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.

• Mujahid Hussain vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others2019 SHC 342 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-28Read full judgment →
• Mujahid alias Ghulam Shabbir vs The State2019 P Cr. LJ 1701 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-04
  fair trialstatement of accusedcross-examinationremand of caseincriminating evidenceadditional evidencefundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under sections 302, 457, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Sessions Judge, Shikarpur. The core legal questions involved whether a trial can proceed without affording an opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness, and whether the failure to put incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court committed grave illegalities by denying the opportunity to cross-examine a key witness, thereby violating the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and by failing to put crucial incriminating evidence to the appellant in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The ratio decidendi is that un-confronted incriminating evidence cannot be used for conviction, and complete omission of cross-examination without legal justification causes a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for limited re-trial steps.

  Questions settled

  • Can an incriminating piece of evidence be used to convict an accused if it was not put to him during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether failure to provide an opportunity to cross-examine a material prosecution witness causes a mistrial requiring a remand of the case?
  • What is the scope and extent of the trial court's powers under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon or recall witnesses for a just decision of the case?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 encompass the effective testing of prosecution testimony through cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair, Principal Engineer, Pak. N.R.A. and 4 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and 3 others2019 PLJ Islamabad 45 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs The State2019 SHC 512 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair through Attorney vs Mst. Lala Rukh Samad Khan and 22019 YLR 2121 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair and another vs The State and another2019 SCMR 1210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-07-01
  abduction for ransombenefit of doubtcriminal appealtest identification paradeappreciation of evidenceacquittalanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for the abduction of the deceased for ransom and his subsequent murder, for which they were sentenced to death and life imprisonment by the Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question is whether the prosecution's evidence—comprising alleged ransom payments, identification of the accused, and recovery of the body—was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with significant doubts, including unexplained discrepancies in the date of the initial complaint, the implausible conduct of the accused in exposing themselves during ransom exchanges, and the failure of key witnesses to identify the appellants during a test identification parade. Furthermore, the Court found the evidence regarding the ATM transaction and the occupancy of the premises to be unreliable and fabricated. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, establishing the principle that where prosecution evidence is self-contradictory and lacks corroboration, it is unsafe to maintain a conviction, necessitating the benefit of the doubt to be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant discrepancy in the date of the initial complaint undermine the entire prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when key witnesses fail to identify the accused during a test identification parade?
  • Is a conviction safe when the prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of incriminating items and the occupancy of premises is found to be fabricated?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair and another vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1483 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-06-24
  Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Orderchain of custodysafe custodynarcotics recoverycriminal appealacquittalchemical examiner reportevidence evaluation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of hemp. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and secure transmission of the seized samples to the Chemical Examiner, and whether the prosecution evidence was consistent. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody, as the police did not account for the possession of the samples between the date of recovery and the date of delivery to the laboratory. Furthermore, the Court noted material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence regarding the vehicle's direction and the failure to distinguish the roles of the occupants. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must establish an unbroken, indubitable, and secure chain of custody for seized contraband samples; any lapse in this chain renders the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable and vitiates the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to prove the safe custody and secure transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner vitiate a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish an unbroken chain of custody for seized contraband from the time of recovery to the time of laboratory analysis?
  • Can material contradictions in prosecution testimony regarding the circumstances of a recovery lead to the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaryab Ali vs Ministry of Religious Affairs, through its2021 [M] C L R 489, 2019 PLJ Islamabad 175, 2019 PLC (C.S) 1361, KLR 2021 Civil · Islamabad High Court · 2019-04-24
  recruitment policylocal basis appointmentICT domicilecivil service rulesBPS-1 appointmentconstitutional interpretationadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the recruitment process for the post of Naib Qasids (BPS-1) in the Ministry of Religious Affairs, arguing that the department violated the advertisement's terms by appointing candidates from outside the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) despite a requirement for local candidates. The core legal question was whether government departments with jurisdiction restricted to the ICT are mandated to fill BPS-1 to BPS-15 posts primarily with local residents holding ICT domiciles. The Court held that under Rule 16 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, and the constitutional framework, such posts must be filled on a local basis. It emphasized that the "preference" for local candidates in the advertisement was not merely directory but mandatory, intended to ensure economic feasibility and administrative efficiency. The Court directed the Ministry to reconsider the hiring process within three months to prioritize local candidates with ICT domiciles, while refraining from immediately setting aside the existing appointments to allow for administrative correction.

  Questions settled

  • Are government departments with jurisdiction restricted to the Islamabad Capital Territory required to fill BPS-1 to BPS-15 posts on a local basis?
  • Does the term 'local basis' in the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973 mandate the recruitment of candidates holding an Islamabad Capital Territory domicile?
  • Can a government department disregard a requirement for local preference in recruitment advertisements for lower-grade posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs Federation of Pakistan through Chief Election2019 YLR 1357 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zakir Bandhani vs Muhammad Amir Bandhani and 14 others2019 MLD 1861 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahid vs Federation of Pakistan & 06 others2019 SHC 158 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-15
  civil servantterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of service tribunalconstitutional petitionreduction to lower posttransfer and postingdepartmental promotion committee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk, challenged an order downgrading his post to Lower Division Clerk and a subsequent corrigendum, arguing it was an illegal punishment imposed without disciplinary proceedings or a hearing under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal questions centered on whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable for a civil servant regarding terms and conditions of service in light of the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction, and whether the matter falls within the exclusive domain of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition as non-maintainable, holding that matters relating to terms and conditions of service, including disciplinary actions, promotions, reversions, and transfers, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 3 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The court laid down the principle that the constitutional bar under Article 212 strictly ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in service matters of civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of his service in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does reduction to a lower post constitute a major penalty under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • Whether a civil servant aggrieved by a final departmental order regarding service terms has an exclusive remedy before the Federal Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does a civil servant possess a vested right to remain posted on a particular post indefinitely under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahid Khan son of Ameer Ullah vs The State etc2019 PHC 244 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-09
  murderappellant acquittalnegative forensic reportpoisoningbenefit of doubtreappraisal of evidencelife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Muhammad Zahid Khan, for the murder of his wife under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a connected revision petition for sentence enhancement and an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony, corroborated motive, and positive forensic evidence regarding the cause of death. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the forensic science laboratory report regarding stomach and liver contents was negative for poison, the complainant's motive lacked evidentiary support, and other resident family members had not implicated the accused. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed both the sentence enhancement petition and the appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused, reiterating the principle that criminal liability cannot be sustained on presumptions and conjectures in the absence of reliable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained under Section 302(b) PPC when the forensic report for poison is negative and no direct eyewitness account is available?
  • Does the natural conduct of an accused husband in immediately shifting his deceased wife to the hospital and participating in funeral rites serve as a circumstance pointing towards his innocence?
  • Can a criminal conviction be based solely on uncorroborated motives and police statements without supporting direct or circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Trustees of the Port of Karachi & others2020 YLR 578, 2019 SHC 468 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf through Legal Heirs and 6 others vs Abdul Jabbar2019 YLR 1558 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousif vs The State2019 YLR 2128 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-01
  criminal appealmurderappraisal of evidenceeyewitness testimonymedical evidenceballistic reportrelated witnesseslife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Thatta, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that the appellant, along with co-accused, arrived at the complainant's land in a car, engaged in a quarrel regarding land ownership, and the appellant fired a single shot from a gun hitting the deceased on the head, resulting in his death. The core legal questions involved the appraisal of ocular testimony, the corroborative value of medical and ballistic evidence, and the explanation of delay in lodging the First Information Report. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and recoveries. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that minor discrepancies do not undermine the prosecution's case and that related witnesses cannot be discredited solely on the ground of relationship. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony of related and interested witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a murder trial?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report inherently render the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Whether a single gunshot attribution from a single barrel gun is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the failure of an accused to examine himself on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered in evaluating the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousif Sodho vs The State2019 SHC 186 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-24
  post-arrest bailfake appointment orderfurther inquirydelay in FIRprohibitory clauseanticorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from a criminal case registered against the applicant, Muhammad Yousif Sodho, for allegedly issuing a fake appointment order for a ministerial post in the Local Government in exchange for payment. The applicant sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after being refused by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry, considering the delay in lodging the FIR and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail because there was an unexplained six-year delay in lodging the FIR, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the applicant had already been in custody for eight months. The court laid down the principle that an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR, combined with the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause and a significant period of incarceration, makes a case one of further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an unexplained delay of six years in lodging an FIR a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Does an offence that falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle the accused to bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Can an accused person be granted post-arrest bail after enduring several months of incarceration when the case requires further inquiry into their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf, etc vs Ch. Tajammal Hussain, etc2019 LHC 2953 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State, etc2019 SCP 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-20
  compounding of offencesqatl-i-amdtazirqisasheirs of the victimwalisulhIslamic law of inheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, heard by a larger bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, addresses the question of whether the right to compound an offence of intentional murder (qatl-i-amd) under the regime of Ta'zir can devolve upon the heirs of a deceased heir of the victim, similar to the regime of Qisas. The appellant, a brother of the deceased victim, argued that upon the death of their father (who was an heir of the victim), the capacity to compound the offence devolved upon the appellant and his brothers, thereby vitiating a compromise entered into by the surviving widow and son of the victim. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that in cases of Ta'zir, compounding is governed strictly by Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which limits the capacity to compound exclusively to the direct heirs of the victim. The Court affirmed that the distinct principles of Qisas and Ta'zir cannot be conflated, and that the right to compound in Ta'zir does not devolve upon the heirs of an intermediate heir who did not exercise the right during his lifetime. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right to compound an offence of qatl-i-amd in cases of Ta'zir devolves upon the heirs of a deceased heir of the victim?
  • Do the principles governing waiver and compounding in Qisas cases apply uniformly to cases of Ta'zir?
  • Can an offence of murder under Ta'zir be compounded by surviving direct heirs of the victim when an intermediate heir passed away without exercising his right to compound?
  • Who qualifies as an 'heir of the victim' entitled to compound an offence under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State and others2019 PLD Supreme Court 461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-20
  qatl-i-amdta'zirqisascompounding of offencesheirs of the victimwalicriminal appealstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a murder case treated as Ta'zir, where the complainant challenged the acquittal of respondents granted by the High Court on the basis of a compromise. The core legal question was whether the right to compound an offence of murder in a Ta'zir case devolves upon the heirs of a deceased heir (wali) of the victim, or if it is restricted to the victim's direct heirs. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the regimes of Qisas and Ta'zir are distinct. In Qisas, the right to compound may devolve upon heirs of a wali; however, in Ta'zir, the capacity to compound is a statutory concession under Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, strictly limited to the victim's direct heirs. The Court ruled that principles applicable to Qisas cannot be transposed to Ta'zir, and the right to compound does not devolve upon the heirs of a deceased heir of the victim. Consequently, the compromise entered into by the surviving direct heirs was valid, and the appellant, as a brother of the deceased, lacked standing to object.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right to compound an offence of murder in a Ta'zir case devolve upon the heirs of a deceased heir of the victim?
  • Are the principles governing the compounding of offences in Qisas cases applicable to cases of Ta'zir?
  • Is a partial compromise acceptable in a case of Ta'zir?
  • Does the capacity to compound an offence under Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, extend to persons who are not direct heirs of the victim?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State and another2020 PCr. L J 245, 2019 LHC 3113 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-27
  post-arrest bailrapeabductionNikah Namafurther inquirybenefit of doubtfamily dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner, Muhammad Yousaf, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 284 of 2019 registered at Police Station Uch Sharif, District Bahawalpur, for offences under Sections 376 and 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of an unexplained delay in reporting the matter, a subsisting verified Nikah Nama between the petitioner and the alleged victim, and previous statements made by the victim in constitutional petitions affirming a free-will marriage. The Lahore High Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principles laid down are that unexplained delay in lodging an FIR and the existence of a verified Nikah Nama create reasonable doubt entitling an accused to bail, and that matrimonial disputes involving allegations of abduction and rape after an elopement are best resolved by Family Courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging an FIR for abduction and rape creates reasonable doubt sufficient to grant post-arrest bail?
  • Does the existence of a verified Nikah Nama between the accused and the alleged victim bring a criminal case under the purview of further inquiry for bail?
  • What is the effect of a pending suit for jactitation of marriage before a Family Court on criminal proceedings involving allegations of rape and abduction?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground that the accused is charged with a heinous offence when a case for further inquiry is made out?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs State, etcPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  qatl-i-amdta'zirqisascompounding of offenceheirs of the victimwaliheritability of right to compound
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns the compounding of a murder case (qatl-i-amd) under the regime of Ta'zir. The core legal question is whether the right to compound an offence of murder is heritable by the heirs of a deceased heir of the victim, or if it is restricted to the direct heirs of the victim at the time of the offence. The Supreme Court held that the regimes of Qisas and Ta'zir are distinct, and the principles governing compounding in Qisas (where the right to Qisas may devolve upon heirs of a wali) do not apply to Ta'zir. In Ta'zir, the capacity to compound under Section 345(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is restricted to the heirs of the victim who inherit directly from the victim. Upon the death of an heir, their capacity to compound does not devolve upon their own heirs if those heirs are not direct heirs of the original victim. The principle laid down is that compounding in Ta'zir is a concession regulated by statute, not a heritable right of Qisas, and thus cannot be extended through judicial interpretation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right to compound an offence of qatl-i-amd in a case of Ta'zir heritable by the heirs of a deceased heir of the victim?
  • Does the definition of 'wali' and the rules of devolution of the right of Qisas apply to cases of Ta'zir?
  • Can a partial compromise be accepted in a case of Ta'zir?
  • Are the principles of compounding in Qisas cases applicable to Ta'zir cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Mehmood Ahmad2019 YLR 1404, 2019 LHC 284 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Khan vs Malik Naeem Khan Bazai and 18 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 928, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 261, 2019 CLC 1164 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Khan vs Additional District Judge Sehensa2019 SC AJK 114 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Khan vs (Malik) Naeem Khan Bazai and 18 others2019 KLR Civil Cases 261 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus vs The State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 721, 2020 YLR 276, 2019 LHC 841 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-25
  dishonour of chequecriminal revisionSection 342 Cr.P.C.interdependent obligationsacquittalSection 489-F PPCadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction of the petitioner under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question was whether criminal liability under Section 489-F could be sustained when the cheque was issued as part of a reciprocal obligation settlement where the complainant failed to fulfill their corresponding duty, and whether the conviction was procedurally sound given the failure to put incriminating evidence to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the cheque was part of an interdependent arrangement where the complainant’s failure to transfer a motorbike negated the accused's criminal liability. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the failure to produce the original cheque and memo, and the failure to put these documents to the accused during his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendered the evidence inadmissible. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted. The principle established is that criminal liability for cheque dishonour cannot be fixed where obligations are interdependent and the complainant is in default, and evidence not put to an accused under Section 342 cannot be used against them.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be established when the cheque was issued as part of an interdependent obligation that the complainant failed to fulfill?
  • Is a conviction sustainable if the prosecution fails to put incriminating evidence, such as a dishonoured cheque and memo, to the accused during his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to produce the original cheque and memo of dishonour in court render such documents inadmissible as evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis, Assistant Private Secretary, District Population Welfare2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 156 · Balochistan Service Tribunal
  service appealpromotion quotaAssistant Private Secretarylegitimate expectationprinciple of consistencyservice rulescareer advancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974, challenging the Balochistan Population Welfare Department (Basic Pay Scale B-16 & above) Service Rules, 2016, for failing to provide a promotion share or quota for Assistant Private Secretaries (BS-16) to higher ranks. The core legal question was whether the omission of promotion avenues and quotas for Assistant Private Secretaries in the impugned rules was discriminatory, unjustified, and violative of the principle of legitimate expectation and consistency. The Balochistan Service Tribunal held that the rules, to the extent they deny promotion quotas for Assistant Private Secretaries, are discriminatory and unreasonable, ignoring career advancement and rules applied in other provincial departments. The Tribunal laid down the principle that employees have a right to reasonable opportunities for career advancement, and service rules must adhere to the principles of consistency and equality to avoid unjustified disparities across departments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission of a promotion quota for Assistant Private Secretaries in service rules is discriminatory and violative of legitimate expectations?
  • Can service tribunals direct authorities to amend service rules to remove disparity with other government departments?
  • Whether employees have a fundamental right to reasonable opportunities for career advancement under service laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis vs District Police Officer, Abbottabad and 2 others2019 MLD 1148 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis and another vs Sadaruddin and 5 others2019 YLR 637 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas, Assistant Private Secretary, District Population2019 [M] C.L.R. 1038 · Balochistan Service Tribunal
  service tribunalpromotion quotalegitimate expectationcareer advancementservice rulesdiscriminationassistant private secretary
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974 by an Assistant Private Secretary challenging the Balochistan Population Welfare Department (Basic Pay Scale B-16 & above) Service Rules, 2016 for failing to provide a promotion quota to higher ranks. The core legal question was whether the omission of promotion avenues and quotas for Assistant Private Secretaries in the service rules violates the principles of consistency, equality, and legitimate expectation. The Balochistan Service Tribunal held that the impugned rules were discriminatory and unreasonable to the extent that they lacked promotion share for the appellant's cadre, thereby ignoring career advancement prospects. The Tribunal laid down the principle that employees must be afforded reasonable opportunities for career advancement to ensure departmental efficiency, and remanded the case to the respondents to amend the rules and remove the disparity within four months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission of a promotion quota for Assistant Private Secretaries in service rules violates the principle of legitimate expectation?
  • Can service rules framed under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 be challenged on the ground of creating disparity with other departments?
  • Whether the absence of career advancement prospects for government employees affects departmental efficiency?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas Amin vs Abdul Majeed through LRs and others2019 LHC 4337 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin and others vs The State and others2019 YLR 2831 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-14
  Qatl-i-Amdchance witnessbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidencerecovery evidencecriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences awarded to the appellants for the Qatl-i-Amd of two deceased persons. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account, the evidentiary value of recovery proceedings, and the sufficiency of medical evidence to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court determined that the primary eye-witnesses were chance witnesses who failed to provide a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, the Court found the introduction of an additional eye-witness during the trial to be suspicious and unreliable. Consequently, the Court ruled that because the ocular account was discredited, the recovery of weapons became legally inconsequential, and medical evidence, being merely confirmatory, could not identify the culprits. The Court laid down the principle that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession, and that recovery evidence loses its significance if the underlying ocular testimony is rejected. The appeal was accepted, and the death sentences were not confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a chance witness can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does the recovery of incriminating weapons retain evidentiary value if the ocular account is disbelieved?
  • Can medical evidence alone be used to identify a culprit in a criminal case?
  • Is the benefit of doubt in a criminal case a matter of right or a concession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs The State and another2019 MLD 350 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-07-27
  post-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustdishonoured chequesmisappropriationfinancial fraudcheating
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Yaseen, who was charged under Sections 420, 467, 109, 489-F, and 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, employed as a Warehouse Incharge for Fatima Fertilizer Company Limited, was accused of misappropriating company fertilizer valued at Rs. 14,10,00,000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented. The Court observed that the petitioner had not only misappropriated the goods but had also admitted the company's claim through an affidavit and issued ten cheques totaling Rs. 9,50,00,000, all of which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Holding that the case involved a massive financial loss caused by criminal breach of trust, cheating, and fraud, the Court determined that the petitioner did not merit the grant of bail. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that where substantial financial misappropriation is evidenced by admission and dishonoured instruments, the concession of bail is not warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when there is prima facie evidence of massive financial misappropriation and admission of liability?
  • Does the issuance of dishonoured cheques in the context of misappropriation of company property constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen Abbasi vs Federation of Pakistan2019 SHC 344 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs The State and another2019 KLR Criminal Cases 254 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-07
  explosive substancesarms ordinanceanti-terrorismillegal detentionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalforensic analysis
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance for possession of explosive materials and an unlicensed weapon. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution's recovery evidence, the credibility of the eyewitness accounts in light of prior police custody, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that defense evidence established the appellant's prior illegal detention before the formal F.I.R., un-cross-examined defense testimony, and the failure to send key explosive items for forensic analysis. The court set aside the convictions, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, and ordered his immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Whether un-cross-examined defense testimony regarding prior police custody creates serious doubt about the prosecution's version of events?
  • Does the failure to send recovered explosive devices for forensic analysis vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted under the Explosive Substances Act when the prosecution fails to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs Rehmatullah2019 MLD 1590, 2019 PHC 91 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs Qasim Ali and others2019 YLR 547 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar etc vs The State2019 YLR 1649, 2019 LHC 620 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-06
  chance witnessesmurder trialappreciation of evidencebeyond reasonable doubtcriminal appealacquittaltutored witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and destruction of evidence under Sections 302(b) and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on alleged eyewitnesses and the condition of the deceased's body. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court determined that the two eyewitnesses were "chance witnesses" residing 200 kilometers away, who lacked any plausible explanation for their presence at the scene and admitted to being introduced by a relative of the complainant. Furthermore, the medical evidence indicated the body was severely putrefied and animal-eaten, rendering identification unreliable, and no incriminating recoveries were made from the appellants. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The principle laid down is that the testimony of chance witnesses, especially those introduced by interested parties and lacking independent corroboration, is insufficient to sustain a conviction in a murder case.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses who are introduced by interested parties and lack independent corroboration sustain a conviction in a murder case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to provide a plausible explanation for the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime?
  • Does the failure to recover incriminating evidence combined with unreliable eyewitness testimony warrant an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State2019 SCP 232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-30
  homicidecourt-room murdermitigating circumstancescommutation of death sentenceanti-terrorism actcriminal appealfactions enmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Yaqoob, handed down by an Anti-Terrorism Court for homicide committed inside a court-room premises in Gujranwala. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of evidence regarding sudden provocation, the existence of mitigating circumstances justifying the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life, and the applicability of anti-terrorism laws to an offense committed within a court setting arising from factional enmity. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the appellant's guilt for homicide was established due to his presence, apprehension at the spot, and forensic evidence linking his weapon to the crime casings, the totality of circumstances—including the adjournment of the case, lack of exclusive motive, injuries sustained by the appellant, and exoneration of co-accused—warranted the commutation of the death penalty to imprisonment for life. Furthermore, the Court held that the incident lacked the nexus with the terrorist objectives contemplated under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, thereby setting aside the conviction under Section 7(a) thereof. The key principles laid down relate to the reassessment of quantum of sentence in homicide cases presenting clouded antecedents and the strict interpretation of terrorist nexus under anti-terrorism legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the quantum of sentence in a homicide case warrants reduction to imprisonment for life when circumstances immediately preceding the occurrence remain shrouded in mystery and the accused sustained injuries during the episode?
  • Does an offense committed within a court-room arising from factional enmity necessarily attract the provisions of Section 6 of the Anti Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can a conviction under Section 7(a) of the Anti Terrorism Act 1997 be sustained if the aftermath of the crime has no nexus with the situations contemplated under the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home2019 YLR 1507 · Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board · 2018-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Khan vs Muhammad Razzaq Khan and 18 others2019 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 30 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob and another vs Govt: of KPK through Secretary Land2021 PLC (C.S.) 119, 2019 PHC 394 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-27
  Patwari recruitmentservice rulesrecruitment policywrit jurisdictionmerit-based appointmentdepartmental instructionsvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated writ petitions wherein the petitioners sought appointment as Patwaris based solely on their inclusion in the register of Patwar candidates, challenging the requirement for a competitive recruitment process. The core legal question was whether Patwari appointments are governed by the Land Records Manual or by the prevailing statutory Service Rules mandating a competitive test and interview. The Court held that mere registration as a Patwari candidate does not confer a vested right to appointment. It affirmed that where departmental instructions conflict with statutory rules, the latter must prevail. The Court emphasized that the Government possesses the authority to amend recruitment policies in the public interest, and candidates are subject to the rules in force at the time of appointment rather than at the time of application. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that appointments must be conducted through a transparent, merit-based process involving written tests and interviews, as required by the current applicable Service Rules, thereby ensuring efficient revenue administration.

  Questions settled

  • Does inclusion in the register of Patwar candidates confer a vested right to appointment?
  • Which prevails in the event of a conflict between departmental instructions in the Land Records Manual and statutory service rules?
  • Is the Government empowered to amend recruitment policies for public posts?
  • Are candidates for public office subject to the recruitment rules in force at the time of application or at the time of appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yahya vs The State and another2019 YLR 1872 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-13
  narcotics possessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealpolice mala fidesrecovery proceedingsreasonable doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 2300 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the appellant's specific allegations of police mala fides and documented enmity. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, notably regarding the timing of the appellant's production before the Magistrate, which undermined the credibility of the recovery proceedings. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, emphasizing that it is better for ten guilty persons to be acquitted than for one innocent person to be convicted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Can material contradictions in the prosecution's timeline regarding the production of an accused before a Magistrate invalidate a conviction?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wasim alias Dhola vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 464 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-23
  post-arrest bailattempt to commit rapepreparation versus attemptfurther inquirycriminal administration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 468/2018 registered under Sections 376/511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shaher Sultan, District Muzaffargarh. The core legal question concerned whether the acts attributed to the petitioner constituted an attempt to commit rape or merely preparation or a lesser offence, warranting further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner had only dragged the victim into the sugarcane fields before witnesses arrived and he fled, it required further inquiry to determine whether the offence fell under Section 354 or Sections 376/511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court established that an attempt requires intention, preparation, and a deliberate overt act, distinguishing it from mere preparation. Noting that the petitioner had been incarcerated since October 2018, investigation was complete, and trial was not imminent, the petition was allowed and post-arrest bail was granted.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients that distinguish the preparation of an offence from an attempt to commit it?
  • Does dragging a victim into a sugarcane fields before being interrupted by witnesses constitute an attempt to commit rape or a lesser offence requiring further inquiry?
  • Whether continuous incarceration of an accused warrants the grant of post-arrest bail when investigation is complete and trial is not likely to conclude in the foreseeable future?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wasif Khan vs Inspector General Police, etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 701, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 83 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem vs State, etc2020 P Cr.L J 497, 2019 LHC 2925 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-15
  post-arrest bailunsound mindmental retardationcriminal proceduremedical board reportsurety bondinsanity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail by an accused charged under Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, suffering from a diagnosed mental condition, contended that he was incapable of standing trial due to his unsound state of mind. The core legal question was whether an accused found to be of unsound mind could be released on bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon reviewing the medical board's report, which confirmed the petitioner’s mental instability, the Court held that the case fell squarely within the ambit of Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court granted bail, emphasizing that such relief is conditional upon the provision of specific security. The key principle established is that when an accused is found incapable of making a defense due to unsoundness of mind, the Court may release them on bail provided that the sureties undertake to ensure the accused's proper care, prevent them from causing injury to themselves or others, and guarantee their appearance before the Court as required.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person suffering from unsoundness of mind be released on bail during the pendency of a trial?
  • What are the specific obligations of sureties when an accused is released on bail under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the finding of unsoundness of mind necessitate the postponement of trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem vs Ehtesab Bureau Mad Jammu & Kashmir through C.P._D.C.P. Ehtesab Bureau, Mirpur Ak2019 YLR 1251, 2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 55 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-18
  production of additional documentsrelevancy of evidenceehtesab referenceprosecution evidencerevision petitionjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the High Court's judgment dismissing the appellant's revision petition against the Ehtesab Court's interlocutory order. The core legal question was whether the prosecution can introduce documents during the recording of evidence that were neither part of the reference nor annexed or relied upon, without prior determination of their relevancy. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the prosecution cannot adopt a casual attitude by producing documents not present on record or determining their relevancy beforehand, and the trial court must judiciously determine the relevancy and necessity of any additional evidence before allowing it. The Court laid down the principle that while trial courts possess powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon or admit evidence, such powers must be exercised judiciously with proper application of judicial mind to the relevancy of documents, rather than in an arbitrary manner that takes the opposing party by surprise.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution produce and tender documents in evidence during trial that were neither annexed nor relied upon in the original reference?
  • Is it mandatory for the trial court to determine the relevancy of documents before allowing them to be produced in evidence by the prosecution?
  • Can a trial court exercise its powers to summon or admit evidence under the Code of Criminal Procedure in an arbitrary manner without applying a judicial mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem alias Vicky vs The State and others2019 YLR 626 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-04
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayspeedy trialindividual libertyprosecution delaycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a second post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Waseem, in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. Upon reviewing the trial court's record, the Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for nearly four years and ten months without a single prosecution witness being examined. The record indicated that the prosecution was responsible for numerous adjournments, and the delay was not attributable to the petitioner. The Court held that the gravity of the allegations must yield to the consideration of individual liberty when the prosecution fails to proceed with the trial for an extended period. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the right to a speedy trial cannot be denied, particularly when the accused is not a hardened criminal and the delay is not caused by the defense.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted bail on the ground of statutory delay if the prosecution fails to produce witnesses for an extended period?
  • Does the gravity of an offense justify denying bail when the trial has not commenced after nearly five years of detention?
  • Is a bail petition maintainable on the ground of statutory delay if the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waris and others vs The State and others2019 YLR 1146 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-10
  murderbenefit of doubtocular and medical conflictchance witnessindependent corroborationacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony, the presence of chance witnesses, the conflict between ocular and medical evidence regarding the distance of firing, and the requirement of independent corroboration when co-accused attributed with effective roles have been acquitted on the same set of evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the crime scene was highly doubtful, their testimony contradicted the medical evidence regarding the absence of blackening or charring, and material discrepancies undermined the prosecution's case. The Court established that where eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding co-accused, their testimony cannot be used to convict another accused without strong independent corroboration. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses disbelieved regarding some accused can be relied upon against another co-accused without strong independent corroboration?
  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony regarding firing distance and medical evidence regarding the absence of blackening create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • What is the evidentiary value of failing to examine a material eye-witness cited in the police report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 705, 2019 PHC 410 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-18
  post-arrest bailcyber crimemoral turpitudeprohibitory clausejudicial discretionharassmentelectronic crimes
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of harassment and the transmission of objectionable nude photographs via WhatsApp. The petitioner sought bail after being refused relief by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail, given the nature of the offence and the argument that the charged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that while bail in offences punishable by less than ten years of imprisonment is generally a rule, this is not an absolute right and remains subject to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court found the allegations supported by evidence and the petitioner's own statement, noting the offence involved moral turpitude affecting society at large. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, establishing the principle that judicial discretion to deny bail may be exercised even in non-prohibitory offences where the circumstances justify such departure.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, create an absolute right to bail?
  • Can a court deny bail in cases punishable by less than ten years imprisonment if the offence involves moral turpitude?
  • Is the concession of bail subject to the specific facts and circumstances of each individual case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman S/o Muhammad Rafiq vs The State2019 SHC 442, 2020 MLD 1319 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-13
  criminal appealsentence reductionillegal possession of explosivesunlicensed firearmdiscretionary sentencingmitigating circumstancesSindh Arms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which convicted the appellant for the illegal possession of an explosive substance and an unlicensed firearm. The core legal question concerned whether the appellate court could exercise discretion to reduce the sentences imposed by the trial court, given the appellant's age and status as the sole breadwinner for his family. The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that the prosecution had successfully proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the trial court correctly excluded the application of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, due to the absence of terror-inducing elements. However, acknowledging the appellant's potential for reformation and his family responsibilities, the Court exercised its discretionary power under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to reduce the sentences. The holding affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence from five years to three years of rigorous imprisonment for each offense, to run concurrently. The key principle established is that appellate courts possess the discretion to mitigate sentences within statutory limits when mitigating factors, such as the offender's age and socioeconomic circumstances, warrant leniency.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence if the statute provides a maximum term but does not mandate a specific minimum?
  • Does the possession of an explosive substance without evidence of creating public terror warrant conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Are appellate courts empowered to consider the socio-economic status and age of an appellant when determining the appropriateness of a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Qayyum vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 PTD 1534 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Khan 8 and others vs Secretary Home Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 5 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 380 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-24
  Constitutional jurisdictionAppointment in abeyanceTerms and conditions of serviceArticle 212 barMisuse of authorityRule of lawCivil servantsPolice department recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the respondents' decision to hold the appointment notifications of the petitioners, who were appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspectors, in abeyance. The core legal question is whether the respondents possessed the lawful authority to suspend these appointments indefinitely without any statutory basis, and whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter despite the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court held that the respondents acted without lawful authority, as no provision in the Police Rules or the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, permits holding an appointment order in abeyance. The Court determined that this issue did not concern the "terms and conditions of service" and thus fell within its constitutional jurisdiction. The judgment establishes that public authorities must act strictly in accordance with the law, and arbitrary administrative actions lacking statutory backing constitute a misuse of power. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that all state functionaries are bound by the Constitution and the law of the land.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to challenge an administrative order holding an appointment notification in abeyance, or is it barred by Article 212?
  • Does any provision in the Police Rules or the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, authorize a competent authority to hold an appointment order of a civil servant in abeyance?
  • Is an administrative action taken without any statutory basis or lawful authority subject to judicial review under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman & others vs PTCL & others2019 SHC 562 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-19
  Voluntary Separation SchemeVSSPTCLstatutory terms and conditionsgolden handshakeestoppelpensionary benefitsdisputed questions of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, former employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) who transferred from the Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department via statutory enactments, challenged the computation of their service benefits under a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS). They contended that their statutory terms and conditions were improperly altered, specifically arguing that their pre-service training period should have been included in calculating their total length of service for pensionary and VSS categorization purposes. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that employees who voluntarily accept financial separation benefits under a VSS cannot later wriggle out of the scheme or seek additional benefits under ordinary rules. The Court held that statutory protections against adverse alteration of service terms apply to unilateral changes by employers, not to voluntary contractual arrangements entered into with consent for prompt monetary gain. Furthermore, claims regarding individual calculations of service duration constituted disputed questions of fact that could not be adjudicated under constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee who voluntarily opts for a Voluntary Separation Scheme remain entitled to claim statutory service benefits under ordinary rules?
  • Does the statutory protection against unilateral variation of service conditions apply where an employee voluntarily accepts monetary compensation in exchange for early severance?
  • Can disputed factual claims regarding the precise duration of service be adjudicated under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Uneeb Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology, Govt. of Pakistan, Islamabad & others2019 MLD 1347, 2019 LHC 880 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-13
  admission quotaDiploma of Associate EngineerPakistan Engineering Councildelegated legislationright to equalityeducational admissionultra viresmerit-based admission
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated writ petitions challenged the Pakistan Engineering Council’s (PEC) decision to restrict admission of Diploma of Associate Engineer (DAE) holders to a maximum 2% quota for B.Sc. Engineering programs. The core legal question was whether the PEC possessed the statutory authority to impose such a quota and whether this classification violated the constitutional guarantee of equality. The Court held that the PEC’s governing body lacked the power under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976, to restrict DAE holders to a fixed quota, as the regulations exceeded the scope of the parent statute. The Court affirmed that DAE qualifications are equivalent to F.Sc. (Pre-Engineering) and that excluding these candidates from open merit competition was discriminatory. The Court ruled that delegated legislation cannot conflict with or enlarge the scope of the parent statute. Furthermore, the Court established that any classification for admission must be reasonable and possess a rational nexus to the object of the legislation. Consequently, the impugned 2% quota was declared illegal and without lawful authority, though existing admissions remained undisturbed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Pakistan Engineering Council have the statutory authority to restrict Diploma of Associate Engineer holders to a fixed admission quota for B.Sc. Engineering?
  • Can delegated legislation or regulations made by a governing body conflict with or enlarge the scope of the parent statute?
  • Is the classification of Diploma of Associate Engineer holders into a restricted quota for university admissions violative of the constitutional right to equality?
  • Does the equivalence of Diploma of Associate Engineer with F.Sc. (Pre-Engineering) entitle holders to compete on open merit for engineering admissions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umer vs The State2019 SHC 204 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-28
  post-arrest bailQatl-e-amdvicarious liabilityfurther inquirycommon intentioninstigationdelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Umer, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged murder of Sikandar Ali. The applicant was charged with Qatl-e-amd, with the prosecution alleging common intention. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was alleged to have only instigated the crime while being empty-handed, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court observed that the specific role of causing fatal firearm injuries was attributed to co-accused persons, while the applicant's role was limited to instigation. Furthermore, the Court noted a one-day delay in the lodgment of the FIR and existing enmity between the parties. Holding that the applicant's vicarious liability required further inquiry, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is alleged to have only instigated an offense and was empty-handed at the time of the incident, and where the case involves disputed enmity and delayed FIR reporting, the question of vicarious liability warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the allegation of instigation alone, without the use of a weapon, constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Is the vicarious liability of an accused who was empty-handed at the time of the incident a matter for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a one-day delay in the lodgment of an FIR be considered a relevant factor when determining the entitlement to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umer Dahri vs Achar and 8 others2019 YLR 1214 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-15
  appeal against acquittaldirect complaintspecial leave to appealsuppression of injuriesinjured accuseddouble presumption of innocenceimproving prosecution versionunreliable ocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by complainant Muhammad Umer against the judgment dated 05.10.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Adam, whereby the respondents/accused were acquitted of charges under Sections 302, 504, 325, 147, 148, 323, 114, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a direct complaint case. The legal questions before the High Court were whether an appeal against acquittal arising out of a direct complaint is maintainable without seeking special leave to appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the trial court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appeal was unmaintainable for failure to apply for or obtain special leave under Section 417(2) Cr.P.C. On merits, the Court held that ocular evidence was unreliable due to the suppression of injuries sustained by an accused person, material improvements, shift in the place and motive of occurrence, contradictory medical evidence, and non-examination of independent local witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal against acquittal arising from a direct complaint maintainable without obtaining special leave to appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary effect when prosecution eye-witnesses suppress the injuries sustained by an accused person during the same incident?
  • Does a material shift between the FIR and a subsequent direct complaint regarding the place of occurrence, time, and motive create reasonable doubt entitling the accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar Panhwar and others vs Province of Sindh and others2019 SCMR 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-09-07
  casual vacancylocal governmentmunicipal committeebye-electiondelegation of powersdemise of chairman
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a challenge to orders passed by the High Court of Sindh regarding the assignment of functions of the Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Dadu, following the demise of the elected Chairman, Gul Hassan Qambrani. The core legal question concerned whether the functions of a deceased Chairman could be exercised by the Vice-Chairman under section 80(2) of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, and how a casual vacancy resulting from death is to be filled. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that section 80(2) does not apply to a permanent vacancy caused by the death of a Chairman, which must instead be filled by a bye-election conducted by the Election Commission of Pakistan under section 24 of the Act. The Court laid down the principle that temporary delegation provisions cannot be stretched to cover permanent vacancies arising from death, and directed the Election Commission to complete the election process for the vacant seat within the stipulated timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the temporary delegation of functions to a Vice-Chairman under section 80(2) of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013 applies in the event of a permanent vacancy caused by the death of a Chairman?
  • How is a casual vacancy in the office of a Chairman or member of a council to be filled under the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013?
  • Does the existence of a vacancy in a council invalidate its proceedings under the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umair vs the State & another2020 P Cr. L J 653, 2020 PHC 44, 2019 PHC 420 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-26
  post-arrest bailunnatural sexual intercoursechild at riskfurther inquiryDNA testdelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail petition was filed by the accused-petitioner, a minor, who was charged under Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Sections 50 and 53 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act 2010. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner attempted to subject the complainant's son to unnatural sexual intercourse. The Peshawar High Court observed that there was an unexplained three-day delay in lodging the FIR, the medical report did not support the commission of any sexual act, and no DNA samples were collected as mandatorily required under Section 164-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court held that the victim did not prima facie fall within the statutory definition of a 'child at risk' under Section 2(1)(e) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act 2010, rendering the applicability of Sections 50 and 53 a matter of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act 2010 apply if the victim does not fall under the definition of a 'child at risk' under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act?
  • Is the collection of DNA samples under Section 164-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory in cases involving sexual offences?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the medical report does not support the prosecution's allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umair Ashiq and 25 Others vs Higher Education Commission, Etc2020 [M] C L R 203, 2019 MLD 2056, 2019 PLJ Lahore 704, 2019 LHC 2301 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 872 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-03
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequedocumentary evidenceprohibitory clausecriminal liabilitybail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding a dishonoured cheque. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the unexplained delay in FIR registration, the fact that the cheque belonged to a third party, and the reliance of the prosecution on documentary evidence already in their possession. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the maximum punishment is three years. The Court emphasized that bail is the rule and refusal the exception in such cases, particularly when evidence is documentary and secure. The key principles laid down are that the liberty of an accused should not be curtailed based on the financial magnitude of the alleged offence, and that incarceration pending trial, when guilt is yet to be proven, is inappropriate where evidence is already secured by the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the existence of other pending criminal cases against an accused, without conviction, a relevant factor for refusing bail in a current case?
  • Should bail be granted when the prosecution's case relies entirely on documentary evidence already in its possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs Station House Officer, etc.2019 PLJ Lahore 536 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs S.H.O. Police Station Saddar Jampur, District2019 PCRLJ 1403, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 131 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-29
  habeas corpuspolice rulesroznamchaillegal detentioncomputerized police recordspolice accountabilitydaily diary register
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition seeking the recovery of alleged detenues illegally confined by police. The core legal question was whether police stations are authorized to abandon the maintenance of manual Roznamcha (daily diary) registers in favor of exclusive computerized data entry systems. The Court held that while computerization is a positive development, it does not exempt police officials from their statutory duty to maintain manual registers. The Court observed that amendments to the Police Rules, 1934, mandate the maintenance of both hard and soft copies of police records, and the failure to maintain manual registers facilitates the concealment of police misconduct. The Court laid down the principle that police stations must maintain manual registers alongside computerized records to ensure transparency and accountability. It directed the Inspector General of Police to ensure strict compliance with the requirement to maintain manual registers in all police stations, emphasizing that computerized data is vulnerable to tampering and hacking, necessitating hard-copy verification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the introduction of computerized record-keeping in police stations exempt police from maintaining manual Roznamcha registers?
  • What are the requirements for maintaining police station registers under the Police Rules 1934 following the introduction of electronic systems?
  • Is the failure to maintain manual police registers a violation of the Police Rules 1934?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Ramzan vs The State2019 SCMR 1971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-09
  murderocular evidenceanti-terrorismmotiveconvictioncriminal appealwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder, following his trial alongside co-accused who were acquitted. The prosecution alleged the appellant and a co-accused shot the deceased, initially citing a motive related to blasphemy. While the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court, the High Court altered the sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined the ocular evidence provided by eyewitnesses, finding their presence at the scene credible and their testimony consistent, despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the blasphemy charge. The Court held that the ocular account was sufficient to sustain the murder conviction independently of the failed motive. However, the Court ruled that the failure to prove the blasphemy charge undermined the motive, thereby necessitating the acquittal of the appellant under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, but set aside the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, while upholding the sentence of life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular evidence when the alleged motive fails?
  • Does the failure to prove a specific motive, such as blasphemy, necessitate acquittal under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is the presence of eyewitnesses at a crime scene in a small locality sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of evidence of animus?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Mangi vs Karachi Electric Supply Company, through Chief Executive Officer and another2019 PLC (C.S.) 80 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-15
  contempt of courtinterim injunctiontermination of servicecause of actioninfructuouscivil miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil miscellaneous applications filed by the plaintiff against the Karachi Electric Supply Company. The first application sought a restraining order against enquiry proceedings initiated by a show-cause notice. The second application alleged contempt of court, claiming that the defendant violated an interim order dated 15.02.2012 by terminating the plaintiff's services on 02.11.2012. The court observed that the interim order specifically restrained the defendant from passing final orders regarding the specific enquiry proceedings initiated by the show-cause notice dated 06.02.2012. However, the plaintiff's subsequent termination was based on a separate cause of action—poor performance—which arose after the interim order was passed and was not covered by the existing stay. The court held that since the termination was unrelated to the specific enquiry proceedings subject to the interim order, no contempt of court had occurred. Consequently, the court dismissed the contempt application and declared the first application infructuous, as the enquiry proceedings had not resulted in a final order and the plaintiff had already been terminated on separate grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court order restraining final action in a specific enquiry proceeding prohibit the employer from terminating an employee for a separate, subsequent cause of action?
  • Can an application for an injunction be dismissed as infructuous if the underlying subject matter has been superseded by subsequent events?
  • Does the termination of an employee for poor performance constitute contempt of a court order that only restrained action regarding a specific, unrelated show-cause notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Komboh vs The Federation of Pakistan, Finance Division, Islamabad, etc2019 PCRLJ 637, PTCL 2019 CL. 395, 2019 PTD 1238, 2019 LHC 1133 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-28
  Income Tax Ordinance 2001limitation periodtax yearnotice of assessmentstatutory interpretationwrit jurisdictiontax return
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notice issued under Section 114(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, concerning the tax year 2009, which was served on February 10, 2015. The core legal question was whether the five-year limitation period for issuing such notices, as prescribed by Section 114(5) of the Ordinance, commences from the end of the tax year or from the subsequent date when the return of income was due to be filed. The department contended that the limitation period should be calculated from the due date of the return, effectively extending the time limit. The Court rejected this interpretation, holding that the expression 'completed tax year' refers to the period ending on June 30th of the relevant year. Consequently, the Court ruled that the notice issued for the 2009 tax year was time-barred as it exceeded the five-year statutory limit. The impugned notices and the subsequent order by the Commissioner were declared to have been issued without lawful authority and were set aside, establishing that limitation periods cannot be extended by misinterpreting filing deadlines.

  Questions settled

  • Does the five-year limitation period for issuing a notice under Section 114(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, commence from the end of the tax year or from the date the return was due?
  • Can the limitation period for issuing a notice under Section 114(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, be extended by reference to the filing deadline prescribed in Section 118(2)?
  • What is the definition of 'completed tax year' for the purposes of calculating the limitation period under Section 114(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Javaid vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1204 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-14
  post-arrest bailforgerycorruptionfurther inquirystatutory delayfirst offender
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Muhammad Tariq Javaid sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.8/2016 dated 19.10.2016 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 at Police Station Anti-Corruption, Layyah. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given the delayed reporting, unspecified time of occurrence, lack of previous criminal record, and incomplete clarity regarding his specific culpability compared to the primary allottee. The Lahore High Court accepted the bail petition, holding that the petitioner's culpability required further probe, investigation was complete, trial had not progressed, and prolonged incarceration without progress of trial amounted to preventive punishment. The court established that where the mode and manner of alleged fraud and the direct culpability of an accused who is a subsequent transferee require deeper appreciation, and investigation is finalized without a prospect of an immediate trial, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the mode and manner of the alleged fraud require further probe under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without progress at trial justify the grant of bail as a preventive measure against advance punishment?
  • Whether an accused who is a subsequent transferee of land can be admitted to bail when the primary beneficiary is neither arrested nor challaned?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq and 5 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 161 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-13
  pre-arrest bailcross-versionfurther inquiryocular accountmedical evidenceunlawful assemblycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by six petitioners in relation to FIR No. 335/2018, registered at Police Station Karor, District Layyah, for offences including causing hurt and rioting. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant party. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the existence of a cross-version case and discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence. The Court observed that the case involved two conflicting versions of the incident, with injuries sustained by both sides, and that the medical evidence did not fully corroborate the prosecution's ocular account. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners' case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that in cases of counter-versions arising from the same incident, the determination of the truthful version is a matter for the trial court to decide after recording and appraising evidence, thereby justifying the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a cross-version case entitle an accused to the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Is a case considered one of further inquiry when medical evidence does not fully support the ocular account?
  • Should the determination of which version is correct in a cross-case be decided at the bail stage or by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Ajmal vs The State, etc2021 P Cr.LJ 40, 2019 LHC 3122 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-21
  post-arrest bailillegal travel agencyEmigration OrdinancePassport Actfurther inquirystatutory discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter is a post-arrest bail petition filed under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of offences under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979, section 6 of the Passport Act 1974, and section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the tentative assessment of the material, lack of recovery of forged documents, and the discretionary nature of sentences involving imprisonment or fine. The Lahore High Court held that the case requires further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that imprisonment is not mandatory under the penal provisions invoked and that no incriminating material was recovered during physical remand. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where penal provisions afford discretion between imprisonment and fine and further probe is warranted, continued incarceration serves no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the availability of a discretionary sentence of fine instead of mandatory imprisonment entitles an accused to post-arrest bail for further inquiry?
  • Does the recovery of passports without evidence of forged documents make a case fall within the scope of further probe under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can cognizance of an offence under the Travel Agencies Act 1976 be taken without a complaint in writing by the authorized Federal Government official?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tanveer vs The State etc2020 MLD 62, 2019 LHC 2996 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-27
  fair trialdefense evidencesummoning of witnessescriminal procedureright to defensenarcotics trialproduction of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a trial court order dismissing an application to summon a police official and specific documentary evidence (a rent deed record) for the defense in a narcotics case. The core legal question is whether an accused person has the right to summon evidence in their defense and under what circumstances a court may refuse such a request. The Court held that under Section 265-F(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a trial court is mandated to issue process for the attendance of witnesses or production of documents requested by the accused, unless the application is made for vexation, delay, or to defeat the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that the trial court cannot decline such requests based on its own assessment of the evidence's potential benefit to the accused or its ultimate evidentiary value, which is a matter for final adjudication. The principle laid down is that the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, necessitates that the accused be permitted to produce relevant defense evidence, provided the request is not vexatious.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court refuse to summon defense evidence on the ground that it might benefit the accused?
  • What are the specific grounds upon which a court may deny an accused's application to summon a witness or document under Section 265-F(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include the right of an accused to summon evidence in their defense?
  • Is the trial court required to assess the evidentiary value of proposed defense evidence before deciding whether to summon it?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Talib vs Muhammad Sarwar Naz and another2019 CLC 623 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Home2020 PLJ Karachi 10, 2019 MLD 1214 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs Government of Punjab, through Secretary Home2019 PLJ Lahore 514 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs District Coordination Officer, Presently (Deputy2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 218 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  service appealpromotion criteriasenioritylength of serviceSST gradecivil servantPunjab Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal concerns the criteria for promotion to the SST grade (BS-16) for in-service teachers within the Education Department. The appellant, a senior PTC teacher, challenged the promotion of his juniors, arguing that he was entitled to the same grade from the date they were promoted. The core legal question was whether promotion should be based on the date of acquiring the B.Ed. qualification or on the length of continuous service. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the criteria for promotion must be based on the length of continuous service in the grade, as stipulated by the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, rather than the date of obtaining specific educational degrees. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and declared the appellant entitled to the SST grade from the date his juniors were promoted. The judgment reaffirmed that the benefit of a settled point of law regarding service terms should be extended to all similarly placed civil servants to ensure justice and good governance, avoiding unnecessary litigation for others.

  Questions settled

  • Is the date of acquiring a B.Ed. degree the valid criterion for determining seniority and promotion to the SST grade for in-service teachers?
  • Does the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 mandate that seniority for promotion be determined by the length of continuous service in a grade?
  • Should the benefit of a judgment regarding service terms be extended to similarly placed civil servants who were not parties to the litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Khan vs PIA etc.2020 PLC 209, 2019 PLJ Tr.C.(NIRC) 72 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-03-26
  termination of serviceworkmangrievance petitionindustrial relationsnatural justiceinquirytrans-provincial establishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the order of the learned Member NIRC Karachi whereby the grievance petition of the appellant, a Cargo Assistant terminated without inquiry or show-cause notice, was dismissed. The core legal question is whether the termination of a workman without observing the mandatory provisions of inquiry, show-cause, and standing orders is sustainable in law. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that terminating a workman's services in violation of mandatory provisions such as Standing Order 12(3) and Standing Order 15(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and in breach of principles of natural justice, is illegal and void. The Commission laid down the principle that the services of a workman cannot be terminated without an explicit written order stating reasons and without affording a fair opportunity of defense through proper inquiry, and that non-observance of these mandatory statutory safeguards vitiates the termination proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the termination of a workman's services without a written order explicitly stating reasons violates the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does dispensing with a domestic inquiry prior to dismissing a workman constitute a violation of mandatory provisions and principles of natural justice?
  • Whether a workman seeking redress for wrongful termination needs to meet the definition of worker under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 if he qualifies under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Khan vs Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources2019 KLR Civil Cases 451 · Islamabad High Court
  misconductembezzlementremoval from servicedisciplinary proceedingswrit jurisdictionrestitution of fundspublic servantservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the imposition of the major penalty of "removal from service" and a demand for mark-up on embezzled funds against the petitioner, a former Chief Accounts Officer. The petitioner, having embezzled public funds and subsequently returned the principal amount, sought the conversion of his removal into "compulsory retirement" to secure pensionary benefits and contested the liability for mark-up. The core legal questions were whether the penalty was disproportionate given the restitution of funds and whether the court could interfere with the disciplinary authority's decision. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the restitution of embezzled funds does not mitigate the gravity of the misconduct or invalidate the penalty of removal. The court affirmed that it cannot substitute its findings for those of the competent authority under its writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, it held that disputes regarding the calculation of mark-up on embezzled funds are matters for a civil court to determine, not the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the restitution of embezzled funds by a public servant mitigate the penalty of removal from service for misconduct?
  • Can a High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, substitute the penalty imposed by a competent disciplinary authority?
  • Is a dispute regarding the calculation of mark-up on embezzled funds by a government department justiciable in a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sumak Malik,etc vs Muhammad Asif Khan,etc2020 CLC 768, 2020 [M] CLR 635, 2019 LHC 3930 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail alias Samma etc vs State, etc2019 P Cr. L J 1652, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 599 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-26
  DNA profilingcircumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceQatl-i-Amdchain of custodyforensic sciencecommutation of sentencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction of appellants Muhammad Sohail and Mumtaz Bibi for the murder of a minor child. The trial court had sentenced Sohail to death and Mumtaz Bibi to life imprisonment, relying on circumstantial evidence including last-seen testimony, medical evidence, and a DNA report matching Sohail's profile to cigarette butts found at the crime scene. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, particularly the admissibility and weight of DNA profiling, to sustain a conviction for Qatl-i-Amd. The Lahore High Court held that while the DNA report and last-seen evidence sufficiently established Sohail's guilt, the prosecution failed to provide corroborating evidence against Mumtaz Bibi. Consequently, the Court acquitted Mumtaz Bibi, giving her the benefit of the doubt. Regarding Sohail, the Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the lack of evidence regarding the alleged motive. The judgment affirms that DNA evidence, admissible under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, constitutes reliable scientific proof when the chain of custody is established.

  Questions settled

  • Is a DNA report admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What are the essential requirements for the prosecution to establish the authenticity of DNA evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of custody for forensic samples is proven?
  • Does the absence of corroborating evidence regarding motive justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail alias Saila vs The State and others2019 MLD 1982 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-25
  criminal appealmurder referenceidentification paradebenefit of doubtocular accountappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction and sentence of death, along with a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The appellant was convicted for murder, attempted murder, and dacoity. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on an identification parade where no specific role was attributed to the accused, and the lack of corroborating evidence such as forensic matches for the recovered weapon. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt. The identification parade was deemed legally flawed and unsafe because the witnesses failed to ascribe any specific role to the appellant during the incident. Furthermore, the medical evidence and the forensic report regarding the weapon did not corroborate the prosecution's version. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and that even a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is a test identification parade legally valid if the witnesses fail to ascribe any specific role to the accused during the occurrence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to exhibit the proceedings of a test identification parade render the identification unreliable?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail alias Saila vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1446 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-25
  criminal appealmurderdeath referencetest identification paradebenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for murder and other offences under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the evidentiary value of an un-exhibited test identification parade where witnesses failed to ascribe any specific role to the accused, and the benefit of doubt arising from flaws in the ocular and medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's identity and guilt through trustworthy evidence, noting that the identification parade proceedings were not properly exhibited and the witnesses failed to attribute any specific role to the accused. Furthermore, the weapon recovered did not match the crime empties, and delay in the postmortem cast doubt on the spontaneity of the FIR. The court laid down the principle that an identification parade loses its evidentiary value if witnesses fail to identify the accused with reference to a specific role, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a test identification parade where witnesses fail to ascribe any specific role to the accused during the occurrence?
  • Does failure to exhibit test identification parade proceedings before the trial court render the identification unreliable?
  • Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on an uncorroborated ocular account when the medical evidence and forensic reports fail to support the prosecution's version?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siyar son of Ghulam Habib vs The State etc2019 PHC 280 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sikandar vs The State2019 PLD Islamabad 527, 2019 IHC 66 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-06-11
  Jail AppealTerrorismAnti-Terrorism Act, 1997Mens ReaActus ReusConvictionSentencePublic FearFirearm WeaponsCriminal Procedure Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This Jail Appeal challenged the appellant's conviction and sentence by the trial court. The core legal question revolved around whether the appellant's actions constituted "terrorism" under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, specifically requiring the coexistence of mens rea and actus reus. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the appellant's actions, including blocking a main avenue, firing weapons, and making political demands, demonstrated the requisite design to create fear and insecurity among the public, thereby fulfilling the elements of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court reiterated that for an act to be terrorism, the mens rea (design to intimidate/create fear) and actus reus (specified actions) must coincide and coexist, and it is sufficient if the intended act was likely to create terror, irrespective of actual harm caused.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State etc2019 SCP 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-27
  criminal appealabductionrapebenefit of the doubtdelay in FIRcontradictory statementsmedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, arising from a jail petition, challenges the concurrent judgments of the courts below convicting the petitioner under sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the prosecution's case in the face of an inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, major contradictions among prosecution witnesses, lack of corroborative medical or forensic evidence such as a DNA test, and active hostility by the alleged victim against her own family's stance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies, material improvements, and the victim's own recorded petitions against the complainant party. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate acquittal and release of the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution story suffers from unexplained delays, fatal contradictions, and lack of credible corroboration in serious sexual and abduction charges, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting an abduction case to the police casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction for rape and abduction be sustained when the medical examination is conducted months later without corroborative DNA testing and in the presence of material contradictions among eyewitnesses?
  • What is the legal effect on a prosecution case when the alleged victim herself files petitions and complaints against her own family members alleging fabrication of the criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State and others2019 P.S.C (Crl.) 625, 2019 SCMR 254, 2019 SCMR 1048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-27
  criminal appealabductionrapedelay in lodging FIRmaterial contradictionsacquittalbenefit of doubtDNA test
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition filed by petitioner Muhammad Siddique challenged his conviction and sentences under Sections 365-B and 376, P.P.C., which were upheld by the High Court. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and co-accused abducted and raped the victim. The Supreme Court observed that there was an un-explained seven-day delay in lodging the FIR. Furthermore, the statements of the prosecution witnesses, including the star witness (the victim) and her family members, contained fatal material contradictions regarding her marital status, alleged divorce, remarriage, and previous litigation. Documents produced by the defence revealed that the victim had previously filed a harassment petition and a criminal complaint against her own father (the complainant) and brother, alleging that the FIR was falsely registered to force her into compliance. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for rape under Section 376 P.P.C. be sustained when material contradictions exist in the testimony of the alleged victim and prosecution witnesses?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a chemical examiner's report indicating semen on vaginal swabs when no DNA test is performed and the victim has remarried prior to examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Iiird Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and 6 others2019 YLR 1926 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs District Education Officer, Bhakar and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 582 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-24
  Rule 17-Acivil servantmissing personpresumption of deathfamily pensionremedial statuteconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent department to provide him employment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, following the disappearance of his father who was a civil servant and had been missing since 1997. The core legal question was whether the family of a civil servant who has disappeared and is legally presumed dead can claim employment benefits under Rule 17-A, despite the department's contention that he did not die a natural death in service or that he was formally retired. The Lahore High Court held that a civil servant missing for over seven years is presumed dead under Article 124 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, and no distinction can be made between civil death and natural death for the purposes of Rule 17-A, as the remedial object of the provision is to relieve the destitution of dependents. The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to issue an appointment order under Rule 17-A.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the family of a civil servant who has disappeared and is legally presumed dead can claim employment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  • Does a presumption of death under Article 124 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order apply when a person has not been heard of for seven years?
  • Is there any legal distinction between a natural death and a civil death for the purpose of extending benefits under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Khokhar and another vs Capital Development2019 [M] C.L.R. 46 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique & another vs Province of Punjab & others2020 PCr. L J 197, 2020 PLJ Lahore 91, 2019 LHC 3358 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-20
  forgery of judicial recordregistration of FIRcognizance of offenceAnti-Corruption Establishmentconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging orders passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Vehari, which directed the registration of a criminal case against them and their accomplice for alleged forgery and tampering of judicial records. The core legal questions involved whether a Sessions Judge is competent to directly order the Anti-Corruption Establishment to register an FIR without adhering to procedural rules, and whether Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bars the registration of an FIR for forged documents produced in court. The Lahore High Court held that while Section 195 CrPC regulates the taking of cognizance by a court and does not bar the registration of an FIR or police investigation, directing the Anti-Corruption Establishment to register a case without following the mandatory procedure and independent inquiry under the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 2014 is without lawful authority. The petition was partly allowed, setting aside the specific direction to immediately register the FIR while permitting the Anti-Corruption Establishment to proceed strictly in accordance with the law and applicable rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 place an embargo upon the reporting of a forged document to the police or the registration of an FIR?
  • Are the registration of an FIR and the taking of cognizance of an offence by a court distinct legal concepts under criminal law?
  • Can a Sessions Judge direct the Anti-Corruption Establishment to register a criminal case against a public servant without following the procedure laid down in the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib vs Muhammad Ayub and 9 others2019 MLD 195 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-06
  rejection of plaintspecific performanceunregistered agreement to selldeclaratory suitimmovable propertycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil revision petition challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which rejected the plaintiff's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and cancellation of documents based on an unregistered agreement to sell regarding immovable property. The core legal question was whether a suit for declaration is maintainable on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell. The Peshawar High Court held that an unregistered agreement to sell does not confer any title, right, or interest in immovable property. Consequently, a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 is not the appropriate remedy. The court affirmed that the only competent legal course for the plaintiff is to institute a suit for specific performance to enforce the contract. The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the rejection of the plaint, while noting the plaintiff's right to file a fresh suit for specific performance if so advised.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for declaration maintainable on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell regarding immovable property?
  • Does an unregistered agreement to sell confer any title or interest in immovable property?
  • What is the appropriate form of suit for a purchaser seeking to enforce an agreement to sell immovable property?
  • Can a court reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the suit is filed in an incompetent form?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib Razzaq vs Federation of Pakistan through the President & 5 others2021 [M] C L R 825, 2019 PLD Islamabad 339, 2019 IHC 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shehbaz vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 655 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-11
  murderacid throwingbenefit of the doubtocular accountadverse inferencemotivecriminal appealdeath sentence confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an acid-throwing incident resulting in murder, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the sufficiency of motive, the drawing of adverse inferences for withholding material witnesses, and the evaluation of circumstantial and medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistent and uncorroborated eye-witness testimony, the failure to establish motive, the withholding of the best available independent evidence, and glaring doubts regarding the timing and circumstances of the victim's and complainant's medical examinations. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant on the basis of the benefit of the doubt and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and interested eye-witnesses can be relied upon without convincing and plausible reasons for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does an injury on the person of a complainant automatically stamp them as a truthful and reliable witness?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the best available witness is withheld?
  • Is medical evidence alone sufficient to point an accusing finger at an accused person in an unwitnessed murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The Managing Director, State Bank of Pakistan and another2019 [M] C.L.R. 725, 2018 P.C.T.L.R. 781 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Mian Sajjad Ahmed2019 CLC 1283 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs The State and othersPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 83, 2019 SCMR 1368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-07-01
  criminal appealdeath penaltymitigating circumstancesforensic evidenceocular accountsentence enhancementpolice encounter
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and petition arise from a judgment of the High Court, which upheld the convictions of the appellants for their involvement in a fatal confrontation with a police party during an attempted arrest at an Afghan Refugee Camp. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the convictions and the appropriateness of the death sentences awarded to the appellants. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established the presence of the police party for a lawful purpose and corroborated the ocular account through subsequent recoveries of weapons. The Court affirmed the convictions, finding the witness testimony intrinsically sound. Regarding the quantum of sentence, the Court observed that the forensic evidence regarding weapon casings was dispatched subsequent to the appellants' arrests, a factor previously accepted by the High Court as a mitigating circumstance for one appellant. Consequently, the Court applied this principle consistently, altering the death penalty of the remaining appellant to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the other convictions and sentences. The principle laid down is that forensic delays in dispatching evidence can serve as a mitigating factor for sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Can a delay in dispatching forensic evidence to the laboratory serve as a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the basis of abundant caution necessarily invalidate the convictions of other accused persons assigned effective roles?
  • Are sentences for multiple convictions required to run concurrently when the Court grants the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shareef vs The State and another2019 PHC 344 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamoon deceased through legal representatives vs The State and another2020 PSC (Crl.) 1, 2019 SCMR 1144, 2019 SCMR 1144, 2019 SCMR 1146, 2019 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-30
  abatement of appealdeath of appellantDiyatmonetary punishmentestate of deceasedcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal appeal filed by Muhammad Shamoon against his conviction under Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl Shibhi-i-Amd, wherein he was ordered to pay Diyat. During the pendency of the appeal, the convict passed away, and the High Court disposed of the appeal as having abated. The legal heirs of the convict approached the Supreme Court challenging the abatement. The core legal question is whether a criminal appeal against a conviction involving a monetary punishment such as Diyat abates upon the death of the appellant, or whether it survives for adjudication on merits. The Supreme Court held that while corporal punishments wither away with the death of the offender, monetary punishments like Diyat are recoverable from the deceased's estate under Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, reading Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, an appeal survives for decision on merits to the extent of financial liability. The appeal was allowed and the matter remanded to the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a criminal appeal against a conviction involving the payment of Diyat abate upon the death of the appellant?
  • Can Diyat be recovered from the estate of a deceased offender?
  • Whether an appeal by an offender liable to pay Diyat continues even after his death under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakir Khan vs Mst. Sanam Siddique, etc2019 MLD 662, 2019 LHC 295 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel Ahmed Khan vs Abdul Fateh and 4 others2019 P Cr. L J 451 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-18
  double jeopardypost-arrest bailNational Accountability Bureauquashment of referenceembezzlementcorruption and corrupt practices
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the legality of a second National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference (Reference No. 48 of 2015) against the petitioner, who was already facing trial in Reference No. 13 of 2014, and sought post-arrest bail. The petitioner contended that the second reference constituted double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, as the allegations were identical. The Court examined the references and found that while the modus operandi was similar, the references pertained to distinct financial periods (2011-2013 versus 2009-2010) and separate transactions, thereby rejecting the double jeopardy claim. Regarding the bail application, the Court held that there was prima facie sufficient material, including witness statements and documentary evidence of unauthorized signatures, connecting the petitioner to the embezzlement of nearly half a billion rupees. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for quashment and the application for post-arrest bail, while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings within four months. The principle established is that separate references for distinct financial periods do not violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the initiation of separate NAB references for distinct financial periods constitute double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can a petition for post-arrest bail be granted where there is prima facie material connecting the accused to the alleged embezzlement?
  • Are separate NAB references based on different financial transactions and periods legally maintainable against the same accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahzad vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu &2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 168 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahzad vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu &2019 [M] C.L.R. 991 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →