judicial indulgence for procedural lapses and incompetent handling of litigation by the Advocate General's office?
  • Is the government entitled to special leniency in condoning delays or procedural errors due to the alleged incompetence of its state counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh & Another vs Abdul Raheem Khan & Others2020 YLR 1799, 2019 SHC 332 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-03Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Member vs Muhammad Azam2019 CLC 1356, 2019 LHC 1600, 2019 PLJ Lahore 559 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-06Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Shukar Din and others2021 [M] C L R 611, 2019 MLD 1836 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-01Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and one other vs Manzoor Hussain, etc2020 MLD 719, 2020 PLJ Lahore 83, 2019 LHC 4072 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-03Read full judgment →
• Progressive Friends Foundation (Guarantee) Limited vs Mubasher2021 P C T L R 325, 2019 CLD 916 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Professor Rehmatullah Khan, Resident of Irfan Flats, Opposite Haji Gul Plaza, Bypass road, Mardan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through its Chief Secretary and others2019 PHC 70, 2019 PLC (C.S) 1370, 2019 PHC 52 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-27
  constitutional petitionappointmentdeputationlocus poenitentiaevested rightrescission of orderBoard of Intermediate and Secondary Education
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the revised summary approved by the Chief Minister and the consequential notification recalling his appointment as Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Kohat, as illegal and without lawful authority. The core legal question revolved around whether the approval of the Chief Minister regarding an appointment can be reviewed or rescinded upon the recommendation of the Minister concerned, and whether such an appointment creates a vested right before being acted upon. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the competent authority is empowered to vary, rescind, or cancel an order before it has been acted upon. Furthermore, the Court established that internal departmental correspondence regarding deputation does not create a vested right, and once an appointment order is acted upon and the incumbent assumes charge, valuable rights accrue which are protected under the principle of locus poenitentiae.

  Questions settled

  • Whether approval of the Chief Minister can be reviewed and rescinded upon the recommendation of the Minister-in-Charge before being acted upon?
  • Does internal correspondence regarding an appointment on deputation create a vested right in favour of a recommendee?
  • Can an appointment order that has already been acted upon and assumed by an incumbent be rescinded under the principle of locus poenitentiae?
  Read full judgment →
• Professor Rehmatullah Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PHC 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-27Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Ijaz Ahmad etc vs Province of Punjab etc2019 PLC (C.S.) 1487, 2019 LHC 671 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-13
  constitutional petitionappointment of Vice ChancellorSearch Committeerecruitment processjudicial reviewabuse of process of lawcosts
  Summary & questions settled

  By way of a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioners challenged the recruitment process for the post of Vice Chancellor at the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. The petitioners asserted that the newly constituted Search Committee acted illegally by endorsing the recommendations of the previous Search Committee without holding fresh interviews, allegedly violating a prior High Court directive. The respondents maintained that the court's earlier decision granted the new Search Committee full discretion to either adopt the existing pool of candidates and process or re-initiate recruitment. The High Court examined the precedent and held that no mandatory direction was issued to restart the process from scratch. As the new Search Committee had thoroughly evaluated the entire material and unanimously endorsed the prior recommendations, its actions complied with judicial directives. Finding the petition to be an abuse of process designed to delay the appointment, the court dismissed the petition with costs and directed the competent authority to finalize and notify the appointment of the highest-merit candidate within fifteen days.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a newly constituted Search Committee is required to re-interview candidates if a prior judicial order permits it to exercise discretion over existing recruitment processes?
  • Whether repetitive constitutional petitions challenging the same recruitment process constitute an abuse of process of law warranting the imposition of costs?
  • Whether the competent authority must notify the highest-merit candidate recommended by a Search Committee unless cogent written reasons exist to withhold appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Abdul Waheed vs Rector, Comsats Institute of Information2019 [M] C.L.R. 595 · Islamabad High Court
  contractual employmentmaster and servantwrongful terminationdisciplinary inquirystigmawrit jurisdictionmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the termination of the petitioner’s employment contract with the COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT) and the subsequent dismissal of his departmental appeal. The core legal question concerns whether a contractual employee can be terminated on grounds of misconduct without a formal inquiry, and whether such termination, if stigmatizing, is sustainable without adhering to the CIIT Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Statutes, 2006. The Court held that while contractual employment is generally governed by the master-servant doctrine, a distinction exists between simpliciter termination and termination based on misconduct. The Court ruled that where termination is predicated on allegations of misconduct, it stigmatizes the employee, thereby necessitating a regular inquiry in accordance with the relevant disciplinary statutes. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned termination and appellate orders, emphasizing that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair opportunity to defend themselves against allegations of misconduct before being condemned. The employer remains at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contractual employee be terminated for misconduct without a regular inquiry?
  • Does a termination order based on allegations of misconduct carry a stigma that requires a formal disciplinary inquiry?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against the termination of a contractual employee when the termination order is stigmatizing?
  • Does contractual employment automatically convert to regular employment by the mere efflux of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Premier Battery Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Karachi Water and Sewerage2019 CLC 583 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-12Read full judgment →
• Port Grand Limited vs K-Electric Limited through Chief Executive Officer2019 [M] C.L.R. 1624, 2019 CLC 133 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-12Read full judgment →