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.

• Muhammad Shahid vs The State2019 MLD 925 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-09
  dacoitycriminal appealbenefit of doubtidentification paradedelayed FIRCCTV footageacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a dacoity case. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the identity and involvement of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, given the delayed registration of the FIR, the absence of the appellant's name in the FIR, the failure to conduct an identification parade, and the lack of incriminating recoveries. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with serious infirmities, including an unexplained fifteen-day delay in reporting the crime, lack of identification proceedings, and reliance on unverified CCTV footage that was not properly brought on record or linked to the appellant. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principles laid down are that mere heinousness of an offense cannot substitute for proof, that an unverified CCTV footage cannot replace substantive ocular identification, and that even a single reasonable doubt arising from prosecution evidence entitles the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of fifteen days in lodging the FIR casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the accused is not named in the FIR and no identification parade is held during the investigation?
  • Can unverified CCTV footage be equated with substantive ocular evidence to maintain a criminal conviction?
  • Does the failure to recover any incriminating article from the accused weaken the prosecution case regarding participation in a dacoity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Javed, Etc vs Govt. of Punjab through Chief2019 PLC (C.S) 1414, 2019 LHC 1116 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-18
  civil servant promotioneligibility versus fitnessjurisdiction of service tribunalefficiency indexconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the recommendations of the Provincial Selection Board-II and the subsequent promotion order of respondent No.5 to the post of Joint Director in BS-19, alleging ineligibility due to deputation and failure to serve in functional units, alongside arbitrary scoring and the omission of training marks in the Efficiency Index of the petitioners. The core legal questions involved whether the question of eligibility for promotion falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether the petitioners met the mandatory minimum threshold of marks under the relevant promotion policy. The court held that the question of eligibility of a civil servant for promotion relates to the terms and conditions of service and falls within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal, ousting the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Furthermore, the court held that since no mandatory training was prescribed for the petitioners, no training marks could be claimed, and both petitioners failed to achieve the minimum required threshold score. The petition was dismissed as non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the question of eligibility of a civil servant for promotion fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Can a High Court exercise judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution to determine the eligibility of a competing civil servant for promotion?
  • Are candidates entitled to claim training marks in their Efficiency Index when no mandatory training is prescribed under the applicable service rules?
  • Does the determination of fitness and suitability for promotion lie exclusively with the competent authority and evaluation boards?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Ali Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 498 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-07
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustprohibitory clausecivil disputemala fide intentionfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail in a case involving an alleged criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a significant delay of approximately seven and a half months after the alleged occurrence. Furthermore, the Court noted that the ingredients of the offence under Section 406 were not clearly established, suggesting that the complainant attempted to convert a civil business dispute into a criminal matter with mala fide intent, evidenced by a pending suit for rendition of accounts. Holding that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause and that the petitioner had joined the investigation, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal case appears to be a disguised civil dispute and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the possibility of false implication warrants the grant of bail for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is a case involving a business transaction dispute that is already the subject of a civil suit for rendition of accounts liable to be treated as a criminal offence under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the delay of seven and a half months in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • When does an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Asj, Mailsi and 42019 PLJ Lahore 66 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs Meezan Bank Limited and others2019 CLD · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique and 3 others vs Hamid Ahmed and others2019 YLR 2415 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 320, 2020 P Cr. L J 1530, 2019 LHC 3521 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-16
  post-arrest bailqatl-bis-sababfurther inquiryabscondenceprohibitory clausediyat
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl-bis-sabab. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) and the punishment for the offense was Diyat only, notwithstanding the petitioner's long period of abscondence. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's case called for further inquiry as the prosecution evidence lacked any direct allegation of an unlawful act causing death by the petitioner, the punishment of Diyat did not clearly attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497, and mere abscondence does not disentitle an accused to bail if the case otherwise warrants further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that the element of abscondence must give way to a bail plea when the case categorically constitutes a need for further inquiry under Section 497(2).

  Questions settled

  • Does the punishment of Diyat under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused to an accused solely on the ground of prolonged abscondence when the case otherwise calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When does a case qualify for the grant of post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Abdul Majeed and 10 others2019 P.S.C 836, 2019 YLR 1123 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi alias Kuddoo vs The State, etc2019 SCP 170, PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 503, 2019 SCMR 1045 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-07
  reversal of acquittalqatl-e-amddouble presumption of innocenceocular evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the High Court's reversal of an acquittal order passed by the trial court regarding a murder charge under Section 302(b) PPC. The appellant, along with co-accused, was initially acquitted of the murder of Khalil Ahmed due to inordinate delay in reporting, contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the doubtful presence of inimical witnesses. The High Court subsequently convicted the appellant while maintaining the acquittal of co-accused with identical roles. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's reversal of acquittal adhered to established judicial principles. The Court held that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and can only be set aside if the trial court's judgment is blatantly perverse or impossible. Finding that the trial court's view was a possible one based on the evidence, and noting that the prosecution's case lacked certainty, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the acquittal, emphasizing that acquittal cannot be reversed merely because a contrary view is possible.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafeeq vs Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and others2019 IHC 32 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-03-01
  quo warrantopublic officerecruitment advertisementcontractual appointmentsalary approvaljudicial reviewstatutory interpretationapprobate and reprobate
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the appointment of the Director General of the Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan (H.D.I.P.), specifically contesting the three-year tenure and the salary package determined by the Board of Governors. The core legal questions concerned whether the appointment term could exceed the period specified in the original advertisement and whether the salary package required Federal Government approval under the H.D.I.P. Act, 2006. The Court held that an appointment term cannot deviate from the terms explicitly stated in the recruitment advertisement; thus, the three-year appointment was declared unlawful and deemed to be for two years. Furthermore, the Court ruled that while the Board of Governors may determine pay scales, such packages remain subject to mandatory Federal Government approval under Section 8(1) of the H.D.I.P. Act, 2006. The judgment affirmed that conditions of employment set in an advertisement cannot be altered post-facto. Additionally, the Court clarified that a candidate participating in a selection process is not barred from challenging the appointment of a successful candidate, provided the challenge is not mala fide.

  Questions settled

  • Can the terms of employment, such as the duration of a contract, be altered after the advertisement for a public post has been issued?
  • Is the salary package determined by the Board of Governors of the Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan subject to the approval of the Federal Government?
  • Does a candidate who participated in a competitive selection process have the standing to challenge the appointment of the successful candidate?
  • Can a court in its judicial review jurisdiction substitute its findings for those of a selection authority regarding the comparative credentials of candidates?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir and 2 others vs Tariq Hayat and another2020 YLR 598, 2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 83, 2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 485 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-26
  house-trespasstheft of currencyrecovery of stolen propertyappreciation of evidenceconcurrent findingsenhancement of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals arose from a consolidated judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which had dismissed cross-appeals regarding conviction and sentence under Sections 454 and 34 of the Azad Penal Code and Section 14 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Enforcement of Hudood Act. The core legal questions involved whether a shop used for currency exchange constitutes a building for the purpose of house trespass under Section 454 of the Azad Penal Code, and whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence and recovery of stolen currency was sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence, that a commercial building or shop used for the custody of property falls within the definition of house trespass, and that the recovery of a huge stolen amount corroborated the prosecution case. The Court dismissed both the convict's appeal against conviction and the complainant's appeal for enhancement of sentence, laying down that the term 'building' under house-trespass provisions includes structures used for property custody and that concurrent factual findings will not be disturbed absent perversity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a shop or commercial premises used for the custody of property falls within the definition of house trespass under Section 454 of the Azad Penal Code?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence and the recovery of a huge sum of stolen money in the absence of independent public witnesses?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by three lower courts when no perversity or misreading of evidence is shown?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court enhance a sentence awarded by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir alias Hanzla and another vs The State2019 PLD Lahore 507, 2019 LHC 2106 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-12
  possession of explosivespolice witnessescriminal appealanti-terrorismrecovery of weaponsocular evidenceforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court for the possession of explosive substances. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given that the primary witnesses were police officials and no private witnesses were produced. The Court held that the prosecution’s case was proved beyond doubt, noting that the FIR was lodged promptly and the appellants were apprehended red-handed with hand grenades. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the ocular testimony of the police witnesses consistent, credible, and corroborated by recovery memos and positive forensic reports from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. The Court laid down the principle that police witnesses are as competent and reliable as private witnesses, and their testimony cannot be discarded solely due to their employment status, especially in the absence of demonstrated malice or enmity. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can police witnesses be considered reliable in the absence of private witnesses?
  • Does the prompt registration of an FIR exclude the possibility of deliberation or false implication?
  • Is the recovery of explosive substances sufficient to corroborate ocular testimony in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir & 2 others vs Tariq Hayat and another2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 83 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-26
  house-trespasscriminal appealenhancement of sentencerecovery of stolen propertyconcurrent findingscircumstantial evidencetheft
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a consolidated judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which upheld the convictions and sentences of the appellants for theft and house-trespass. The appellants were convicted under Section 454/34 of the Azad Penal Code (APC) and Section 14 of the EHA, receiving seven and three years of imprisonment, respectively. The core legal questions involved whether the appellants were correctly convicted for house-trespass regarding a shop, the validity of the recovery of stolen currency, and whether the sentence warranted enhancement. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the conviction was sound, noting that a shop used for the custody of property falls within the definition of a building for the purposes of house-trespass. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the recovery of the stolen amount, finding the timing and witness circumstances credible. The Court held that appellate courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or arbitrary. Consequently, the Court dismissed both the appellants' appeal against conviction and the complainant's appeal for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Does a shop used for the custody of property fall within the definition of a building for the purposes of house-trespass under the Azad Penal Code?
  • Is the recovery of stolen property invalid solely because the witnesses were relatives of the accused?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial and appellate courts?
  • Is every detail of an occurrence required to be entered into an FIR to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaban alias Shabani vs The State etc2019 LHC 2366 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-03
  criminal appealcompromiseqatl-e-amdidentification paradeextra-judicial confessionocular accountSection 342 Cr.P.C.robbery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence under Sections 302(b) and 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal questions concerned the validity of a compromise between the appellant and the deceased's legal heirs regarding the murder charge, and the sufficiency of evidence for the robbery-related conviction. The Court held that the compromise was genuine and valid, warranting acquittal for the offence under Section 302(b) PPC. Regarding the conviction under Section 394 PPC, the Court acquitted the appellant, finding the prosecution's case failed to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that delayed FIR registration and post-mortem examinations, unreliable identification procedures, and the failure to put incriminating evidence to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rendered the prosecution's case untenable. The Court affirmed that evidence not put to an accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. is inadmissible, and that legal heirs are competent to compound offences under Ta'zir. The revision petition for sentence enhancement was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be set aside based on a compromise between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • Is evidence that was not put to an accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible against him?
  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR and the conduct of a post-mortem examination undermine the credibility of the prosecution's ocular account?
  • Can an identification parade be considered valid if the accused was already nominated by the complainant prior to the parade?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sattar vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 264 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-26
  narcotics recoverysafe custody of samplesPunjab Forensic Science Agencycontradictory evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for five years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the prosecution had successfully proved its case regarding the recovery of narcotics and the safe custody and transmission of samples beyond a shadow of doubt. The Court held that glaring contradictions regarding the date of submission of samples to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, the failure to produce departure and arrival roznacha entries, discrepancies among prosecution witnesses concerning who conducted the recovery proceedings, and the absence of private witnesses despite availability created serious dents in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, laying down the principle that a single substantial dent or unproved safe custody of narcotics samples is fatal to the prosecution's case and warrants acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unreconciled contradiction between the date of returning from sample delivery and the official report date of the Forensic Science Agency vitiate the safe custody of samples?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act be sustained when prosecution witnesses contradict each other on material aspects of the recovery proceedings?
  • Is the failure to associate private witnesses from a nearby populated area during a narcotics raid fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State and others2019 YLR 1777 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarfraz vs The State2019 YLR 2028 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-05
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidencedelayed FIRforensic evidencechain of custodyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his brother. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant procedural delays and conflicting evidence. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem, combined with evidence that the body remained unattended at the crime scene, rendered the prosecution's ocular account unreliable and suggested the witnesses were planted. Additionally, the court ruled that forensic evidence is rendered inconsequential when the crime empty is sent to the laboratory after a significant delay following the accused's arrest, creating a break in the chain of custody. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR and conducting a post-mortem, combined with evidence of an unattended body, render prosecution ocular evidence unreliable?
  • Is forensic evidence regarding a recovered weapon reliable if the crime empty is sent to a forensic laboratory after a substantial delay following the accused's arrest?
  • When should the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarfraz vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 444 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-05
  murderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRocular accountmedical evidenceblind murderweapon recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to death for the murder of his brother. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular account, the effect of an inordinate delay in reporting the crime and conducting the post-mortem examination, the reliability of weapon recovery and forensic evidence, and the establishment of motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that circumstances—including the unattended state of the body, foul smell, presence of ants, and delayed reporting—indicated a blind murder where eye-witnesses were planted after due deliberation. The Court ruled that benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused where the prosecution narrative is riddled with serious flaws. Consequently, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, the murder reference was answered in the negative, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting a crime to the police create a reasonable doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution's ocular account?
  • Whether the presence of foul smell, a seated dead body, and ants on the corpse can disprove the claimed presence of eye-witnesses at the venue of occurrence?
  • Can a positive forensic report regarding a crime empty and a recovered weapon be relied upon when the empty is sent to the laboratory long after the arrest of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal by way of benefit of doubt when multiple material contradictions and circumstances point towards a blind murder rather than the alleged prosecution story?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salman vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad2019 CLC 1069 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-26
  writ jurisdictionalternative remedyElection Commission of Pakistanelection voidmaintainability of petitionstatutory appealreturned candidate
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a writ petition challenging an order by the Election Commission of Pakistan which declared the petitioner's election void and withdrew his notification as a returned candidate due to alleged age ineligibility. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to entertain a challenge against an Election Commission order when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 9 of the Elections Act, 2017. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The ratio decidendi is that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is discretionary and cannot be invoked as a matter of routine when an adequate, efficacious alternative remedy is provided by law. Since the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, the High Court declined to interfere, emphasizing that the appellate forum is better equipped to adjudicate both factual and legal disputes. The principle established is that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy, particularly an appeal to the Supreme Court, bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court is available?
  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the power to declare an election void under Section 9 of the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction in matters where an exclusive tribunal or appellate forum is mandated by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salman vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad &2019 LHC 329 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-13
  writ jurisdictionElection Commission of Pakistanalternative remedymaintainability of writ petitionelections actdisqualification of candidateappellate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a writ petition challenging an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) which declared the petitioner's election void due to age ineligibility. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court under the Elections Act 2017, and had already initiated that appellate process. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable. The Court held that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot be invoked as a matter of routine when an adequate, efficacious alternative remedy is provided by law. The Court affirmed that because Section 9(5) of the Elections Act 2017 provides a direct appeal to the Supreme Court against ECP orders, and the ECP acts as an Election Tribunal when exercising powers under Section 9, the High Court must decline to interfere in the presence of such an exclusive statutory appellate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 when an adequate statutory remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court is available?
  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan, when exercising powers under Section 9 of the Elections Act 2017, act as an Election Tribunal?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan when the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the same order in the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salman Samana vs The Additional Collector of Customs2020 P C T L R 622, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 2224 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-07-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and others vs The State and others2019 KLR Criminal Cases 179 · Lahore High Court
  anti-corruptionpublic documentscertified copiesproof of documentscriminal appealforgeryillegal gratification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of several appellants tried by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption under sections related to corruption, cheating, forgery, and misuse of official authority. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution legally proved the public documents relied upon for securing the conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet the mandatory requirements for proving public documents and certified copies under the governing law of evidence, as the exhibited documents lacked proper certification, signatures, names of issuing authorities, dates, and official seals, and the original record was not produced. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, laying down the principle that mere marking of exhibits does not dispense with the formal proof of public documents, and in the absence of legally proven documentary evidence, a conviction cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere marking of an exhibit on a document dispenses with its formal proof under the law?
  • What are the mandatory ingredients required under Article 87 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, for a document to be considered a valid certified copy of a public record?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained based on public documents that have not been legally exhibited or proved in accordance with the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleh vs Inspector General of Police, Sindh and 3 others2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 146 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 2017-11-20
  major penaltydepartmental inquirymisconductforfeiture of serviceauthorized officervoid orderlimitationservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a police constable, challenged an order imposing a major penalty of forfeiture of approved service for one year, following allegations of extortion and misconduct. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in a major penalty without a regular departmental inquiry and were conducted by an unauthorized officer, were legally sustainable. The Sindh Service Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders. The Tribunal held that when serious allegations of misconduct and corruption are leveled against a civil servant, a regular departmental inquiry is mandatory to satisfy the requirements of due process. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the officer who issued the charge-sheet and imposed the penalty lacked the legal authority to act as the 'authorized officer' under the relevant disciplinary framework. Consequently, the proceedings were vitiated by illegality. The Tribunal also affirmed that no limitation period applies to challenges against orders that are void ab initio and nullities in law.

  Questions settled

  • Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory before imposing a major penalty on a civil servant for misconduct?
  • Can a disciplinary order passed by an unauthorized officer be sustained in law?
  • Does the law of limitation apply to challenges against orders that are void ab initio?
  • Is forfeiture of approved service a recognized punishment under the Removal From Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State2019 PLJ SC Cr.C. 425, 2018 YLR 1162, 2018 SCMR 1001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-02-28
  murder convictionocular evidenceappreciation of evidencepostmortem delaycriminal appealrecovery of weaponabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for murder and causing injury, where the appellant challenged the trial court's judgment, which had been modified by the High Court to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the ocular and medical evidence, alongside the recovery of the weapon and stolen money, was sufficient to sustain the conviction despite the defense's arguments regarding delayed postmortem, the relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased, and alleged inconsistencies in the description of the weapon. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court affirmed that the testimony of eye-witnesses, including an injured victim, remained consistent and unshaken. It further ruled that minor discrepancies, such as the description of the weapon as a knife versus a dagger, or a delay in the postmortem examination, do not inherently invalidate credible ocular evidence. The principle established is that where ocular testimony is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery, such evidence cannot be discarded based on minor procedural delays or insignificant descriptive variations.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in conducting a postmortem examination automatically invalidate the prosecution's ocular evidence?
  • Can minor discrepancies in the description of a weapon by witnesses be sufficient to discard otherwise consistent ocular testimony?
  • Is the evidence of an injured eyewitness, who is also a relative of the deceased, sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs State through Chairman, National Accountability2019 YLR 1521 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs National Industrial Relations Commission and others2019 SCMR 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-07-26
  service matterad interim orderssalary adjustmentretirement datebenefit of own wrongleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a service matter where the petitioner challenged the determination of his retirement date by the respondent. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner had obtained ad interim orders allowing him to continue working. Upon final adjudication, the court upheld the respondent's determination regarding the petitioner's retirement date. Consequently, the court ordered that the salary received by the petitioner during the period covered by the ad interim orders be adjusted against the salary paid during that intervening period. The petitioner sought to retain the salary earned during this time on the basis that he had performed the work. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a litigant cannot be permitted to benefit from their own wrong or seek protection behind court orders obtained during litigation when the underlying claim is ultimately found to be meritless. The court affirmed the principle that interim relief does not create a vested right to retain benefits if the final adjudication determines the petitioner was not entitled to the position or status during that period.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner retain salary received during the currency of an ad interim order if the final judgment determines the petitioner was not entitled to the position?
  • Does a court order allowing a party to continue working during litigation create a vested right to the salary earned if the underlying claim is ultimately dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Muneeza Begum and 6 others2019 P Cr. L J 364 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-07-04
  Section 145 Cr.P.C.breach of peacecivil litigationpossession of propertyquashing of proceedingsMagistrate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to quash proceedings initiated under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding a property dispute. The petitioner contended that because civil litigation between the parties was pending, the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to initiate or continue proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the mere pendency of a civil suit bars a Magistrate from exercising powers under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the mere filing of a civil suit does not automatically oust the Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The ratio established is that such proceedings are only barred if the civil court has already regulated possession through an interim injunction, the appointment of a receiver, or a final decree. As no such order regulating possession existed in this case, the Magistrate's proceedings were deemed lawful. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere pendency of a civil suit regarding a property automatically bar a Magistrate from initiating proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances does a civil court's intervention oust the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to proceed under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate initiate proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if no interim injunction, receiver appointment, or final decree has been issued by a civil court regarding the disputed property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Mullan alias Nooruddin and 3 others2019 MLD 1732 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-29
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceocular evidencemedical evidencedelayed FIRburden of proofcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This acquittal appeal arose from a judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ubauro, which acquitted respondents of charges under Sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the murder of the appellant’s brother. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted significant weaknesses: the incident occurred at night, the alleged identification via torchlight was unreliable as the torch was not produced, the FIR was delayed by over three days without plausible explanation, and medical evidence contradicted ocular testimony regarding the cause of death. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal judgment carries a double presumption of innocence, and appellate courts should not interfere unless the finding is arbitrary, perverse, or shocking. As the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was sound and not fanciful, the acquittal was maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment if a different conclusion is reasonably possible?
  • What is the legal effect of a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR?
  • Can an appellate court set aside an acquittal if the trial court's appreciation of evidence is not perverse or arbitrary?
  • Is medical evidence considered substantive or merely corroborative in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Investigation Officer Levies Station Hanna, Quetta and another2021 PLJ Quetta 21, 2019 MLD 1719 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Federal Public Service Commission and others2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 67, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 306, 2020 P SC 52, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-12-16
  occupational groupscivil servantspermanent absorptiondeputationrule-making poweroffice memorandumlateral entryhorizontal movement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a Federal Service Tribunal order regarding the permanent absorption of officers from the Income Tax Group and Audit and Accounts Group into the Military Lands and Cantonments Group (ML&C Group) in BS 18. The core legal question concerns the legal status and source of power of Office Memorandums constituting Occupational Groups vis-a-vis the Civil Servants Act 1973 and rules framed thereunder, particularly regarding horizontal movement and lateral entry. The Supreme Court held that Office Memorandums establishing Occupational Groups emanate from the rule-making power conferred under Section 25(1) of the Civil Servants Act 1973, placing them on a co-equal footing with the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973 rather than subordinate to them. Furthermore, the Court held that the absorption of the contesting respondents complied with the requirements of paragraphs 5 and 8 of the ML&C Group Office Memorandum. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the validity of the absorption.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal source and status of Office Memorandums constituting Occupational Groups under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Whether Office Memorandums creating Occupational Groups are subordinate to the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973?
  • Can civil servants on deputation be permanently absorbed into another Occupational Group under the applicable service framework?
  • Do the concepts of horizontal movement and lateral entry under the Military Lands and Cantonments Group Office Memorandum permit the absorption of officers from other groups?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Malik vs Government of Pakistan through its2021 KLR Labour & Service Cases 185, 2019 PLJ Quetta 71, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 1272 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-03-21
  PTCL employeespensionary benefitsconstitutional jurisdictionstatutory protectionalternate remedycivil servant statusterms and conditions of serviceT&T Department
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition was filed by a former employee of the Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone (T&T) Department, subsequently transferred to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), seeking to challenge government notifications regarding pensionary benefits and pay increases. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to the same benefits as civil servants, citing statutory protections for his service conditions. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as a former T&T employee, retained civil servant status and whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 199 to grant the requested relief. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that while the petitioner’s terms and conditions of service are statutorily protected against disadvantageous variation under the relevant Acts, he is no longer a civil servant. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner must exhaust efficacious alternate remedies by approaching the competent authority for his grievances, rather than invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The judgment affirms that transferred employees are not civil servants, though their service rights remain statutorily guaranteed.

  Questions settled

  • Are former T&T Department employees transferred to PTCL considered civil servants?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to adjudicate pension claims for PTCL employees when an alternate remedy exists?
  • Can the terms and conditions of service of transferred PTCL employees be varied to their disadvantage?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem alias Sheema vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 172 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-12
  murder convictiondeath sentence commutationocular evidenceforensic evidence delayfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusmitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence, the credibility of ocular witnesses, and the appropriateness of the capital punishment. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular and medical evidence reliable, but altered the sentence from death to imprisonment for life. The court held that the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not recognized in Pakistan, mandating that courts sift the grain from the chaff. It further ruled that the delayed submission of crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory renders forensic evidence inconsequential and fails to provide strong corroboration. Additionally, the court established that mitigating circumstances, including a weak motive, the firing of a single shot, and the acquittal of co-accused, constitute sufficient grounds to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment, thereby ensuring the ends of justice are met.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus apply in Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
  • What is the legal effect of a delay in sending crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory on the prosecution's case?
  • Can mitigating circumstances such as a single fire shot and weak motive justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem & another vs State & another2020 YLR 1769, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1176 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-05-16
  dacoityidentification paradebenefit of doubtjoint recoveryocular testimonymisreading of evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants recorded by the trial court under sections 395, 397, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of joint identification parades and joint recoveries, and the proper compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to major discrepancies, inconsistent eye-witness accounts, illegalities in conducting joint identification parades without independent witnesses, and misreading of evidence by the trial court. The appellate court set aside the conviction and sentences, acquitting the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principles laid down include that joint recoveries and defective identification parades lacking independent witnesses lose evidentiary value, that a judgment must strictly comply with mandatory provisions regarding points for determination, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether joint identification parades conducted without observing proper legal formalities and independent verification lose their evidentiary value?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of weak and contradictory ocular testimony where the culprits' faces were muffled?
  • Is a joint recovery made upon the pointation of multiple accused persons admissible against them in criminal trials?
  • What is the legal effect of a trial court's failure to frame points for determination and state reasons as mandated by section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle the accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salah Ud Din and others vs The Islamia University of Bahawalpur and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 717 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-25
  constitutional petitionalternate remedyuniversity employmentre-advertisementrevisional powerslachesselection board
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioners, working as Assistant Librarians, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the decision of the Syndicate of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur regarding the re-advertisement of the post of Deputy Librarian and seeking appointment against the same. The core legal question revolved around the validity of the Syndicate's decision requiring re-advertisement for determining the method of recruitment and the maintainability of the constitutional petition in the presence of an alternate adequate remedy. The Court held that the constitutional petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an efficacious alternate remedy of filing a revision before the Chancellor under Section 11-A of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act, 1975. The principle laid down is that where an alternate and efficacious statutory remedy is available to an aggrieved party, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution when an alternate efficacious statutory remedy is available?
  • Does the Chancellor have revisional powers under Section 11-A of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act, 1975 to examine orders passed by University Authorities?
  • Can the Syndicate require the re-advertisement of a post if the method of recruitment was not initially approved by it?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad Haider and another vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 98 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-14
  criminal appealcircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtextra-judicial confessionunnatural deathburden of proofacquittallast seen evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife, while a connected criminal revision seeks enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based solely on circumstantial evidence, including an alleged extra-judicial confession and the fact that the victim died in the matrimonial home. The Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. It found the evidence unreliable due to a significant, unexplained delay in FIR registration and the recording of witness statements. Furthermore, the Court ruled that medical evidence alone cannot connect an accused to a crime, and that joint extra-judicial confessions are inadmissible. Emphasizing that the burden of proof remains with the prosecution and does not shift unless the initial onus is discharged, the Court acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt. The revision petition was consequently dismissed as infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused in cases of unnatural death within a matrimonial home if the prosecution fails to discharge its initial onus?
  • Is a joint extra-judicial confession admissible as evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Can medical evidence alone be sufficient to connect an accused to the commission of a crime?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in recording the statements of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajawal vs Collector Land Acquisition & others2019 SC AJK 120 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar and another vs Muhammad Naseer Haider and others2019 PLD Lahore 295 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar alias Bhooma vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 1113, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 306, 2019 LHC 3746 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-31
  criminal revisionre-summoning of witnessfurther cross-examinationdiscretionary power of courttrial delayfilling lacunaeSection 540 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, which dismissed the petitioner's application to re-summon a prosecution witness (PW-1) for further cross-examination. The core legal question was whether a trial court is obligated to re-summon a witness for further cross-examination simply because the accused has engaged a new counsel, or whether such a request must demonstrate that the recall is essential for the just decision of the case. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion. The Court ruled that while Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empowers a court to summon or re-summon witnesses, this power cannot be utilized by a party to fill lacunae in their case or to protract trial proceedings unnecessarily. The Court emphasized that an accused does not have an absolute right to recall witnesses merely due to a change in legal representation, especially when an adequate opportunity for cross-examination was previously provided. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld as legally sound.

  Questions settled

  • Can a prosecution witness be re-summoned for further cross-examination solely because the accused has appointed a new counsel?
  • Does the power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow a party to re-summon witnesses to fill lacunae in their case?
  • Is an accused entitled as a matter of right to recall witnesses for cross-examination after the initial opportunity has been exhausted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed, etc vs Secretary Finance, etc2019 PLC (C.S) 893, 2019 LHC 157 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-06
  constitutional petitionrecovery of incrementspension and gratuityprinciple of locus poenitentiaeterms and conditions of serviceupgradation of pay scaleadvance increments
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed to challenge the recovery of extra increments from the pension and gratuity of police constables who joined service in 1990. The core legal question was whether the respondents could legally recover advance increments paid to the petitioners over a long period following the upgradation of their pay scale, particularly in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the recovery of the increments already drawn and enjoyed for years until retirement was illegal and void ab-initio. The court laid down the principle that where an allowance or increment is drawn bona fide without fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee, and is released by the competent authority, the principle of locus poenitentiae applies, and such benefits cannot be arbitrarily recovered retrospectively after retirement in violation of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of extra increments from retired civil servants after a long lapse of time is legally permissible?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to the withdrawal of advance increments granted bona fide without fraud or misrepresentation?
  • Whether an advance increment drawn on the basis of an interpretation of pay revision rules can be retrospectively recovered?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State2020 PLD Lahore 430, 2019 LHC 4226 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-17
  surety bondforfeiture of bondpre-arrest bailliability of suretyproclaimed offenderbail proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order by the Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Multan, which imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant for failing to produce an accused person for whom he had stood surety. The appellant had provided a surety bond for the accused's appearance during pre-arrest bail proceedings, which were valid only until a specific date. The core legal question was whether a surety remains liable for an accused's appearance beyond the specific date for which the surety bond was executed. The Court held that a surety bond is a contract limited to the specific period or date mentioned therein. Since the accused did not default during the period covered by the bond, the appellant could not be held liable for the accused's subsequent absence. The Court set aside the penalty, ruling that a surety's liability terminates once the period of the bond expires and the accused has appeared as required. The judgment emphasizes that surety bonds must be drafted to cover the entire duration of bail proceedings to avoid such legal lacunae.

  Questions settled

  • Does a surety bond for a specific date automatically extend to subsequent dates of hearing?
  • Is a surety liable for the non-appearance of an accused after the expiry of the period for which the surety bond was executed?
  • Can a court impose a penalty under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the surety bond was not valid for the date of the accused's default?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Punjab Overseas Pakistan Commission through Chairperson and 5 others2019 PLJ Lahore 633 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Additional District Judge and others2019 CLC 1008 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and 7 others vs Provincial Government of Gilgit-2019 P.S.C. 1039 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit BaltistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Akhtar vs Muhammad Ashraf and 3 others2019 YLR 2710 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-30
  QazfZinacriminal appealacquittalburden of proofHudood Ordinances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents by the Trial Court for the offence of Qazf. The core legal question involves determining whether the allegations and previous statements made by the respondents constituted a specific imputation of 'Zina' as legally defined, sufficient to attract penal consequences under the relevant Qazf law. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a shadow of doubt. The Court laid down the principle that an expression of 'going for the purpose of Zina' or mere suspicion and consultation does not amount to a direct imputation of actual 'Zina' as required by statute, and given the stringent deterrent punishments provided for such offences, harder proof is strictly required.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expression 'going for the purpose of Zina' constitute an imputation of actual Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979?
  • Is mere consultation prior to the registration of a criminal case sufficient to establish a charge of Qazf?
  • Does an acquittal in a previous criminal case automatically prove the ingredients of Qazf against the original complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq son of Hikmat Khan vs Government of Khyber2020 PLC (C.S.) 331, 2019 PHC 248 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-16
  constitutional petitioncivil servants appointmentbowl policydepartmental selection committeestatutory rulesward orderlyinitial recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to declare the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Ward Orderly in the District Headquarter Hospital, Hangu, illegal and to direct his own appointment to the post. The core question was whether the appointment of Class-IV employees through a 'Bowl Policy' (lucky draw system), not sanctioned by statutory rules or the advertisement, was lawful. The court held that appointments made in deviation from statutory provisions and through an alien procedure like a lucky draw are void and a nullity. The court noted that the 'Bowl Policy' mandated by a previous High Court judgment had been set aside by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in CPLA Nos. 105-P & 179 of 2018. Consequently, the petition was allowed, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment if otherwise eligible, as statutory rules like the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotions and Transfer Rules), 1989 must strictly govern recruitment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether appointments of Class-IV civil servants can be made through a 'Bowl Policy' or lucky draw system not provided in the statutory rules?
  • Does deviation from statutory provisions of law in the appointment of civil servants render the appointment void?
  • What is the effect of the Supreme Court setting aside the High Court's 'Bowl Policy' judgment on pending and past recruitment processes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and others vs Maqsood Ahmad and others2020 PLD Lahore 105, 2019 LHC 3152, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 111 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and Faridullah vs The state etc2019 PHC 270 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwanullah Khan, Entomologist, Department of Sericulture, Research Centre, AJK and 2 others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary and 5 others2019 P.S.C. 991 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz Ali Khalid and another vs The StatePLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 123, 2019 SCMR 2012 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-02
  explosive substancessuicide vestbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealreappraisal of evidenceterrorismacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal petitions filed against the concurrent convictions of the petitioners under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the alleged recovery of a suicide vest and detonators. The core legal question is whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for heinous terrorist offences beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in the face of missing travel details, lack of independent corroboration, procedural flaws in the search, and absence of an expert report on the contraband. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions, holding that slipshod, incoherent, and suspect evidence cannot sustain life imprisonment, and the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. The key principle laid down is that even in cases with heinous contours, the prosecution must prove its case through unimpeachable evidence, and convictions cannot rest on doubtful investigative steps and non-expert testimony regarding explosive materials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conviction for possession of explosive substances can be sustained on slipshod and suspect evidence?
  • Is the absence of independent corroboration and travel documentation fatal to a prosecution case alleging apprehension from a public vehicle?
  • Can unverified testimony by a non-expert establish the lethal explosive potential of seized contraband?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to eliminate reasonable doubts surrounding the genesis of the crime report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah Nawaz vs The State and others2019 MLD 455 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-17
  double murderhonour killingfasad-fil-arzocular evidencedeath sentence commutationcriminal appealmedical evidencetotality of circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for the double murder of two individuals. The core legal questions concern the reliability of ocular testimony provided by police officials and the appropriateness of the death penalty given the appellant's claim that the murders were committed in the heat of passion upon discovering the victims in a compromising position. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular evidence and medical corroboration, despite the forensic evidence regarding the weapon recovery being rendered inconclusive due to procedural delays. The Court rejected the appellant's plea for sentencing under Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, determining that the act constituted fasad-fil-arz. However, acknowledging mitigating circumstances—specifically that the appellant acted impulsively upon discovering the victims in his compound—the Court maintained the conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life on two counts. The Court affirmed that where a choice exists between death and life imprisonment, the lesser sentence is preferred as a matter of judicial caution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the discovery of victims in a compromising position automatically reduce a murder conviction to Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a criminal case to be decided based on the totality of circumstances rather than isolated elements of evidence?
  • When both death and life imprisonment are possible sentences, which option should the court prefer?
  • Does a delay in sending crime empties to a forensic laboratory render the recovery of the weapon legally unacceptable for a capital sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan Kalhoro & another vs The State2019 SHC 206 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-28
  pre-arrest bailabductiondelay in FIRA-Class disposalmalafide
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail application filed by jail officials seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of abduction after they allegedly failed to release the complainant's son despite bail orders, demanding bribes instead. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of malafide, delayed FIR registration, and police recommendation for disposal under A-Class. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail as the FIR was delayed by one month, the police recommended disposing of the case under A-Class, and the State recorded no objection. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, a police recommendation for disposal under A-Class, and no objection from the State, indicating potential malafide.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging the FIR is a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Does a police recommendation to dispose of a case under A-Class support the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail justified when the State records no objection to its grant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Collector of Customs & 2 others2019 PCTLR 1035 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Swati District Education Officer (Male) Battagram2019 PLC (C.S.) 1306 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-25
  constitutional petitionPublic Service Commissionadditional marksmerit listseniority listlacheswrit jurisdictiondiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the Peshawar Public Service Commission's decision to award two additional marks to respondent No. 3 for an additional qualification (M.A. Management Studies) after the initial merit list for the post of Executive District Officer (BPS-19) had been finalized and recommendations issued. The petitioner contended that the Commission lacked the authority to alter the merit list once it had become functus officio and that the degree did not qualify for additional marks. The Court held that while the Commission may have technically acted after its mandate was complete, the award of marks rectified a manifest omission, as the respondent was legally entitled to those marks under the Public Service Regulations, 2003. Consequently, the Court refused to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction, noting that the action did not occasion injustice. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of laches, as the petitioner failed to challenge the seniority list for several years, during which time other incumbents had been promoted based on that list.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court refuse to set aside an administrative order if the order, though technically irregular, rectifies a manifest omission and causes no injustice?
  • Does the principle of laches apply to a constitutional petition challenging a seniority list after several years and subsequent promotions?
  • Is the Public Service Commission empowered to award additional marks for a qualification after the initial merit list has been recommended to the government?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razzaq vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 514 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-07
  pre-arrest bailZina-bil-Jabarmala fideextraordinary reliefbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought confirmation of his ad-interim pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 376(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of committing Zina-bil-Jabar with the niece of the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, particularly concerning the presence of mala fide or ulterior motives for false implication. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIR, found fully involved during the investigation, and failed to establish any mala fide or malice on the part of the complainant. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and recalled the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief meant for innocent persons to avoid societal humiliation where arrest is motivated by mala fide, and in the absence of such mala fide, an accused facing serious allegations like Zina-bil-Jabar is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused specifically nominated in an FIR for Zina-bil-Jabar entitled to pre-arrest bail without establishing mala fide?
  • What is the scope of pre-arrest bail in criminal cases involving heinous offences?
  • Does the absence of mala fide on the part of the complainant preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razzaq vs Chairman Arbitration council etc2019 CLC 1531, 2019 CLC 1539, 2019 LHC 1542 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razi Khan vs The Institute of Chartered Accounts of Pakistan, etc2019 PLC (C.S.) 632, 2019 LHC 707 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-15
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionnatural justicestatutory bodywrongful terminationservice lawfair hearingsubstantial justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, challenging his termination from the position of Executive Director Operations North at the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan (ICAP). The core legal questions were whether ICAP, as a self-regulatory body, is amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction and whether the termination of the petitioner's service without a show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was lawful. The Court held that ICAP is a statutory body performing public functions and is thus subject to writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the termination was illegal as it violated the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement to provide a notice and an opportunity of hearing before taking adverse action. The Court emphasized that when a public authority exercises power affecting rights, it must act fairly and justly. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the impugned termination letter was set aside, reaffirming that substantial justice must prevail over technical objections regarding the nature of service regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan a statutory body amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can an employee be terminated from service by a public authority without the issuance of a show-cause notice or an opportunity of hearing?
  • Does the lack of statutory service rules preclude a High Court from exercising writ jurisdiction against a public authority for violations of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs State and another2020 KLR Criminal Cases 198, 2020 P Cr. L J 662, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1554 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-01
  narcotic substancescriminal appealsentencing discretionrehabilitationinvestigating officer as complainantpossession of charrasmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, who was found guilty by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1025 grams of charras. The primary legal questions concerned the validity of the conviction given the investigation procedures and the appropriateness of the quantum of sentence. The appellant contended that the investigating officer acted as the complainant, which was alleged to be improper. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the investigating officer acting as the complainant does not invalidate the proceedings absent proof of prejudice to the accused. While maintaining the conviction, the Court exercised its discretion regarding the quantum of sentence. Emphasizing the principles of rehabilitation and indeterminate sentencing, the Court reduced the four-year rigorous imprisonment sentence to the period already undergone, considering the appellant’s status as a first-time offender and his potential for reformation. The fine was maintained, though the default sentence was reduced.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police officer act as both the complainant and the investigating officer in a criminal case?
  • Does the phrase 'may extend to' in the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, grant courts discretion in determining the quantum of sentence?
  • Is a first-time offender entitled to a reduction in sentence based on the principle of rehabilitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Government of Punjab and 4 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1241 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-18
  contractual employmentwilful absencedue processtermination of serviceconstitutional jurisdictionpublic functionariesfair hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition concerning the termination of a contract employee. The appellant, an educator, was terminated for "wilful absence" from duty after being arrested and detained in connection with a criminal case, despite later being cleared of the charges. The core legal question was whether the termination for "wilful absence" was legally sustainable when the employee was physically prevented from attending work due to police custody, and whether the employer's failure to consider this explanation violated due process. The Court held that the termination was legally untenable. It reasoned that "wilful absence" presupposes a choice, which the appellant lacked while in custody. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that public functionaries must act fairly and reasonably. The judgment established that characterizing an absence as "wilful" without considering circumstances beyond an employee's control is inherently defective. It affirmed that due process, as guaranteed by the Constitution, requires that an employee be given a fair opportunity to explain such absences before termination, and that public authorities must act within the parameters of law and fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee be terminated for 'wilful absence' if the absence was caused by involuntary police detention?
  • Does the term 'wilful' in an employment contract require the existence of a choice on the part of the employee?
  • Are public functionaries required to consider an employee's explanation for absence before terminating their contract?
  • Does the constitutional right to due process apply to the termination of a contract employee by a public authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Hussain vs the State etc2020 YLR 619, 2019 LHC 2870 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-03
  criminal appealright of cross-examinationadmissibility of evidencebenefit of doubtocular evidenceexamination-in-chiefQanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for offences under Sections 324, 337A(ii), and 337F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether a criminal conviction can be sustained based solely on the examination-in-chief of a prosecution witness who died before the defence could exercise its right to cross-examination. The Court held that the right to cross-examine is a fundamental right under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, essential for testing the veracity of testimony. Consequently, the examination-in-chief of a witness who has not been cross-examined is inadmissible as evidence, unless falling under specific statutory exceptions like Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. As the trial court relied exclusively on the un-cross-examined testimony of the deceased witness and disbelieved the remaining ocular evidence, the conviction was unsustainable. The Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the complainant's appeals against the acquittal of co-accused and for enhancement of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the examination-in-chief of a witness who died before cross-examination?
  • Is the right to cross-examine a witness a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination render a witness's statement inadmissible as evidence?
  • Can a conviction be based on corroborative evidence when the direct evidence has been disbelieved by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Bhatti vs The Director General FIA, Headquarters, Islamabad and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 126, 2018 SCMR 1995 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-21
  inter se senioritysupersessioncivil servantservice tribunaldepartmental promotion committeeproforma promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Muhammad Rashid Bhatti against the Director General FIA and others, challenging the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding his inter se seniority as an Inspector (BPS-16). The core legal questions involved the applicability of Fundamental Rule 17 (FR-17) regarding seniority upon promotion and supersession, and whether Rule 3(c) of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993 is ultra vires the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was duly superseded by the Department Promotion Committee on multiple occasions and that FR-17 is inapplicable as the case did not involve a tenure post or wrongful prevention of promotion without fault. The Court further held that the constitutional challenge to Rule 3(c) could not be raised for the first time before the apex court when it was not agitated before the Tribunal, and no point of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution was made out. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Fundamental Rule 17 applies to a civil servant who was lawfully superseded rather than wrongfully prevented from rendering service?
  • Can a legal question regarding the vires of a rule be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court without being urged before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does a supersession approved by the Department Promotion Committee disentitle a civil servant from regaining inter se seniority under Rule 3(c) of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasheed vs The Collector of Customs, MCC, Peshawar2019 PTD (Trib.) 106 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasheed vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf2019 SC AJK 9 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasheed (Deceased) through L.Rs, and others vs Muhammad2019 YLR 388 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State etc2019 MLD 1168, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 623, 2019 LHC 496 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-17
  post-arrest bailrapefurther inquiryDNA evidencemedico-legal reportcriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, who was accused in an FIR involving allegations of abduction and rape under Section 376(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps, specifically the negative DNA report and the lack of corroborating medical evidence. The Lahore High Court observed that the medical examination of the victim showed no signs of recent trauma, and the DNA report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency was inconclusive regarding the petitioner's involvement. Furthermore, co-accused had already been granted bail, and the trial had not progressed significantly since the submission of the challan. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where forensic and medical evidence fails to connect an accused to the crime, further incarceration pending trial is unjustified.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inconclusive DNA report and lack of corroborating medical evidence constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the prolonged incarceration of an accused without trial progress a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State and another2019 MLD 959 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-11
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelay in FIRcross-versionheinous offencetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, sought post-arrest bail in a cross-version case arising from FIR No. 179 of 2018 registered under sections 302, 337-A(i), 496-A, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Rangpur, District Muzaffargarh. The core legal question was whether the unexplained delay in recording statements by the complainant and eye-witnesses, coupled with competing versions of the incident, brought the petitioner's case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the significant delay in reporting the matter to the police by the complainant and her witnesses, alongside the existence of conflicting versions requiring trial evaluation, made the case one of further inquiry. The court established that mere involvement in a heinous offence does not warrant refusing bail when the accused is a previous non-convict, investigation is complete, and continuous incarceration serves no purpose, thereby granting post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses makes a criminal case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does mere involvement in a heinous offence justify refusing post-arrest bail when the accused is a previous non-convict and investigation is complete?
  • Whether the existence of conflicting versions of an incident between an FIR and a private complaint warrants the grant of bail pending trial evaluation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 623 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-17
  post-arrest bailrapeDNA evidencefurther inquirymedico-legal reportcriminal proceduresuspicion-based nomination
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, who was charged under Section 376(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged abduction and rape. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Court observed that the initial FIR and the victim's medical examination referred to unknown accused persons, and the medical report showed no physical signs of recent sexual assault. Crucially, the DNA report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency was inconclusive regarding the petitioner's involvement. Furthermore, co-accused had already been granted bail after the complainant admitted they were nominated based on suspicion. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing the negative DNA results, the lack of medical corroboration, and the delay in trial proceedings, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing that inconclusive forensic evidence and weak initial identification constitute sufficient grounds for further probe, thereby entitling an accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inconclusive DNA report constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when the initial FIR and medical examination fail to provide specific corroborative evidence against the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the trial has not progressed and the prosecution's evidence is inconclusive?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs State etc.PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1454 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-16
  extra-judicial confessionbenefit of the doubtmurdercriminal appealcircumstantial evidencerecoveryQatl-i-Amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302(b) and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing the murder of the deceased and robbery, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal question revolves around whether an extra-judicial confession made to an unrelated witness and subsequent recoveries can form the sole basis of conviction without reliable corroborative evidence. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that extra-judicial confessions are a weak piece of evidence requiring strong, independent corroboration, which was lacking in this case, and that unexplained delays, implausible circumstances, and doubtful recoveries entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and extra-judicial confessions made to persons lacking influence or relation must be viewed with utmost caution.

  Questions settled

  • Can an extra-judicial confession alone sustain a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession made to a person having no influence or relation to the accused?
  • Whether a conviction can be upheld when the prosecution fails to establish the identity of recovered articles connected to the crime?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle the accused to acquittal as of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 479 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-11
  Post-arrest bailFurther inquiryDelay in FIRConflicting versionsCross-versionMurderBail groundsHeinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, sought post-arrest bail in a cross-version of FIR No. 179 of 2018, involving offences under Sections 302, 337-A(i), 496A, 34, Pakistan Penal Code. The allegations included throwing down the deceased, Miraj Asif, resulting in his death. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given significant delays in reporting by the complainant and witnesses, and the existence of conflicting versions of the incident, including a private complaint against the original complainant. The Lahore High Court accepted the bail petition, holding that the unexplained delay of about one month by the complainant and her witnesses in reporting the matter to the police, coupled with the existence of two conflicting versions of the incident (one by the complainant party and another concluded by the investigating agency, further complicated by a private complaint), rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that mere involvement in a heinous offence is not a sole ground for refusing bail when other factors make the case one of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in reporting an incident by the complainant and witnesses make a case one of further inquiry for bail purposes?
  • Can conflicting prosecution versions of an incident render a case one of further inquiry for bail?
  • Is mere involvement in a heinous offence sufficient ground to refuse bail when other factors suggest a case of further inquiry?
  • What is the effect of a private complaint being lodged against the original complainant and witnesses on a bail application in a cross-version case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Mirpur Development Authority2019 SC AJK 116 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Commissioner Inland Revenue etc2019 PLJ Lahore 265 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Commissioner Inland Revenue and others2019 PLJ Lahore 526, 2019 PTD 884 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rais vs Muhammad Sarfraz2019 SC AJK 84 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahan Khan vs Federal Government and 2 others2019 IHC 136 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-09-13
  Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act 1969insurance premiumretirement benefitsvires of statutepresumption of constitutionalitycivil servantstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, retired government employees, challenged the vires of Section 19 of the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969, contending that the failure to refund insurance premiums upon retirement, while only providing benefits upon death during service, was discriminatory and amounted to extortion. They sought to align the federal law with provincial amendments in KPK and Balochistan. The core legal question was whether Section 19 violated the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by failing to provide insurance benefits to retired employees. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Act of 1969 is a valid legislative enactment and that the insurance scheme is specifically designed for death benefits rather than retirement savings. The Court affirmed that there is a strong presumption of constitutionality in favor of statutes, and courts cannot strike down legislation merely based on perceived lack of wisdom or policy preferences. Consequently, the Court held that the legislature has the exclusive prerogative to amend the law to include retirement benefits, and no constitutional violation was established.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 19 of the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act 1969 violate the Constitution by failing to provide insurance benefits to retired employees?
  • Is the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act 1969 unconstitutional for not providing for the return of insurance premiums upon retirement?
  • What are the established principles for determining the constitutionality of a statute in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiullah etc vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd2019 SCP 84 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-11-22
  pensionary benefitsvoluntary golden handshake schemeterms and conditions of serviceunilateral alteration of termsdiscriminationpast and closed transactioncontractual statusemployee benefitsstatutory protection
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard petitions for leave to appeal concerning pensionary benefits for former employees of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd (formerly Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan). The core legal question was whether employees who voluntarily opted for a Golden Handshake Scheme (2002) or the Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (Staff Regulations) 2005, and received benefits based on a revised pension factor of 1.15%, could subsequently claim pension calculated under the Agricultural Development Bank Employees Pension and Gratuity Regulations, 1981, which provided a 2.33% factor. The petitioners also contended that denying them the higher factor was discriminatory and that the Golden Handshake Scheme lacked Federal Government approval. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that employees who voluntarily accepted the terms and benefits of the schemes are bound by their choice, constituting a past and closed transaction. Such voluntary acceptance removes them from the protection against unilateral alteration of service terms. The Court found no discrimination as these employees formed a distinct class, and the challenge to the scheme's approval was not entertainable at this stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can employees who voluntarily opted for a Golden Handshake Scheme and received benefits based on revised pension factors later claim benefits under previous, more advantageous regulations?
  • Does the protection against unilateral alteration of service terms apply to employees who voluntarily accept altered terms and benefits?
  • Is it discriminatory to deny higher pensionary benefits to employees who voluntarily opted for a scheme, while granting them to employees who did not?
  • Can the validity of a voluntary separation scheme be challenged on grounds of lacking statutory approval after employees have voluntarily opted for and received benefits under it?
  • Do employees who voluntarily accept new terms and conditions of service form a distinct class from those who do not, for the purpose of claiming benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs State & anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1325 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-16
  criminal appealmurder convictionchance witnessbenefit of doubteye-witness credibilityappreciation of evidencedeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his daughter under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the credibility of the eye-witnesses and the alleged motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as the purported eye-witnesses were established to be "chance witnesses" whose presence at the crime scene was highly improbable given the significant distance from their residence and the lack of corroborating details regarding their travel. Furthermore, the alleged motive remained unsubstantiated. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that if a single reasonable doubt exists regarding the presence of eye-witnesses at the crime scene, their entire testimony must be discarded, and the benefit of such doubt must invariably be extended to the accused in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a single reasonable doubt regarding the presence of eye-witnesses at the crime scene warrant the rejection of their entire testimony?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution fails to substantiate the alleged motive and the eye-witnesses are found to be chance witnesses?
  • Is the testimony of eye-witnesses who reside at a significant distance from the crime scene and fail to provide corroborating details of their travel reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs D.E.O & Others2019 SC AJK 62 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa vs The State2019 P.S.C (Crl.) 611, 2019 SCMR 1068, 2019 SCP 258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-03
  MurderAppealAcquittalPost-mortem delayEyewitness testimonyDoubtful recoveryPolice custodyCriminal Procedure CodePakistan Penal CodeBenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns an appeal against the conviction and life imprisonment of Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa for murder under Section 302(b) PPC. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reconsider the Lahore High Court's decision. The core legal questions revolved around the prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the suspicious presence of related and chance eyewitnesses at the occurrence, the unestablished motive of a cut watercourse, and significant procedural irregularities. The Court noted an unexplained delay of nearly 22 hours in conducting the post-mortem examination, which, in the absence of justification, suggested time was consumed in fabricating a story and planting witnesses. The Court also found the recovery of the weapon legally inconsequential due to a negative forensic report and doubted the recovery of a crime empty from a double-barrel gun without assertion of reloading. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that unexplained delays and doubtful evidence create a serious dent in the prosecution's case.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State (NAB)PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 484, 2019 SCMR 846, 2019 SCP 268, 2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-12
  National Accountability Bureaustatutory delegationreferenceassets beyond known sources of incomeChairman NABAccountability Courtcorruption and corrupt practices
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the judgment of the Balochistan High Court, which upheld the conviction of the appellant, a Settlement Patwari, for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for owning assets beyond known sources of income. The core legal question was whether a reference filed by a Regional Director of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was valid and in accordance with the law when the post of Chairman, NAB was vacant at the time of filing. The Supreme Court held that the reference was valid, distinguishing the statutory power of the Chairman to delegate the filing of a reference under Section 18(g) read with Section 34-A from the power to file an appeal under Section 32 which cannot be so delegated. The Court laid down that statutory delegation does not terminate automatically upon a vacancy in the office of the delegator unless specified by law, and that principles of contractual principal-and-agent delegation do not apply to statutory delegations. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a reference filed by a Regional Director of NAB is valid when the office of the Chairman, NAB is vacant?
  • Does the power of the Chairman, NAB to delegate the filing of a reference under Section 18(g) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 terminate when the delegator leaves office?
  • Are the principles of principal and agent applicable to statutory delegation under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is the authority to file a reference under Section 18(g) distinct from the authority to file an appeal under Section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs State (NAB)2019 SCMR 846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-12
  National Accountability Ordinancestatutory delegationreference maintainabilityassets beyond known sources of incomeChairman NAB vacancydelegation of powerscorruption and corrupt practices
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Balochistan High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant, a Settlement Patwari, for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for owning assets beyond his known sources of income. The core legal question was whether a reference filed by the Regional Director, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was legally valid and maintainable when the post of Chairman, NAB was vacant at the time of filing. The Court held that the reference was validly filed, distinguishing the power to file a reference under Section 18(g) from the power to file an appeal under Section 32. The Court laid down the principle that the statutory delegation of powers by the Chairman, NAB under Section 34A does not lapse upon a vacancy in the office of the Chairman, as statutory delegation is distinct from contractual principal-agent relationships, and that the Director General, NAB was duly authorized by SRO to file references against government officials in BPS-16 and below.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a reference filed by an authorized officer of the National Accountability Bureau is maintainable when the office of the Chairman, NAB is vacant?
  • Does a statutory delegation of powers under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 lapse when the delegator vacates office?
  • Are the powers of the Chairman, NAB to file a reference under Section 18(g) and to file an appeal under Section 32 distinct functions under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can principles of contractual principal and agent be applied to statutory delegations made under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafi and 2 others vs Member, Board of Revenue (Judicial) of Aj&K Circuit, Mirpur and 7 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1150 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs The State2019 SCP 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-09-27
  double murdergrave and sudden provocationhonour killingreappraisal of evidencereduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court upholding the appellant's conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder, while reducing the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether the murders were committed under grave and sudden provocation, attracting section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or constituted honour killings under the proviso to the same section. The Supreme Court held that the evidence established the killings occurred under sudden and grave provocation when the appellant found the deceased in a compromising position, distinguishing it from premeditated honour killings. Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions under section 302(b) and substituting them with convictions under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to twenty years rigorous imprisonment on each count. The key principle laid down is that grave and sudden provocation resulting in a loss of self-control must be distinguished from calculated murders committed in the name or on the pretext of honour.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a murder committed under grave and sudden provocation falls under section 302(c) rather than section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a murder committed on the pretext of honour differ from a sudden act prompted by grave provocation?
  • Can the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be extended upon the conversion of a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim Kandhro vs Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah and 52019 CLC 883 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resources Development and another2019 PLC (C.S.) 1491 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-11-14
  contractual employeesregularization of servicesequal opportunitypublic employmentintra court appealmerit-based appointmentconstitutional mandate
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged a judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by contractual Data Entry Operators seeking regularization of their services. The appellants, initially appointed on a temporary basis for six months with periodic extensions, contended they were entitled to permanent status due to their length of service and the regularization of similarly placed individuals. The core legal question was whether contractual employees, appointed without a transparent competitive process for permanent posts, could claim regularization as a matter of right. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to demonstrate they were appointed through an open, competitive process. The Court emphasized that converting temporary employment into permanent status without such a process violates the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity enshrined in Articles 3 and 9 of the Constitution. It further ruled that courts cannot rewrite employment contracts or grant regularization in the absence of a specific enabling statute. The judgment affirmed that public sector employment must be merit-based, and granting regularization to contractual employees without competition would undermine the rights of other qualified candidates.

  Questions settled

  • Can contractual employees claim regularization as a matter of right without having undergone an open and transparent competitive process?
  • Does the conversion of temporary or contractual employment into permanent employment without a competitive process violate the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity?
  • Can a court rewrite the terms of an employment contract to grant regularization where no statutory provision for such regularization exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qadeer vs The State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1306, 2019 PHC 322 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-26
  retracted confessionjudicial confessioncircumstantial evidencecall data recordmurder referencedeath sentenceQatl-e-Amdstatement of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Hangu, convicting the appellants, Muhammad Qadeer and Mst. Robina Ashraf, for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased Rizwan Ahmad under section 302(b) PPC, alongside a conviction of Muhammad Qadeer under section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, call data records, and judicial confessions made by both appellants after they were linked to the crime through text messages and mobile data. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and voluntariness of retracted judicial confessions, the mandatory scope of questioning under section 342 Cr.P.C., and whether circumstantial evidence sufficiently corroborated the confessions. The Peshawar High Court held that retracted judicial confessions, once proven voluntary and truthful, can form the basis of a conviction without necessarily requiring independent corroboration, though strong circumstantial evidence—including mobile phone records, medical reports, and the recovery of the weapon—did in fact corroborate the confessions here. The appeals were dismissed, and the death sentence of Muhammad Qadeer was confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of a retracted judicial confession?
  • Whether the failure to put a specific preliminary question in a statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. vitiates the trial or causes prejudice to the accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of call data records (CDR) in corroborating a judicial confession in a circumstantial murder case?
  • Does a retracted confession require mandatory independent corroboration before it can be relied upon for a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Pervaiz vs The State, etc2019 SCP 172, PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-06
  qatl-e-amdbenefit of doubtappraisal of evidencesuspicious testimonyburden of proofcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant for the qatl-e-amd of his wife under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, which was upheld with modification of sentence by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether a conviction can be sustained on presumptions, implausible explanations by the accused, or suspicious testimony of ocular witnesses when co-accused identically placed have been acquitted. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution must prove its case through positive and reliable evidence, and suspicions or failure of the accused to establish innocence cannot substitute legal proof. The Court set aside the conviction, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, and laid down the principle that a criminal case must be decided on the basis of credible prosecution evidence, and a suspect cannot be condemned on the basis of moral satisfaction or presumptions in the absence of evidentiary certainty.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the basis of presumptions or the failure of the accused to provide a plausible explanation?
  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses found suspicious by the court can be relied upon to maintain a conviction?
  • Does the rejection of prosecution evidence against a co-accused weaken the case against the remaining accused whose role is intertwined?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Pervaiz vs State, etc_PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  qatl-e-amdbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecriminal appealburden of proofwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the qatl-e-amd of his wife, Kausar Bibi, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant strangulated the deceased in the presence of witnesses who had arrived to take her back due to marital disputes. The trial court convicted the appellant, and the High Court maintained the conviction while commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven its case, particularly given that the High Court itself expressed suspicion regarding the presence of the witnesses at the scene. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide positive proof of guilt, noting that the witnesses' presence was doubtful and their testimony regarding the co-accused had already been rejected. Emphasizing that suspicion cannot substitute for legal proof and that an accused cannot be convicted based on a failure to prove innocence, the Court set aside the conviction, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of an implausible explanation for the crime?
  • Does the failure of an accused to explain their presence at the scene of a crime shift the burden of proof to the prosecution?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses have been disbelieved regarding a co-accused whose role was intertwined with the appellant's?
  • Is suspicion or moral satisfaction sufficient to maintain a criminal conviction in the absence of evidentiary certainty?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Paryal vs The State2019 YLR 2316 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-26
  murderocular testimonymedical evidenceanti-terrorism actbhattacriminal appealpolice constable
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a police constable, was tried and convicted by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Hyderabad under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sections 6(2)(k) and 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for the murder of a fruit vendor following an altercation. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and a separate term under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, along with fines and compensation. In the criminal appeal before the Sindh High Court, the core legal questions involved the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the corroboration of the medical and circumstantial evidence, and whether the alleged demand for money constituted a terrorist act under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charge of murder through consistent ocular and medical evidence, but failed to establish the independent charge of terrorism as the motive of demanding 'Bhatta' was not substantiated. Consequently, the court maintained the conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while setting aside the conviction and sentences under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The key principle laid down is that the failure of a terrorist motive or a charge under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 does not vitiate the conviction for a main independent offence like murder if otherwise proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a motive or a charge under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 result in the failure of the main independent offence of murder?
  • Can the uncorroborated allegation of demanding protection money ('Bhatta') without proof of specific quantum and history attract Section 6(2)(k) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses who are friends of the deceased can be discarded solely on the ground of relationship or friendship in the absence of a motive to falsely implicate the accused?
  • Does an individual act of murder committed during a sudden altercation at a public place bring the action within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Parvaiz vs State through A.A.G., K.P.K. and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 840, 2019 YLR 2213 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-03
  criminal appealabductionillegal marriagecircumstantial evidenceretracted confessioncall data recordbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly inducing a married woman to contract an illegal marriage, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns whether a conviction under Section 365-B can be sustained solely on the basis of hearsay evidence, unverified call data records, and a retracted confessional statement of an acquitted co-accused without independent corroboration. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete, unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, that hearsay testimony and unauthenticated call records are inadmissible, and that a retracted confession of an acquitted co-accused cannot serve as substantive evidence against the appellant without strong independent corroboration. The court established key principles regarding the strict standard of proof required in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the inadmissibility of unverified electronic data, and the limited evidentiary value of a co-accused's retracted confession. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for abduction and illegal marriage be sustained solely on the basis of hearsay evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession made by an acquitted co-accused against the remaining appellant?
  • Can unverified call data records without the testimony of an authorized cellular company representative be relied upon to prove a criminal charge?
  • Is an accused bound by admissions made by their counsel during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Panah Jokhio and 4 others vs The State2019 YLR 2911 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-11
  anti-corruptionforgerybenefit of doubtprivate land disputesignature comparisonbona fide purchaserrule of consistencycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Karachi, whereby the five appellants were convicted under sections 167, 218, 34 and 420, 468 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The prosecution alleged that revenue officials in connivance with private individuals prepared forged documents and sketches to encroach upon and sell private agricultural land. The core legal questions involved the legality of convictions of private persons and public servants under anti-corruption and penal laws based on disputed titles, secondary evidence, and bare signature comparisons. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that the anti-corruption police have no jurisdiction to investigate private land title disputes, that sections 217 and 218 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply strictly to public servants, that secondary photostat copies without originals cannot prove forgery, and that courts cannot safely rely on bare visual signature comparisons under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 without expert testimony or primary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Anti-Corruption establishment has the power and authority to investigate disputes regarding private lands?
  • Can sections 217 and 218 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be applied to convict private persons who are not public servants?
  • Is it legally permissible to base a conviction for forgery on secondary photostat copies of documents without producing the originals?
  • Can a court rely solely on a bare visual comparison of signatures under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 without the aid of a handwriting expert?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Noman vs The State2019 SHC 172 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-23
  circumstantial evidencejudicial confessionretracted confessioncriminal appealmurderrecoveryreasonable doubtpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, which convicted the appellants for murder and robbery. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including alleged recoveries, forensic reports, and a judicial confession. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to provide an unbroken chain of evidence, noting significant gaps and contradictions in the investigation. The Court emphasized that in cases of unseen offences, the burden on the prosecution is doubled, requiring deep scrutiny of circumstantial evidence. The Court found the alleged recoveries doubtful due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, such as Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and deemed the retracted judicial confession unreliable due to the lack of independent corroboration and failure to provide the accused with adequate reflection time away from police custody. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, establishing that random reliance on circumstantial evidence without a complete, unbroken chain leads to a failure of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on a retracted judicial confession without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to comply with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding recoveries render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Is it legally permissible to rely on circumstantial evidence where the chain of evidence is broken or incomplete?
  • Does the failure to provide an accused with adequate reflection time away from police custody before recording a confession invalidate the confession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs Hoat2019 [M] C.L.R. 336 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs Haji Muhammad Riaz & others2019 SC AJK 140 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir and another vs Justice of Peace, District Neelum and 22019 KLR Supreme Court 140 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazim Saleem, Member (Technical-Id Messrs I.T. Impex, Karachi vs The Director General and another2019 PTD (Trib.) 36 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State etc2019 MLD 1574, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1116, 2019 LHC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-09
  Control of Narcotic Substances Actsafe custodytransmission of sampleschain of custodycase property discrepancycollection of evidencebenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lalian, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for alleged possession of 1570 grams of charas. The primary legal issue before the Lahore High Court was whether the prosecution had established the unbroken chain of safe custody and transmission of the recovered narcotics and sample parcels beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the complainant failed to hand over the sample parcels to the Investigating Officer as required during the evidence collection process under Section 4(l) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, severe discrepancies emerged regarding the weight and physical state of the narcotics produced in court, alongside an unexplained four-day gap in sample transmission between the Naib Moharrir and the Investigating Officer. The Court held that establishing an unbroken chain of safe custody from recovery to analysis is mandatory in narcotics cases. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when sample parcels of recovered narcotics are not handed over to the Investigating Officer during investigation under Section 4(l) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a material discrepancy in the weight and number of pieces between allegedly recovered narcotics and the case property produced before the trial court vitiate a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • What is the legal consequence of an unexplained gap between the date a sample parcel was handed over by the Moharrir and the date the carrier claims to have received it for deposit with the forensic science agency?
  • Whether establishing an unbroken chain of safe custody of recovered narcotics and representative samples is mandatory to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Mian Khan, etc2019 PLJ Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz son of Abdul Nawab vs The State etc2019 PHC 250 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-16
  murdercircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtfsl report delayweapon recoverycriminal appealacquittalocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge/ASJ Nowshera, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of his sister and another person, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on the available direct and circumstantial evidence. The court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the appellant's guilt, noting that neither the complainant nor the mother of the deceased were eyewitnesses, the arrest and weapon recovery were highly doubtful and unnatural, and the firearm empties and weapon were sent to the forensic laboratory with an unexplained delay of eleven days. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of the charges. The key principle laid down is that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the links in the chain must be complete and unbroken connecting the accused to the crime, and any missing link or reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of non-eyewitnesses and hearsay reports are sufficient to sustain a conviction on a capital charge?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a crime weapon and empties sent to the forensic laboratory after an unexplained delay?
  • Does the recovery of bloodstained articles and post-mortem reports alone prove the identity of the culprit in a murder case?
  • What standard of circumstantial evidence is required to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Chattah vs Inspector General of Police, Sindh, Karachi2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 139 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  service appealdepartmental inquiryreduction in rankright of cross-examinationmisconductde novo inquirycivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenged the reduction in rank of a police officer imposed without a regular departmental inquiry. The core legal question was whether the department could dispense with a regular inquiry when the allegations of corruption and misconduct involved factual disputes requiring evidence. The Tribunal held that the impugned orders were illegal, as the department failed to conduct a regular inquiry, thereby depriving the appellant of the fundamental right to cross-examine witnesses and defend against the charges. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Tribunal affirmed that where allegations require the production of evidence to prove, holding a regular departmental inquiry is a mandatory condition. Dispensing with such an inquiry prevents the accused from eliciting favorable evidence through cross-examination, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders and directed the department to conduct a de novo inquiry in accordance with the law, ensuring the appellant's right to a fair process is upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory when allegations of misconduct require the production of evidence to prove?
  • Does the dispensation of a regular departmental inquiry in cases involving factual disputes violate the right of a civil servant to defend themselves?
  • Can a penalty of reduction in rank be sustained if the underlying departmental proceedings failed to allow for the cross-examination of witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and others vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 1064 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-31
  anti-terrorismseparate sentencesillegal judgmentremandcode of criminal procedurepakistan penal codeconvictiondeath reference
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, along with a connected conviction under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in awarding a single combined sentence for multiple distinct offenses instead of recording separate convictions and distinct sentences for each charge, in violation of mandatory procedural provisions. The Sindh High Court held that under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it is mandatory for a court to specify distinct sentences for each offense of which the accused is found guilty, and merging them into a composite sentence is illegal. The appellate court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back for a fresh judgment to be written by a different trial judge based on the existing record. The key principle laid down is that failure to award separate sentences for distinct offenses renders the judgment legally flawed, requiring a remand for re-evaluation and independent sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether it is mandatory under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for a trial court to award separate and distinct sentences for each offense of which an accused is convicted?
  • Can a composite death sentence awarded jointly for an offense under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in law?
  • What is the appropriate remedy when a trial court fails to record separate convictions and sentences for distinct charges?
  • Does a defect in framing separate heads of charge vitiate the trial automatically where no prejudice is caused to the accused under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and 2 others vs Khan Muhammad and another2019 CLC 1397 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-13Read full judgment →