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.

• Pir Noroz Ali Shah vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 457 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-30
  kidnapping for ransomretracted confessionidentification paradepolice custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the conviction of appellants by the Anti-Terrorism Court for kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the retracted confessions, the reliability of the identification parade, and the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery of the abductee. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the mode and manner of the raid, noting the absence of crucial police daily diaries and independent witnesses. The Court further ruled that the confessions were involuntary, as the accused remained in prolonged police custody, and the Magistrate failed to provide sufficient time for reflection, violating established procedural safeguards. Additionally, the identification parade was found to be legally worthless due to significant delays and the exposure of the accused to the complainant while in custody. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, affirming that any doubt in the prosecution's evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce police daily diaries regarding the constitution and movement of a raiding party create fatal doubts in the prosecution's case?
  • Is a confession recorded after prolonged police custody and without sufficient time for reflection considered voluntary and admissible?
  • Does an identification parade conducted after significant delay, where the accused were exposed to the complainant, possess any evidentiary value?
  • Is the failure to collect call data records fatal to a charge of kidnapping for ransom when the demand for ransom is a central allegation?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Jalal Rahman Shah vs Irfan Khan and others2019 CLC 1124, 2019 PHC 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-09Read full judgment →
• Pir Farman Ali Shah vs Yousaf Khan and others2020 KLR Criminal Cases 64, 2019 MLD 1622, 2019 PHC 160 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
• Pir Farman Ali Shah and 10 others vs Yousaf Khan and 4 others2019 MLD 1622 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-04-09
  Illegal Dispossession Actappeal against acquittalvague police inquiryde novo trialprocedural irregularityprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bannu, dismissing a private complaint under sections 3, 7, and 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and acquitting the respondents. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of an appeal against acquittal under the Illegal Dispossession Act and the legality of the trial court's proceedings initiated on a vague police inquiry report without recording statements under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that an appeal against acquittal is maintainable under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 read with section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and that failure to record preliminary statements under section 200, Cr.P.C. along with a defective and perfunctory police inquiry renders the trial proceedings and acquittal order null and void. The court laid down the principle that a private complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards, including an in-depth police inquiry and recording of statements under section 200, Cr.P.C., failing which the matter warrants a remand for a de novo trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against acquittal is maintainable under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Is it mandatory to record the statement of a complainant under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 upon receiving a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • What is the legal effect of a vague and perfunctory police inquiry report submitted pursuant to a private complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Bux Samoon and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others2019 P Cr. LJ 1107 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-15
  post-arrest bailcorruptionembezzlementNational Accountability Ordinance 1999prohibitory clauseaccountability courtmisuse of authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitution petitions filed by several petitioners seeking post-arrest bail in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference pending before an Accountability Court. The petitioners were accused of corruption and corrupt practices, specifically the embezzlement of government funds amounting to Rs. 678.946 million through the issuance of fake and bogus PLA cheques, the use of dummy contractors, and the misuse of official authority. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the evidence of their involvement and the nature of the charges. The court held that the petitioners were prima facie connected to the commission of the offence, which falls under the prohibitory clause of the relevant accountability laws. Furthermore, the petitioners failed to provide a tentative accounting for the significant assets unearthed during the investigation. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petitions, emphasizing that courts must apply accountability laws rigidly at the bail stage due to the severe threat corruption poses to the state economy and public welfare. The trial court was directed to conclude proceedings within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to account for assets unearthed during a NAB investigation constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Should accountability laws be applied with greater rigidity at the bail stage when the accused is charged with large-scale embezzlement of public funds?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage in cases involving corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Pio Rehman vs Safeer Badshah etc2019 PHC 272, 2020 YLR 1827 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-07Read full judgment →
• Phoenix Security (Pvt) Limited vs Pir Muhammad & others2020 PLC 44, 2020 PSC 470, 2020 SCMR 132, 2019 SCP 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-03
  security guardswatchmanweekly holidaysovertime wagesdouble ratepayment of wagesstatutory exclusion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a dispute regarding the final settlement of dues of retired security guards employed by the petitioner. The respondents filed applications under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, claiming unpaid wages for weekly holidays and overtime at double the rate of wages. The Authority allowed the claims, which were subsequently modified by the Labour Court and further reduced by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The High Court restored the Labour Court's decision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan was called upon to determine whether the West Pakistan Shops & Establishments Ordinance, 1969 applied to security guards, and whether the respondents were entitled to double wages for weekly holidays and overtime under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Court held that security guards are synonymous with 'watchmen' and are excluded from the 1969 Ordinance under Section 5(1)(ix). Furthermore, the 1968 Ordinance does not prescribe double rates for weekly holidays or overtime, and the respondents failed to prove any contract, custom, or usage to that effect. The Court allowed the appeals, modifying the High Court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the term 'watchman' under Section 5(1)(ix) of the West Pakistan Shops & Establishments Ordinance, 1969 includes a security guard?
  • Can the definition of 'wages' in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 be used to interpret the term 'wages' under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Are employees governed by the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 entitled to double the rate of wages for weekly holidays and overtime in the absence of a specific contract, custom, or usage?
  Read full judgment →
• Pharma Bureau: In the matter of vs N/A2021 P C T L R 910, 2019 CLD 1152 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2019-08-06Read full judgment →
• Pfizer Pakistan Private Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2019 MLD 1849, 2019 SHC 100 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-16
  drug pricingconstitutional jurisdictionstatutory appellate remedyinterim reliefancillary powersDrug Regulatory Authority of Pakistanadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged a notice and SRO issued by the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) enforcing drug price reductions. The petitioners contended that the impugned instruments violated the Drugs Pricing Policy 2018 and prior Supreme Court directions. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court should exercise constitutional jurisdiction in pricing disputes and whether a statutory appellate forum, lacking express provisions for interim relief, could grant such relief pending appeal. The Court held that, pursuant to Supreme Court directives, the statutory appellate mechanism must be exhausted, and thus declined to exercise constitutional jurisdiction. Regarding interim relief, the Court established the principle that a forum empowered to grant final relief inherently possesses the ancillary or incidental power to grant interim relief, even in the absence of express statutory provisions, to ensure the effective exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioners to pursue their appeals before the appellate board, which was mandated to hear and determine applications for interim relief expeditiously in accordance with these established legal principles.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statutory appellate forum have the power to grant interim relief if the governing statute does not expressly provide for it?
  • Should a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction when an alternative statutory appellate remedy is available?
  • Is the power to grant interim relief an ancillary power to the main appellate jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Petroleum Exploration (Private) Limited vs Federal Government of Pakistan2019 IHC 168 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-04Read full judgment →
• Pervez Ali vs Razia Begum2020 YLR 188, 2019 PHC 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-30Read full judgment →
• Pervez Ali vs Mst. Razia Begum and 2 others2019 PLJ Peshawar 182 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-30Read full judgment →
• Perveen Shoukat vs Privince of Sindh and others2019 PLD Supreme Court 710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-06
  missing personpresumption of deathfamily pensionburden of proofconstitutional petitionprobable time of death
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition, converted into an appeal, addresses the determination of the probable time of death of a missing person for the purpose of calculating family pension benefits. The husband of the petitioner was kidnapped in May 1999 and remained untraced, leading the petitioner to obtain a declaration of his death under Article 124 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The core legal question was whether Article 124 prescribes or helps determine the exact date or probable time of death within the statutory seven-year waiting period, or whether such a date must be independently inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court held that Article 124 merely creates a legal presumption that a missing person is dead after seven years but does not fix the date or time of death, which must be determined independently based on evidence and surrounding circumstances. The Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court judgment, and directed that the family pension be calculated from the probable date of death inferred around the lodging of the FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 124 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 help in determining the probable time of death of a missing person within the statutory seven-year period?
  • Can the date of death of a missing person be presumed to be the exact day the seven-year statutory period expires?
  • How is the probable time of death of a missing person to be ascertained when no direct evidence of death is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Khan vs Federation Of Pakistan & Others2019 SHC 594 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24
  reinstatementRemoval from Service Ordinanceregular inquiryde novo inquiryaudi alteram partemback benefitsunreasoned order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an employee of Jamshoro Power Company Limited seeking reinstatement in service following his termination under Section 3(i) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000. The legal questions before the High Court were whether a major penalty of removal from service could be lawfully imposed without conducting a regular inquiry and whether an unreasoned order rejecting a departmental appeal was legally sustainable. The Sindh High Court held that dispensing with a regular inquiry prior to imposing a major penalty and failing to assign reasons in an appellate order violated the principles of natural justice and Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the High Court directed the competent authority to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. However, the respondents were granted liberty to initiate de novo inquiry proceedings against him in accordance with law, with the entitlement to back benefits made conditional upon the outcome of such inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can a major penalty of removal from service be lawfully imposed on an employee without conducting a regular inquiry?
  • Is an unreasoned order passed in a departmental appeal legally sustainable under Article 10-A of the Constitution?
  • Does the dispensation of a regular inquiry in disciplinary proceedings imposing a major penalty violate the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Hussain and another vs Mian Khurram Rasool2019 CLC 2027, 2019 SHC 240 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-19Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ahmed, etc vs Sultan Tipu Sarwar, etc2020 YLR 461, 2019 LHC 3442 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-14Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Afzal vs Mehwish and two others2019 LHC 3666, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 325, 2020 PLD Lahore 160 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-31Read full judgment →
• Peoples Steel Mills Limited vs Commissioner, Corporatization and Compliance Department2021 P C T L R 246, 2019 CLD 1219 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-04-19Read full judgment →
• Pehliwan Ahmed Gopang vs The State and others2019 P Cr. L J 567 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-09
  registration of FIRtortuous actionsuit for damagesefficacious remedycriminal miscellaneous applicationcompensation for loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shikarpur, which dismissed the applicant's petition filed under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicant sought the registration of an FIR against a car driver and a Station House Officer (SHO) following an incident where a car fell into a pond, causing the death and injury of the applicant's buffaloes. The core legal question was whether the court should direct the registration of an FIR or if alternative remedies were more appropriate given the nature of the grievance. The High Court held that the applicant's primary grievance regarding the loss of his cattle and the desire for financial compensation is essentially a civil matter. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that lodging an FIR would not provide the compensation sought. The key principle laid down is that where a grievance is primarily based on a claim for damages or compensation for loss, the appropriate and efficacious remedy is a civil suit for damages (tortuous action) rather than criminal proceedings, especially when the incident does not clearly attract penal provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Is the registration of an FIR the appropriate remedy when the primary grievance is a claim for financial compensation for property loss?
  • Can a court dismiss a petition under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the grounds that an alternative civil remedy is available?
  • Does a claim for damages arising from an accident constitute a valid ground for directing the registration of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Parveen Shoukat vs Province of Sindh and others2019 SCP 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-06
  missing personpresumption of deathfamily pensionburden of proofprobable time of deathconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought family pension following the disappearance and subsequent statutory declaration of death of her husband, a government employee who was kidnapped in May 1999. A declaration of death was obtained under Article 124 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The core legal question concerned whether Article 124 establishes a presumption as to the exact date of death upon the expiry of the seven-year period, or whether the probable time of death must be inferred independently from the facts and circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court held that Article 124 merely creates a legal presumption of death after seven years without fixing the date or probable time of death within that period. The Court ruled that the probable time of death must be determined based on the specific circumstances of disappearance, such as the filing of the First Information Report and subsequent events. Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeal, directing that the family pension be calculated from the date the FIR was lodged rather than the date of disappearance or the expiry of the seven-year period.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 124 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 create a presumption regarding the exact date or probable time of death of a missing person?
  • How is the probable time of death of a missing person determined when a declaration is sought under Article 124 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • From what date should family pension be calculated in the case of a missing government employee declared dead under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Parveen Shad and 36 others vs Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab and 13 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 83 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  pay protectioncontract employeesregularization of serviceservice tribunaldiscriminationinitial appointmentannual increments
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment disposes of thirty-seven service appeals filed under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, by employees aggrieved by the refusal of the Chief Secretary, Punjab, to grant them pay protection for the period they served on a contract basis before their services were regularized. The core legal question involves whether contract employees, upon regularization of their services, are entitled to pay protection including the annual increments earned during their contractual period, and whether denying this benefit constitutes unlawful discrimination given that similar benefits were granted to employees in other government departments. The Tribunal held that regularization is confirmation of an existing employment rather than initial recruitment, and employees are entitled to service benefits such as pay protection and increments from the date of initial appointment. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the Chief Secretary and accepted the appeals, ruling that the appellants are entitled to pay protection at par with similarly placed civil servants in other departments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employees upon regularization of their services are entitled to pay protection for the period served on a contract basis?
  • Does the regularization of service constitute an initial recruitment or the confirmation of an existing employment?
  • Whether denying pay protection to certain regularized employees while granting it to similarly placed employees in other departments constitutes unlawful discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Parveen Akhtar vs WAPDA & Others2019 SC AJK 44 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• Paramount Spinning Mills Limited vs Bank of Punjab2019 SHC 420 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-25Read full judgment →
• Palakom Abdul Rahiman vs The Station House Officer2019 P.S.C.(Crl.) 906 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-04-09
  common intentioncommon objectmurderjoint liabilitySection 34 IPCSection 149 IPCcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of two appellants for the murder of a father and son, following a dispute over the removal of a religious leader at a mosque. The core legal question was whether the appellants could be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, despite the trial court's finding that the charge of unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 was not established. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the failure to establish a common object under Section 149 does not preclude a conviction under Section 34, provided the evidence discloses a common intention. The Court affirmed that Section 34 is a rule of evidence regarding joint liability rather than a substantive offense. It held that common intention can be inferred from the circumstances, such as the exhortation to attack and the subsequent joint assault with weapons. Consequently, the conviction and life sentences were upheld, as the appellants’ actions demonstrated a shared intent to cause fatal injuries.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 if the charge of unlawful assembly under Section 149 is not established?
  • Is Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 a substantive offense or a rule of evidence?
  • Does the failure to prove a common object under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 preclude a conviction based on common intention?
  • Can common intention be inferred from the circumstances of the case even in the absence of direct proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation Limited vs Commissioner2021 P C T L R 328, 2019 CLD 1372 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-04-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. (PTCL)_ In the matter of vs N_a2021 P C T L R 882, 2019 CLD 116 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2018-09-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, PTA Headquarters, Islamabad vs Pakistan Mobile Communication Limited2019 PLJ SC 476, 2019 P.S.C 1318, 2019 SCMR 924, 2019 SCP 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-02
  telecommunication regulationappellate jurisdictionshow cause noticeadministrative lawexhaustion of remediesjudicial reviewPakistan Telecommunication Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the maintainability of an appeal filed before the High Court under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, challenging show-cause notices issued by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA). The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise appellate jurisdiction under Section 7(1) of the Act in the absence of a final decision or order by the Authority. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction is strictly contingent upon the existence of a final 'decision or order' of the Authority. As the respondent had only received show-cause notices and had failed to submit responses, no final order existed to be challenged, rendering the appeal before the High Court premature and incompetent. The Court established the principle that judicial intervention in administrative proceedings is impermissible until the administrative process has concluded with a final decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, directing that the respondent be granted a final opportunity to respond to the show-cause notices before the Authority proceeds to a final determination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a show-cause notice constitute a 'decision or order' appealable under Section 7(1) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996?
  • Can a High Court exercise appellate jurisdiction under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, in the absence of a final order from the Authority?
  • Does the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority have the legal power to conduct quality of service surveys under the Cellular Mobile Quality of Service Regulations, 2011?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Limited vs Competition Commission of Pakistan2019 CLD 538 · Competition Appellate Tribunal · 2018-11-07Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Collector Customs Central2020 P C T L R 627, 2019 PTD 1956, PTCL 2020 CL. 139, 2019 SCMR 1124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-18
  tax fraudadditional taxpetroleum products exportdiversion of consignmentsquestion of factSupreme Court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from concurrent findings of the departmental fora and the Tribunal holding the appellant, Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd., liable for the unlawful local diversion of petroleum products purportedly shipped for export to Afghanistan without payment of duties and taxes. Following show-cause notices and recovery proceedings, the appellant deposited the evaded duties and taxes, but the Tribunal further found the appellant guilty of tax fraud due to its knowledge of the diversion, justifying the imposition of additional tax and duty. The core legal question concerned the legality of imposing additional tax and additional duty under the relevant fiscal statutes based on factual findings of deliberate delay and tax fraud. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding tax fraud and deliberate delay cannot be assailed before this Court, particularly when no proper question of law relating to the said liability was framed or raised before the High Court. The key principle laid down is that pure findings of fact establishing tax fraud and deliberate delay in payment of duties cannot be reopened in the apex court absent a properly framed question of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pure finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal regarding tax fraud and deliberate delay be assailed before the Supreme Court?
  • Whether the imposition of additional tax and additional duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Sales Tax Act, 1990 is justified when petroleum products meant for export are diverted to the local market?
  • Does a reference application before the High Court constitute a valid challenge on a question of fact if no proper question of law is framed?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Refinery Ltd., Karachi vs Barrett Hodgson Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.2020 P SC 113, 2019 SCMR 1726 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-11
  appellate judgmentreasons for judgmentfirst court of factCode of Civil Procedureremandaffirmative judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing appeals and upholding judgments of a Single Judge. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court, acting as the first court of appeal and final court of fact, rendered a judgment in compliance with Rule 31 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by stating the points for determination, decisions, and reasons. The Supreme Court held that the impugned appellate judgment failed to conform to the mandatory requirements of Rule 31 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 because it merely reproduced arguments without analyzing or providing reasons for accepting or rejecting them, even in an affirmative judgment. The Court laid down the principle that a first court of appeal must explicitly state points for determination, decisions thereon, and reasons for its findings, ensuring due application of mind so that litigants and higher forums understand the basis of the decision, and such statutory duties cannot be dispensed with or passed on to higher courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a first court of appeal is required to state points for determination and reasons when agreeing with the trial court?
  • Does a judgment that merely reproduces arguments without stating reasons satisfy the requirements of Rule 31 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can the requirement of rendering a reasoned judgment be dispensed with in the case of an affirmative appellate judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Olympic Association vs Nadeem Aftab Sindhu etc2019 PLJ SC 348, 2019 SCMR 221, 2019 SCP 1, 2022 PSC 823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-01
  Writ petitionMaintainability of writPakistan Olympic AssociationPublic functionaryFunction testFundamental rights enforcementJudicial reviewSocieties Registration ActConstitutional jurisdictionPrivate body
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard appeals challenging a High Court judgment that declared elections of the Pakistan Olympic Association (POA) illegal, primarily addressing the maintainability of a writ petition against the POA. The core legal questions were whether the POA, an autonomous society, qualified as a 'person' performing public functions under Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitution, and if a writ was maintainable against it under Article 199(1)(c) for fundamental rights enforcement. The Court held that the POA did not satisfy the 'function test' for Article 199(1)(a) as it was not substantially controlled or funded by the Federal Government and did not exercise sovereign or public power. While acknowledging that Article 199(1)(c) has a wider scope and can apply to private bodies for fundamental rights enforcement, the Court found that the internal functioning of the POA, specifically its election method, did not involve a violation of any fundamental rights (Articles 9, 14, 17, 18, and 25 of the Constitution were deemed irrelevant). Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, concluding that a writ was not maintainable against the POA under either provision in the given circumstances. Aggrieved parties were advised to approach courts of plenary jurisdiction.

  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Oil Fields Pol House, Morgah, Rawalpindi vs Director General2019 CLD 464 · Punjab Environmental Tribunal · 2018-10-29Read full judgment →
• Pakistan National Shipping Corporation & others vs M/s. Coniston Limited2020 CLC 454, 2019 SHC 56 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-25Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company (Guarantee) Limited through Chief Executive and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Parliamentary Affairs and 4 others2019 CLD 277 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-05Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mobile Communication Limited vs Full Bench NIRC and others2019 IHC 12, 2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 77 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-08
  termination of serviceworkmanStanding Orders Ordinancemisconduct inquiryreinstatementback benefitsNIRC jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged concurrent orders by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which set aside the termination of the respondent's employment and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. The core legal questions were whether the termination of a permanent employee stating only that "services are no longer required" satisfies the statutory requirements of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether an employer can rely on allegations of misconduct in pleadings when the termination letter itself did not cite such grounds. The Court held that the termination was unlawful because the employer failed to explicitly state valid reasons in writing as mandated by Standing Order 12(3) of the 1968 Ordinance. Furthermore, because the employer's own pleadings revealed the true reason for termination was alleged misconduct, the failure to conduct an inquiry under Standing Order 15 rendered the dismissal void. The Court affirmed that beneficial labor legislation cannot be overridden by private employment contracts and that the nature of duties, not designation, determines "workman" status.

  Questions settled

  • Does a termination letter stating only that 'services are no longer required' satisfy the requirements of Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can an employer terminate a permanent employee for misconduct without conducting an inquiry as prescribed by Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the designation of an employee determine their status as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can parties contract out of the beneficial provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mobile Communication Limited vs Abrar Ahmed and 4 others2019 CLD 578 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-20
  Intra-Court AppealBTS towerretrospective effectcondonation of delayenvironmental protectionInitial Environmental ExaminationEnvironmental Impact Assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal was filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 challenging an order of a learned Single Judge who had suspended the operation of the appellant's BTS tower in a residential area for lacking required approvals and NOCs under the applicable policy and regulations. The primary legal questions concerned whether the Punjab Environmental Protection Base Transceiver Station (BTS) Regulations 2012 and the BTS Tower Policy 2013 could be applied retrospectively to a BTS tower erected and operating since 2005, and whether statutory requirements under the environmental laws were violated. The Division Bench accepted the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The Court held that subordinate legislation and administrative policies do not operate retrospectively to render prior installations illegal, and that at the time of the tower's installation, it was not covered by Schedules requiring mandatory IEE/EIA clearance under the relevant 2000 Regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Punjab Environmental Protection Base Transceiver Station (BTS) Regulations 2012 and the BTS Tower Policy 2013 be applied retrospectively to telecommunication towers installed prior to their enactment?
  • Whether the installation of a BTS tower in 2005 required mandatory Initial Environmental Examination or Environmental Impact Assessment approval under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency Review of Initial Environmental Examination and Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2000?
  • Can delay in filing an Intra-Court Appeal be condoned when the certified copy was prepared and delivered months after the nominal date of the impugned order?
  • What is the statutory forum of appeal available to a party aggrieved by an order passed by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding a BTS tower application?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs Province of Sindh and others2020 PLD Sindh 99, 2019 SHC 160 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-22Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mercantile Exchange Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue -PTCL 2019 CL. 298, 2019 PTD 1463, 2019 SHC 46 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, Islamabad vs Shahida Islam Medical2019 PLJ Lahore 677, 2019 LHC 2227, 2019 CLC 1761, 2022 PCTLR 155 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-24Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, Islamabad vs Maleeha Syed etc2020 [M] CLR 655, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 98, 2020 PLD Lahore 16, 2019 LHC · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-05Read full judgment →
• Platinum Pharma Workers Union vs Rtu etc.2019 PLJ Tr.C. (NIRC) 91 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-05-17
  trade union registrationcancellation of registrationdirectory vs mandatory provisionsindustrial relationsstatutory interpretationdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order by the Registrar of Trade Unions (RTU) cancelling the registration of the Platinum Pharma Workers Union. The appellant contended that the cancellation was unlawful because the RTU failed to execute the order within seven days of receiving permission from the Commission, as allegedly required by Section 11(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The respondent argued that the union obtained registration through fraud and misrepresentation, and that the seven-day time limit in the statute was directory rather than mandatory. The Commission held that the time limit prescribed in Section 11(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is directory, not mandatory, because the statute does not specify any legal consequences or invalidity for non-compliance within that period. Consequently, the delay in passing the cancellation order did not render the RTU's action void. The Commission affirmed the cancellation, noting that the RTU had followed the due process of law by seeking and obtaining the necessary permission from the Commission before proceeding. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Is the seven-day time limit for the Registrar of Trade Unions to cancel a union registration under Section 11(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure of a public official to perform a statutory duty within a prescribed time limit render the act void if the statute provides no consequence for non-compliance?
  • Can a trade union's registration be cancelled if it was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Match Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Assistant2019 PTCL .CL 453, 2019 PTD 1299, 2019 SCMR 906 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-11
  Sales Tax ExemptionSRO 77(1)/95Interpretation of ProvisoFiscal StatuteConstitutional PetitionTax ReferenceFactual DisputeAppellate TribunalImported Plant and MachineryLocally Manufactured Plant and Machinery
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard two appeals from the Peshawar High Court concerning the denial of sales tax exemption under SRO 77(1)/95. The primary legal question was the proper interpretation of the first proviso to SRO 77, specifically whether the exemption was limited to industrial units that opened letters of credit for imported plant and machinery, or if it also applied to units using locally manufactured plant and machinery. The Court held that the first proviso was a "true" proviso, intended only to carve an exception by limiting the benefit for units with imported machinery to those opening LCs by a specific date, and did not restrict the main exemption to only imported machinery. Consequently, the High Court's interpretation was deemed incorrect. C.A. 243/2013 (arising from a tax reference) was allowed, as the High Court erred in treating factual disputes in a tax reference similarly to a writ petition, failing to appreciate that material misreading of evidence by the Appellate Tribunal constituted a question of law. However, C.A. 94/2012 (from a constitutional petition) was dismissed because, despite the High Court's misinterpretation of the SRO, the High Court was justified in denying relief due to unresolved material factual controversies and the taxpayer's failure to adequately respond to specific factual allegations.

  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and another vs Zaeem Aziz2019 PLC (C.S.) 194, 2018 SCMR 1944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-09-06
  compulsory retirementRemoval from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000competent authorityservice lawdisciplinary proceedingscorporate governanceadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment that set aside a compulsory retirement order issued against a Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) employee under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The High Court had invalidated the retirement order, reasoning it was issued by an incompetent authority because the Chairman/CEO did not personally sign the communication letter, despite the decision being reached in an Employee Leadership Team (ELT) meeting. The Supreme Court allowed the Corporation's appeal, holding that the decision was substantively made by the competent authority, who chaired the ELT meeting and explicitly endorsed the decision in writing. The Court clarified that the communication of such orders by an HR Manager is standard corporate practice and does not invalidate the underlying decision-making process. The Court emphasized that procedural form should not prevail over substance where the competent authority has applied its mind and authorized the action. Consequently, the Court upheld the compulsory retirement, finding no prejudice caused to the employee by the administrative manner in which the decision was communicated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the communication of a compulsory retirement order by an HR Manager invalidate the order if the decision was made by the competent authority?
  • Can a decision made by a competent authority in a collective meeting be considered valid if the authority later endorses the minutes?
  • Is an act by a legally incompetent authority capable of being subsequently ratified by the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) through its2020 P SC 732, 2020 SCMR 206, 2019 SCP 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-01
  FM radio licensePEMRAlicense renewal feeradio frequency spectrumregulatory interpretationadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns seven petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the determination of renewal license fees for FM radio operators under the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulation Authority Ordinance, 2002. The core legal question was whether the renewal fee should be based on the last approved bidding price for the relevant area or the original bidding price paid by the licensee. The Supreme Court held that the regulatory framework, specifically Regulation 9(2) of the Radio Broadcast Station Operation Regulations, 2012, mandates that the renewal fee be the 'prevailing applicable license fee'—interpreted as the last bidding price approved by PEMRA for the respective category and area—plus the annual inflationary rate set by the State Bank of Pakistan. The Court clarified that where no subsequent bidding has occurred, the fee is the original bidding price plus the inflationary rate. The judgment establishes that 'prevailing' implies the most current market-determined price, ensuring transparency and equity in the allocation of limited radio frequency spectrum.

  Questions settled

  • How is the renewal license fee for FM radio determined under the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulation Authority Ordinance, 2002?
  • Does the term 'prevailing applicable license fee' in the context of license renewal refer to the last approved bidding price or the original bidding price?
  • What is the role of the Frequency Allocation Board in the allocation of radio frequencies for broadcast services?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Cycle Industrial Cooperative Society, Lahore vs Collector2020 P C T L R 829, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 2325 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-06-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Credit Rating Agency Limited vs Public Offering and Regulated Persons Department, SECP, Islamabad and another2021 P C T L R 341, 2019 CLD 721 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-04-05Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Bar Council through Chairman and others vs Federal2019 SCMR 389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-08-31
  legal educationPakistan Bar CouncilRule of Lawlaw collegesaffiliationHigher Education Commissionlegal professionbar entrance examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, addressed the declining standards of legal education and the proliferation of substandard law colleges in Pakistan. The core legal question concerned the enforcement of regulatory standards for legal education and the compliance of law colleges with the Pakistan Bar Council’s (PBC) rules. The Court held that the judiciary has a constitutional duty to uphold the Rule of Law, which necessitates a competent legal profession, and that the PBC and Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HECP) are the primary regulators of legal education. Consequently, the Court issued comprehensive directions, including the mandatory implementation of Law Admission Tests (LAT) and Law Graduate Assessment Tests (LAW-GAT), the prohibition of evening classes, the restriction of LL.M. and Ph.D. admissions, and the specification of territorial jurisdictions for affiliating universities. Furthermore, the Court ordered the disaffiliation or closure of non-compliant institutions. The key principle laid down is that legal education is a matter of public interest, and the Bar and Bench must collaborate to ensure that law degree-awarding institutions adhere to stringent quality standards to safeguard the integrity of the legal profession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Pakistan Bar Council have the authority to set binding standards for legal education that prevail over conflicting rules of affiliating universities?
  • Can the Supreme Court issue specific regulatory directions to law colleges and universities to enforce standards of legal education under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Are law colleges required to maintain specific infrastructural and faculty standards to remain affiliated and authorized to confer law degrees?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Airline Pilots' Association vs Pakistan International Airlines2019 SHC 398 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Airline Pilots Association and others vs Pakistan International2019 SCMR 278, 2019 SCP 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-16
  pension calculationmaster and servantstatutory ruleswrit jurisdictionlachesservice grievancetrust deedmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants, retired pilots and flight engineers of Pakistan International Airline Corporation (PIAC), challenged the calculation of their pensionary benefits, seeking the application of a formula from a 1980 Trust Deed. The core legal questions involved whether a trust deed rescinded by Martial Law Regulation No. 52 of 1981 could be revived for pension calculations and whether the relationship between PIAC and its employees was governed by statutory rules or the principle of 'master and servant'. The Supreme Court held that the 1980 Trust Deed stood rescinded by MLR-52 and was subsequently replaced by various administrative orders and pension schemes. Furthermore, the Court observed that since the terms and conditions of PIAC employees are not regulated by statutory provisions, the relationship is governed by the principle of 'master and servant', rendering a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution non-maintainable. The Court also noted that the petition suffered from laches as the appellants sought to enforce a revoked deed after several decades while having acquiesced to subsequent schemes.

  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Aeronautical Complex through its Chairman, Kamra & others vs Nazar-ul-Islam2019 P.S.C. 1725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service appealoption of service rulesdepartmental promotion examinationestoppelcivil servantPakistan Aeronautical Complex
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges a judgment of the Federal Services Tribunal that allowed the respondent's service appeal. The core legal question was whether an employee of the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex who failed to submit his option to be governed by the Civil Servants Act within the stipulated deadline, and who subsequently participated in a departmental promotion examination under the PAC Board Employees Rules, could later claim exemption from those rules and demand promotion based on seniority-cum-fitness. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a timely option exercising the right to remain under the civil servants regime, and by voluntarily participating in the promotion examination conducted under the 2012 Rules, the respondent was bound by the new rules and could not approbate and reprobate. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal was accordingly set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who fails to submit a timely option under Section 7 of the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Board Ordinance 2000 is deemed governed by the new service rules?
  • Can an employee participate in a departmental promotion examination under new service rules and subsequently challenge the applicability of those rules upon failing to secure promotion?
  • Does participation in a promotion exam preclude an employee from claiming past status as a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Aeronautical Complex through its Chairman, Kamra & others vs Nazar ul Islam2020 PLJ SC 223, 2019 SCMR 1933, 2019 SCP 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-08-19
  service tribunalservice rulesoption of rulesdepartmental promotion examinationestoppelcivil servantpromotionstatutory ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which had allowed the respondent's service appeal concerning promotion from BS-16 to BS-17 at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, Kamra. The core legal question was whether an employee who failed to exercise the statutory option to remain governed by the Civil Servants Act within the stipulated deadline, and who subsequently participated in promotion examinations under the new PAC Board rules, could later challenge those rules and claim promotion under the old civil servant rules. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a timely option, the employee was governed by the new service rules under the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Board Ordinance, 2000, and by participating in the departmental promotion examinations, was estopped from challenging the applicability of the said rules. The Court laid down the principle that an employee cannot blow hot and cold by voluntarily submitting to a new regulatory framework for promotion and subsequently turning to challenge it upon an unfavorable result.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who fails to submit an option within the prescribed time under Section 7 of the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Board Ordinance, 2000 is deemed governed by the new service rules?
  • Can an employee participate in a departmental promotion examination under new service rules and subsequently challenge the applicability of those rules upon failing to secure promotion?
  • Whether an employee is estopped from alleging non-applicability of new service rules after deriving benefits and submitting to examinations prescribed thereunder?
  Read full judgment →
• Pak Mohammad vs Mst. Rozeena etc2019 PHC 406, 2020 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
• Pak Meezan Securities (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner (Securities Market2021 P C T L R 241, 2019 CLD 848 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-02-07Read full judgment →
• Pak Gulf Construction Private Limited and another vs Abdul Hamid Baig2019 KLR Civil Cases 197 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• P.M. Packages & Others vs Silk Bank Limited2019 CLD 713, 2019 SHC 37 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Oxford University Press vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone-2019 PCTLR 1, 2019 PTD 523, 2019 SCMR 235, 2019 SCP 3 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-17
  Income tax exemptionEducational institutionUniversityTax interpretationExemption clauseProfit motiveSolely for educational purposesSupreme Court of PakistanIncome Tax OrdinanceBranch income
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed appeals concerning the tax exemption claim of Oxford University Press (OUP), a branch of Oxford University, under Clause (86) of Part I of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the exemption, granted to "any university or other educational institution established solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit," required the institution to conduct educational activities within Pakistan or precluded it from making any profits. The High Court had denied the exemption, interpreting the clause to imply a requirement for educational activities in Pakistan and equating "not for purposes of profit" with not making profits. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that OUP was entitled to the exemption. The Court ruled that the words "in Pakistan" could not be read into Clause 86, as the word "established" had no locational significance. Furthermore, "not for purposes of profit" meant that there should be no distribution or disbursement of profits to owners or stakeholders, not that profits could not be made. As long as profits remained with the institution and were not disbursed, its purpose remained solely educational, and "any income" from any source was exempt.

  Read full judgment →
• Ovex Technologies (Private) Limited vs PCM PK (Private) Limited and others2019 IHC 150 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-09-27Read full judgment →
• Overseas Pakistanis Foundation, Islamabad vs Joint. Management (Pvt.)2019 CLC 497, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 13 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-11-19Read full judgment →
• Orient Power Company (Private) Limited vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines2019 CLD 1082, 2019 LHC 2518, 2019 PLD Lahore 607, 2022 PCTLR 22 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-01Read full judgment →
• Orient Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd vs Government of Sindh Pakistan & others2019 SHC 166, 2022 PTD 1342 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-23Read full judgment →
• Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority, Islamabad vs The Commissioner2019 PTD 587 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-01-14
  income tax exemptionstatutory bodieslocal authorityretrospective effectFederal Governmenttax liabilityregulatory authoritiesIncome Tax Ordinance 2001
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns income tax references filed by various statutory bodies seeking exemption from income tax under Section 49 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal questions were whether these entities, established under specific statutes, qualify as the Federal, Provincial, or Local Government for tax exemption purposes, and whether Section 49(4) of the Ordinance, inserted via the Finance Act, 2007, possesses retrospective effect. The Court held that statutory bodies, such as regulatory authorities, are distinct legal entities and do not fall within the definition of "Federal Government," "Provincial Government," or "Local Government" (formerly "local authority") under Section 49(1) to (3). Consequently, they are not entitled to the claimed tax exemptions. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Article 165-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 renders the income of such corporations and bodies liable to tax regardless of the ultimate destination of such income. While the Court noted that Section 49(4) does not have retrospective effect, this determination was academic as these entities were never exempt from taxation under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Are statutory bodies established under federal or provincial laws entitled to income tax exemption under Section 49(1) to (3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does Section 49(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, have retrospective effect?
  • Do statutory regulatory authorities qualify as local authorities or local government for the purpose of tax exemption under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Is the income of a corporation or body established by or under a Federal or Provincial law liable to tax under Article 165-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Obaidullah Jan Babat, Member of Provincial Assembly Balochistan, Quetta and 2 others vs Speaker, Balochistan Assembly, Quetta and 2 others2019 PLJ Quetta 46 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-05-12Read full judgment →
• N/A vs Oil Companies Advisory Council (Ocac): In the matter of2021 P C T L R 1085, 2019 CLD 1285 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2019-06-20Read full judgment →
• N/A vs N/A2019 KLR Supreme Court 27, 2018 P.S.C. 1725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-07-12
  suo motupublic sector companyfiduciary dutyillegal appointmentcorporate governancerecovery of public fundsnepotismjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This suo motu matter concerned the legality of the appointment of Mr. Ata-ul-Haq Qasmi as Director and Chairman of Pakistan Television Corporation Limited (PTV), alongside the validity of his salary package and expenses. The Supreme Court examined whether PTV, a public sector company, performs state functions, thereby invoking jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The Court held that the appointment process was arbitrary, lacking transparency, and violated established procedures, including the requirement for open advertisement and selection committees. Consequently, the appointment was declared illegal. Furthermore, the Court found the remuneration and perks granted to Mr. Qasmi were unauthorized and excessive, constituting a breach of fiduciary duty. The Court ruled that public functionaries must exercise authority transparently and in accordance with the law. Holding specific government officials responsible for the illegal process, the Court ordered the recovery of Rs. 197,867,491/- from Mr. Qasmi and the responsible officials, and declared Mr. Qasmi ineligible for future directorships due to his lack of fiduciary behavior.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction under Article 184(3) to examine the appointment of a Director in a public sector company?
  • Is an appointment to a public sector company without open advertisement and adherence to prescribed selection procedures legally valid?
  • Can a Director of a public sector company be held personally liable for the recovery of public funds misused during their tenure?
  • What constitutes a 'tenure post' for the purpose of applying exemptions from open advertisement requirements in public sector appointments?
  Read full judgment →
• N/A vs Medical Colleges for Deceptive Marketing Practices: In the2019 CLD 785 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Hussain Shah vs The Chairman, National Accountability2019 MLD 680 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-23Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Bibi, etc. vs Zeeshan Ahmad, etc.2019 PLD Lahore 226, 2019 PLJ Lahore 417, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 437 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-10Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Bibi and another vs Zeeshan Ahmad and another2019 PLD Lahore 226 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-10Read full judgment →
• Notice in Pursuance of the Order Passed by This Court on 13.02.2019 _ed8fcb92PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-04
  falsus in uno falsus in omnibusperjuryfalse testimonysifting grain from the chaffappreciation of evidencecriminal jurisprudenceIslamic injunctionswitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter emanates from criminal proceedings where a witness, Khizar Hayat (PW8), gave patently false testimony on oath resulting in a wrongful capital conviction, prompting the Supreme Court of Pakistan to issue notice for perjury under Section 194 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question addressed is whether the maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' (false in one, false in everything) should continue to be held inapplicable in criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan, or whether it ought to be restored in light of legal history, statutory provisions concerning perjury, and Islamic injunctions. The Supreme Court held that the long-standing judicial practice of discarding the rule and 'sifting grain from the chaff' was based on pragmatic, subjective considerations introduced in 1951, which run counter to Islamic jurisprudence, constitutional mandates, and statutory penal provisions against false testimony. The Court authoritatively laid down that the rule 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is henceforth an integral part of Pakistan's criminal jurisprudence, requiring courts to mandatorily apply it and invariably initiate perjury proceedings against witnesses who resort to deliberate falsehood on material aspects.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the legal maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is applicable in criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Is a court obliged to sift the grain from the chaff when a witness has been found to have lied on a material aspect?
  • Does the continued inapplicability of the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus run counter to the Injunctions of Islam and the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Must courts mandatorily initiate proceedings for perjury against witnesses who depose falsely on material facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Notice in compliance with the order dated 12.02.2019 passed in Criminal2019 PLD Supreme Court 488, PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 153, 2019 P.S.C. (Crl) 332, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-22
  Criminal AppealAbduction for RansomMurderCircumstantial EvidenceTest Identification ParadeJoint IdentificationEvidentiary ValueBenefit of DoubtJudicial MagistrateAcquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal against convictions for abduction for ransom and murder, where the appellant was initially sentenced to death, later reduced to life imprisonment by the High Court. The core legal questions revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the validity of a test identification parade. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, finding the circumstantial evidence, including last-seen and recovery evidence, to be flawed or fabricated. Crucially, the test identification parade was deemed legally defective due to being a joint identification of multiple accused, a practice consistently disapproved by the Court. Consequently, the appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside, and he was acquitted. Separately, a notice issued to the Special Judicial Magistrate who conducted the parade was discharged after his explanation regarding lack of legal training and institutional support was found plausible. The Court reiterated and consolidated established principles for conducting proper test identification parades, emphasizing that such evidence is corroborative, not substantive, and joint identification is improper.

  Read full judgment →
• Nosher alias Nosha vs The State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1714, 2019 YLR 743, 2019 LHC 62 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-15
  narcotics recoverysafe custody of case propertydishonest improvementforensic analysiscriminal appealconviction modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, regarding the recovery of 1050 grams of charas. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the safe custody of the entire recovered contraband, given that only a sample was sent for forensic analysis. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of the bulk of the recovered narcotics, as the Moharrir's testimony regarding the receipt of the main parcel was a dishonest improvement over his earlier statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the conviction was maintained only to the extent of the quantity proven by the forensic report. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody of the bulk case property, and witnesses make material improvements to their statements to fill gaps, such evidence lacks legal value, necessitating the reduction of the conviction to the quantity of the sample actually analyzed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a witness's material improvement in testimony regarding the custody of case property render that evidence unreliable?
  • Can an accused be convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, if the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody of the bulk of the recovered narcotics?
  • Is it permissible to convert a conviction from Section 9(c) to Section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when only the sample quantity is proven?
  Read full judgment →
• Noorullah vs Inspector General of Police Sindh Karachi and 3 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 688 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-22
  deceased quotacivil servantappointmentSindh Civil Servants Ruleswrit petitionpolice recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the son of a deceased police employee seeking appointment under the deceased quota, as provided by the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The petitioner, having been rejected for the post of Police Constable due to a height deficiency, sought appointment as a Naib Qasid or in another suitable capacity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be denied appointment based on height deficiency for a specific post and an alleged lack of vacancies. The High Court held that the deficiency in height for the post of Police Constable did not disqualify the petitioner from appointment to other posts, such as Naib Qasid or Junior Clerk, under the deceased quota. The Court emphasized that the intent of Rule 11-A is to provide relief to the families of deceased civil servants, and the department is obligated to accommodate the legal heir. Consequently, the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner to an existing vacancy, fulfilling the statutory mandate of the Rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does a height deficiency for the post of Police Constable disqualify a candidate from appointment to other posts under the deceased quota?
  • Is the department legally obligated to accommodate a legal heir of a deceased civil servant under the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974?
  • Can the state deny appointment under the deceased quota indefinitely citing a lack of vacancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Nawaz vs The State2019 MLD 859 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-17
  murdercapital punishmentbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRsupplementary statementeyewitness credibilitycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for a murder committed in Sialkot. The core legal questions involved the credibility of delayed eyewitness accounts, the implications of a belated supplementary statement implicating an unnamed accused, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report, coupled with unexplained delays in recording Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of alleged eyewitnesses and their unnatural subsequent conduct, rendered the prosecution evidence untrustworthy. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, and consequently set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether inordinate delay in lodging an FIR without plausible explanation renders the prosecution case doubtful?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a late-recorded statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt entitle the accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when eyewitnesses exhibit unnatural passive conduct after witnessing a capital crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad etc vs Mst. Rabia Bibi etc2019 MLD 1286, 2019 LHC 1054 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-28Read full judgment →
• Noor Islam vs Ihsanullah etc2020 YLR 497, 2019 PHC 210 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-20Read full judgment →
• Noor Hassan alias Noora vs The State2019 MLD 1671, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1152, 2019 IHC 62 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-06-12
  benefit of doubtdefective investigationidentification paradedacoity with murdercriminal appealmurder referencefalse evidence by police
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment convicting the appellants, Noor Hassan alias Noora and Syed Naseer Ahmed Hashmi, under section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentencing them to death for dacoity and murder. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given the flawed and suspicious police investigations, lack of identification of the source of light during an early morning occurrence, contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and questionable identification parades. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to untrustworthy investigative testimony, delayed identifications without role attribution, and material contradictions on record. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted both appellants, answered the murder reference in the negative, and initiated proceedings against the investigating officers for fabricating evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution relies on dubious identification parades conducted long after the occurrence without role attribution?
  • Whether the failure of investigating officers to conduct fair and honest investigations entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Does contradictory medical and ocular evidence regarding the crime scene and injuries warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can courts initiate proceedings against investigating officers for giving false evidence when their testimonies are found to be fabricated?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Badshah through L.Rs vs United Bank Limited through its President &2019 PLC (C.S) 1433, 2019 LHC 587 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-08
  writ jurisdictionmaintainability of writ petitionprivate bankservice grievancepensionary benefitsfundamental rightsnon-statutory rulesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These Intra Court Appeals challenged a Single Judge's dismissal of writ petitions filed by retired employees of a private bank seeking the release of withheld increments and recalculation of pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a private bank for the enforcement of service-related claims. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that writ petitions are not maintainable against private banks for service grievances governed by non-statutory rules. It reasoned that while Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 allows for the enforcement of fundamental rights against private persons in specific, extraordinary circumstances—such as bonded labor or wrongful detention—it does not extend to private contractual service disputes. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is a public law remedy and cannot be invoked to resolve private employment disputes. Furthermore, it held that private banks do not qualify as 'persons' or 'authorities' performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or Province, and regulatory oversight by the State Bank of Pakistan does not alter this status.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a private bank for the enforcement of service or pensionary benefits?
  • Does the regulatory role of the State Bank of Pakistan bring a private bank within the definition of an authority performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation?
  • Can a constitutional petition be filed against a private person for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are service grievances governed by non-statutory rules amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Aurangzeb and 2 others vs Executive Director (Corporate2021 P C T L R 331, 2019 CLD 1028 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-04-15Read full judgment →
• Qasim Iqbal vs The State etc2019 PHC 168 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-20Read full judgment →
• Noor Alam Khan and another vs Senior Member Board of Revenue, Khyber2020 CLC 1453, 2019 PHC 400 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad vs The State, etc2019 PLJ SC Cr.C. 432, 2019 PSC (Crl.) 516, 2019 SCMR 1327, 2019 SCP 194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-17
  benefit of doubtmurder trialmedical evidencerigor mortisforensic recoveryocular accountacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, where the High Court had altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot and killed his betrothed inside her home after her family refused the marriage proposal. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established its case beyond a reasonable doubt given significant discrepancies between medical evidence and ocular account, as well as procedural anomalies regarding recoveries. The Supreme Court observed that the autopsy findings revealed recent sexual intercourse contrary to the claim that the deceased was a nubile virgin, development of complete rigor mortis in hot weather contradicted the alleged time of occurrence, and the matching empty casing was dispatched to the forensic lab a day prior to the appellant's arrest. Holding these doubts to be real rather than imaginary, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when medical evidence regarding the time of death directly contradicts the prosecution's ocular account?
  • What is the effect on prosecution evidence when forensic items are dispatched to the laboratory prior to the accused's arrest?
  • Whether substantial conflicts between autopsy findings and the prosecution's narrative entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad and another vs The State2019 YLR 2576 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-18
  murdercapital punishmentbenefit of doubtocular accountchance witnessmedical evidencetest identification paradecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Sections 302(b), 324, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for triple murder and attempted murder, resulting in death sentences and imprisonment terms. The core legal questions revolved around the reliability of the eyewitnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence, and the evidentiary worth of test identification parades and weapon recoveries in the absence of forensic matches. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses were chance witnesses whose non-injury during an indiscriminate shooting rendered their presence at the crime scene highly improbable under human conduct principles and Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The court further ruled that medical evidence alone cannot identify culprits, uncorroborated identification parades lose value when initial reports lack descriptive features, and unlinked recoveries carry no evidentiary weight. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that a single reasonable doubt arising from unnatural witness conduct entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, thereby accepting the appeal, setting aside the convictions, and answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the presence of eyewitnesses can be doubted when they remain completely uninjured despite being within close range of indiscriminate firing during a murder occurrence?
  • Can medical evidence alone serve as corroboratory proof to identify the culprits in the absence of reliable eyewitness accounts?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a test identification parade when the accused's name and descriptive features are omitted from the initial first information report?
  • Does an accused person become entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person?
  Read full judgment →
• Noman Javed vs Senior Member Board of Revenue through Secretary, Board of Revenue, Muzaffarabad and 9 others2019 P.S.C. 1541 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Noman Butt vs Mst. Aqsa and 3 others2019 CLC 1436 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-06Read full judgment →
• Noman alias Noma vs State etc.PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1198 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-17
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesfurther inquirychemical examiner reportcontraband weightfirst offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the alleged possession of 1265 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the ambiguity regarding the net weight of the recovered contraband and the absence of a chemical examiner's report. The Court held that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because it remained unclear whether the total weight included the packaging, which could potentially reduce the charge from Section 9(c) to Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Furthermore, the pending report from the Government Analyst created additional uncertainty. The Court established that where the prosecution's case requires further inquiry, the restrictive provisions of Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 do not bar the grant of bail, especially when the accused is a first offender and investigation is complete.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a chemical examiner's report regarding the nature of the recovered substance constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted in a narcotics case if there is ambiguity regarding whether the weight of the contraband includes the packaging material?
  • Are the restrictions on bail under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 applicable when a case qualifies for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Noman Ali Bhatti vs National Accountability Bureau and others2019 PLJ Karachi 106, 2019 YLR 668 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-03Read full judgment →
• Nizar Noor Ali vs Ameer Ali2020 CLC 254, 2019 SHC 230 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-08Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin Mansoori vs Riffat Shahnaz and 10 others2019 PLJ Karachi 100 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-19Read full judgment →
• Nizamu-din-Din vs The Province of Sindh Et others2019 SHC 292 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-22
  constitutional petitionservice tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceshow cause noticedisciplinary proceedingsmisconductbar of jurisdictioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a police officer, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, specifically a show cause notice for misconduct and the deletion of his name from an Upper School Course. The court evaluated whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable against a show cause notice and disciplinary actions involving terms and conditions of service in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212(2).

  The High Court held that disciplinary proceedings fall within the expression 'terms and conditions of service' of a civil servant. Under Article 212(2) of the Constitution read with Section 3(2) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973, the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over such service matters, completely ousting the jurisdiction of High Courts and Civil Courts. Furthermore, the court ruled that a show cause notice is merely an intimation to explain allegations and does not constitute a final adverse order or punishment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 199 regarding disciplinary proceedings of civil servants?
  • Can a civil servant challenge a show cause notice in a constitutional petition before the High Court?
  • Do disciplinary proceedings and eligibility for promotion courses fall under the terms and conditions of service within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Nizam-Ud-Din and 3 others vs The State through Advocate General,Aj&K, MuzaffarabadPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (AJK) 176, 2019 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 23 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-15
  criminal appealabsconding convictfugitive from justiceforgeryfrauddismissal of appealright of audience
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by appellants-convicts challenging their conviction and sentences for offences under sections 467/511, 468/511, 471/511, and 420/511 of the Azad Penal Code (A.P.C.), imposed by the Banks Special Court, Muzaffarabad. The appellants had been sentenced to imprisonment for attempting to commit fraud via a forged Mail Transfer Advice. Following their conviction, the appellants filed an appeal but subsequently absconded during the 2005 earthquake and failed to surrender or appear before the High Court for fourteen years, despite the issuance of warrants. The core legal question was whether an appellate court should entertain an appeal filed by a convict who has become a fugitive from justice and refuses to surrender. The Court held that a fugitive who absconds after conviction and fails to surrender forfeits their right to have their appeal heard. Relying on established precedents, the Court ruled that allowing such appeals would encourage the abuse of judicial process and undermine the administration of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the appellants' status as fugitives.

  Questions settled

  • Does a convict who absconds after filing an appeal forfeit their right to have the appeal heard?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal where the appellant has remained a fugitive for an extended period?
  • Is it permissible for an appellate court to keep an appeal pending sine die for an absconding appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Nishat Hotel and Properties Limited etc vs The Province of Punjab, etc2020 PCTLR 16, 2019 PLD Lahore 729, 2019 PTCL CL. 570, 2019 PTD 2050, 2019 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-19Read full judgment →
• Nishat Ahmad vs The State and another2020 YLR 2010, 2019 LHC 3246 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-25
  narcotic substancesforensic science agency reportgas chromatography-mass spectrometrybenefit of the doubtcriminal appealcharas recoverypolice official testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary reliability of a Forensic Science Agency report that lacked full testing protocols and confirmatory gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, as well as the procedural infirmities arising from the complainant's failure to register the FIR personally. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconclusive forensic evidence and glaring procedural contradictions, thereby extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that a Government Analyst's report under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 must detail full testing protocols and rely on confirmatory tests like GC-MS to sustain a conviction, and non-compliance renders the report unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Government Analyst report lacking full testing protocols can form the basis of a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is a confirmatory test such as Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry mandatory for the positive identification of a narcotic substance?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when the complainant deputes another person to register the FIR instead of proceeding to the police station himself?
  • Does the failure to produce a material eye-witness during trial vitiate the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 87 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-09-12
  concurrent sentencesfederal shariat courtreview of judgmentbeneficial interpretationseparate trialshardship casescriminal miscellaneous
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves a miscellaneous application filed through the jail authorities by the petitioner, Nisar, seeking an order under section 35(2) and section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for his sentences awarded in two separate trials to run concurrently. The core legal questions examined by the Federal Shariat Court were whether it possesses the jurisdiction to review its earlier judgment to grant this relief, and whether the facts and law permit the concurrent running of sentences awarded in separate trials. The Court held that it possesses absolute review jurisdiction under Article 203(E)(9) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and that an inadvertent omission by the court to grant concurrent sentences should not prejudice the accused. The ratio decidendi is that beneficial provisions like section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be interpreted liberally in favour of the convict to avoid undue hardship, especially when sentences arise from the same transaction. The Court accordingly accepted the application and ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have the power to review its own decisions or orders?
  • Can sentences awarded in separate trials be ordered to run concurrently under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an inadvertent omission by a court to direct sentences to run concurrently can be rectified at a later stage?
  • Should beneficial statutory provisions regarding sentencing be interpreted in favour of the accused to prevent undue hardship?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs Member Board of Revenue (Colonies), Punjab Lahore2019 CLC 46 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-19Read full judgment →
• Nijat vs The State2019 YLR 511 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-06-24Read full judgment →
• Nida Khuhro vs Moazzam Ali Khan and others2019 P.S.C. 1573, 2019 SCMR 1684, 2019 SCP 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-08-01
  election petitiondisqualificationconcealment of assetsfalse affidavitcorrupt practicereturned candidatefamily settlementbenami ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from the judgment of the Election Tribunal of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed the appellant's election petition challenging the election of Respondent No. 1 as a Member of the Provincial Assembly. The appellant contended that Respondent No. 1 failed to disclose his entire landholding and the agricultural assets of his minor children in his nomination papers, statement of assets, and sworn affidavit. Respondent No. 1 admitted the non-disclosure but argued that the omitted land was under the beneficial control and possession of his father, and that the omission was a bona fide error. The Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected this explanation, holding that because the proprietary rights, title, and interest in the land legally vested in Respondent No. 1 and his children, he was under a strict statutory and constitutional obligation to disclose them. The Court held that filing a false declaration and affidavit under oath constitutes a corrupt practice and triggers disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, annulled the election of Respondent No. 1, and directed the Election Commission of Pakistan to hold fresh elections.

  Questions settled

  • Does the nominal or beneficial control of land by a candidate's father excuse the candidate from disclosing that land in their statement of assets if the legal title vests in the candidate?
  • Whether the submission of a false statement of assets and liabilities under solemn affirmation in nomination papers constitutes a corrupt practice under the Election Act, 2017?
  • Can a candidate be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan for failing to disclose assets belonging to themselves and their minor children in a sworn affidavit?
  • Is the Supreme Court of Pakistan a 'Court of Law' capable of issuing a declaration of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Niazuddin vs The State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 790, 2019 YLR 2183, 2019 PHC 86 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-27Read full judgment →
• Niaz Wali alias Naz Ali vs Abizar and othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 545, 2019 PHC 372 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-03
  murder trialcapital punishmentbenefit of doubtchance witnessabscondencecontradictions in evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for murder, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and abscondence, given material contradictions regarding the time of reporting, presence of witnesses, and crime scene details. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of the alleged eye-witness was doubtful, the presence of the complainant at the scene was improbable, and the initial journey to the hospital was shrouded in mystery. The Court ruled that abscondence alone cannot substitute for direct, substantive evidence when the primary prosecution case is riddled with contradictions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the murder reference was answered in the negative, laying down the principle that absconsion is merely corroborative and cannot sustain a conviction when direct evidence fails.

  Questions settled

  • Can abscondence alone form the basis of a conviction when the primary prosecution evidence is doubtful and riddled with contradictions?
  • Does the testimony of a chance witness require strong independent corroboration to maintain a conviction on a capital charge?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when the initial journey to the hospital and the lodging of the FIR are shrouded in mystery and contradictions?
  • Whether material discrepancies regarding the crime scene and absence of supporting physical evidence vitiate the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad and another vs Zar Wali Khan and 4 others2019 YLR 2270 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-02
  acquittal appealidentification paradesupplementary statementnighttime occurrenceweapon recoveryFSL reportbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 17(2) and 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, delayed supplementary nomination statements, flawed identification parades, and manipulated weapon recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt, as the eye-witnesses could not have identified muffled-faced assailants during a nighttime incident in a fleeting glance, the identification parades violated established procedural safeguards, and the weapon and empty shell recoveries were tainted and maneuvered. The court laid down the principle that the injuries of a witness only prove presence at the scene and do not affirm credibility, that supplementary statements implicating accused persons must be discouraged, and that identification parades conducted without assigning specific roles or adhering to strict procedural rules lose evidentiary value.

  Questions settled

  • Does an injury sustained by a witness during an occurrence serve as affirmative proof of their credibility and truthfulness regarding the identity of the assailants?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted after a considerable delay and without assigning specific roles to the accused persons?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of weapon recoveries and matching forensic reports when the empty shells and weapons were sent together and manipulated?
  • What is the legal effect of nominating accused persons through a delayed supplementary statement of the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain alias Jagoo vs State2019 SHC 340 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-04
  death sentencelife imprisonmentmitigating circumstancesQatl-e-amdappellate reviewsentencing discretionjudicial caution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and a death reference arising from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his sister and the attempted murder of the complainant. The core legal question was whether the death sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate given the evidentiary circumstances. The Sindh High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of the injured eyewitness, which was supported by ancillary evidence. However, the Court modified the sentence of death to life imprisonment. The ratio of the decision is that where mitigating circumstances exist—such as the absence of prior enmity, the lack of recovery of the crime weapon, and reliance on a single eyewitness—judicial caution dictates imposing the alternative sentence of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. The Court emphasized the principle that even a single mitigating circumstance is sufficient to warrant life imprisonment over capital punishment, as it is better to respect human life than to risk executing an innocent person when doubts regarding the severity of the sentence exist.

  Questions settled

  • Is the existence of a single mitigating circumstance sufficient to justify awarding life imprisonment instead of the death penalty in a murder case?
  • Can a death sentence be modified to life imprisonment on appeal even if the conviction for murder is upheld?
  • Does the absence of enmity between parties and the lack of recovery of a crime weapon constitute sufficient grounds to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →