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 Asghar vs Hamza Ilyas and 3 others2019 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 35 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar and 3 others vs SHO and 2 others2019 PLJ Lahore 255, 2020 PLD Lahore 87 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asad vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 1251 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-03
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencechance witnessunnatural offencemurderforensic evidencedelayed post-mortem
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 302(b) and 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial court judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment and ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence, the impact of delayed post-mortem examinations, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, specifically the recovery of the weapon of offence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the ocular witnesses were "chance witnesses" whose presence was doubtful, their conduct was unnatural, and their identification of the appellant during night hours without light sources was implausible. Furthermore, the Court noted significant discrepancies in the timing of the incident between the FIR and the inquest report, and the failure to provide forensic corroboration for the recovered weapon. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that where prosecution evidence is susceptible to multiple interpretations, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of chance witnesses whose conduct contradicts natural human behavior?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon of offence sufficient for conviction in the absence of forensic reports confirming the presence of human blood?
  • Does the withholding of material evidence by the prosecution entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asad vs State etc.PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1462 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-11
  benefit of the doubtmurder appealrejection of firearm recoveryunnatural conduct of complainantdoubtful identificationfailure of motive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Asad, handed down by the trial court for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased and related firearm offences, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the death penalty. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the identification of the accused in a night-time incident, the reliability of the evidence, and the existence of a credible motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt due to multiple significant flaws, including delayed and suspicious document preparation, unconvincing lalkara and motive evidence, failure to recover the alleged source of light, and compromised forensic evidence regarding weapon recovery. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction and sentences, acquitted him of the charges, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the investigating officer to take the alleged source of light into possession makes the identification of the accused doubtful in a night-time occurrence?
  • Does the raising of a lalkara by an assailant immediately before a night-time attack appear unnatural and unworthy of belief?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Can a positive forensic report regarding crime empties be discarded when the timing of their dispatch and the date of the accused's arrest create a possibility of fabrication?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and another vs The State through P.-G., Punjab and othersPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 497, 2019 SCMR 572 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-06
  post-arrest bailplea of alibifurther inquiryconspiracy and abetmentcriminal appealevidentiary valueincarceration verification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged an order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case involving multiple charges, including murder and terrorism, registered at Police Station City District Mianwali. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given their plea of alibi, supported by evidence that they were incarcerated in Central Jail, Rawalpindi, at the time of the incident. The Supreme Court observed that the District Police Officer (DPO) Mianwali verified the petitioners' confinement in jail during the relevant period. Although the prosecution alleged the petitioners were involved via conspiracy or abetment, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to point to any evidence supporting this claim. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners' case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the petitioners, establishing the principle that where a credible plea of alibi is verified by official records and the prosecution fails to substantiate allegations of conspiracy, a case for further inquiry is made out, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the verification of a plea of alibi by police authorities constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is bail permissible when the prosecution fails to provide evidence of conspiracy or abetment against accused persons who were incarcerated at the time of the alleged offense?
  • Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal to grant bail in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Abbasi and 3 others vs Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) through Secretary and 5 others2019 YLR 1481 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Muhammad Ashraf and another2019 KLR Criminal Cases 320 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-09-05
  bail cancellationcross-casesfurther inquirytentative assessmentprejudice to prosecutiondiscretionary powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the trial court in a case involving cross-FIRs. The core legal question was whether the bail granted was improper and whether the trial court's observations regarding the nature of the offence prejudiced the prosecution's case. The High Court held that where both parties have lodged cross-FIRs and sustained injuries, the matter constitutes a case of 'further inquiry,' justifying the grant of bail. The court affirmed that the criteria for cancelling bail are distinct from those for granting it; cancellation requires strong, exceptional grounds, such as the misuse of bail, tampering with evidence, or threats to witnesses, none of which were established here. While upholding the bail, the court expunged specific tentative findings made by the trial court regarding the classification of the offence, noting that such premature conclusions could prejudice the prosecution at trial. The key principle laid down is that once bail is granted by a competent court, it should not be cancelled absent compelling evidence of misuse or exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • What are the necessary grounds for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does the existence of cross-FIRs and injuries on both sides constitute a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can a trial court's tentative findings in a bail order be expunged if they are likely to prejudice the prosecution's case at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Choudhary vs Muzaffar Hussain and others2019 LHC 2414 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and 7 others vs Member, Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore2019 CLC 1405 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1029, 2018 LHC 3164 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-20
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionjoint confessionbenefit of doubtmurder trialcriminal appealweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of two women whose bodies were discovered in a drain. The core legal questions involved the reliability and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, including unproved motive, last-seen evidence, an inadmissible joint extra-judicial confession, voice identification, medical evidence, and defective weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the appellant to the crime, particularly noting that co-accused faced identical evidence and were acquitted without appeal. The court laid down the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must conclusively connect the accused to the crime with no missing links, that joint extra-judicial confessions are inadmissible, and that incriminating evidence not put to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be used for conviction. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a joint extra-judicial confession made by multiple co-accused is admissible in evidence?
  • Can incriminating evidence or forensic reports not put to the accused during examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used for conviction?
  • What is the evidentiary value of identification by voice alone without supporting corroborative evidence?
  • Whether an appellant whose case has no distinguishing features from an acquitted co-accused is entitled to acquittal on the principle of consistency?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State and 2 others2019 KLR Criminal Cases 150, 2019 PCRLJ 1244, 2019 IHC 36 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-28
  dishonoured chequemens readishonestycriminal revisionlimitation periodacquittalbusiness transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses an appeal and two criminal revisions arising from matters involving dishonoured cheques under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether an appeal filed before a wrong forum could be condoned under the Limitation Act 1908, and whether the essential ingredients of mens rea, specifically dishonesty, were established by the prosecution for an offence under Section 489-F. The Islamabad High Court held that the appeal against acquittal was barred by limitation and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 was inapplicable in light of Section 29 thereof, and institution in the wrong forum did not justify condonation. Regarding the convictions, the Court held that the prosecution must prove both actus reus (issuance and dishonour of a cheque) and mens rea (dishonesty) beyond reasonable doubt. As the transaction was a business settlement and the prosecution failed to prove dishonesty, the convictions were unsustainable. The key principle laid down is that mere issuance and dishonour of a cheque without proof of dishonest intent (mens rea) does not attract penal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal filed within a wrong forum can serve as a ground for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply where a special statute provides its own period of limitation?
  • Is mere issuance and dishonour of a cheque sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of mens rea?
  • What constitutes dishonesty as mens rea under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in commercial transactions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs P.O Sindh & Other2019 SHC 310 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Munawar Ali and 6 others2019 CLC 398 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar through Legal Heirs vs Vice-Chancellor Karakorum2019 CLC 2073 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Qureshi vs The State and 7 others2019 YLR 2307 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-14
  Illegal Dispossession Act 2005land grabbingSection 265-K Cr.P.C.doctrine of precedentcivil litigationdouble jeopardydeclaratory theory of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, which acquitted respondents in a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal questions were whether the Act is restricted to professional land grabbers, whether parallel civil litigation or a pending FIR under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bars proceedings under the Act, and whether Supreme Court interpretations of law apply to pending cases. The Court held that the trial court erred in its narrow interpretation. It ruled that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 applies to any person who dispossesses a lawful owner or occupier, regardless of their status as a land grabber. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that civil litigation and criminal proceedings under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are independent and do not preclude relief under the Act. Finally, it established that Supreme Court judgments interpreting the law apply to all pending cases, as they declare the true meaning of existing law rather than creating new law, unless the transaction is past and closed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply exclusively to professional land grabbers or to any person who dispossesses a lawful owner?
  • Does the pendency of civil litigation regarding a property bar the initiation of criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Does the existence of a parallel FIR under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude a complainant from seeking relief under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Are Supreme Court judgments interpreting the law applicable to pending cases that have not yet reached finality?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Qureshi vs Muhammad Ayoob and 4 others2019 YLR 839 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and another vs The State2019 KLR Civil Cases 463, 2019 YLR 763 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anees Khan vs Additional Inspector General of Police, Karachi2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 58 · Sindh Service Tribunal
  service appealdisciplinary proceedingscompetent authoritymisconductpolice constablede novo proceedingsstatutory complianceforfeiture of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a police constable, challenged a major penalty of forfeiture of approved service for two years imposed following allegations of misconduct involving links to anti-social elements and drug peddlers. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings and the resulting penalty were validly initiated and conducted by the competent authority in compliance with statutory requirements. The Tribunal held that the impugned orders were legally flawed. It observed that the disciplinary action was not initiated by the competent authority as mandated by law. Furthermore, the inquiry proceedings failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 5(1) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000, which requires a specific procedure for scrutinizing the conduct of government servants. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, emphasizing that disciplinary actions against civil servants must strictly adhere to prescribed statutory procedures, and failure to observe these safeguards renders the resulting penalty void and unsustainable in law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a disciplinary order passed by an authority other than the competent authority violate the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000?
  • Is a de novo inquiry conducted without strict adherence to Section 5(1) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 legally sustainable?
  • Can a major penalty of forfeiture of service be upheld if the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by an incompetent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Andleeb Raza vs Muhammad Nazar etc2019 PLJ Lahore 654, 2019 YLR 1974, 2019 LHC 2193 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-05
  specific performanceagreement to sellattesting witnessscribe testimonyhandwriting expert opinionadmission of co-defendantsecond appealQanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property and cancellation of a subsequent registered sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit and the appellate court affirmed the decision. Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the plaintiff failed to meet the statutory requirement of examining two marginal witnesses to prove the document under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that examining only one attesting witness is insufficient, even if the second witness was allegedly won over or resided abroad. The court clarified that the scribe's testimony or expert forensic opinion cannot substitute for the mandatory examination of two attesting witnesses, and admissions made by a co-defendant/vendor after selling the property do not bind the subsequent purchaser. The concurrent judgments were reversed due to a patent error of law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the examination of two attesting witnesses under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 mandatory to prove an agreement to sell creating financial or future obligations?
  • Can a scribe of a document be treated as a substitute for an attesting witness to prove its execution?
  • Does an expert's opinion on handwriting or fingerprint analysis constitute conclusive proof capable of substituting direct evidence of execution?
  • Is an admission made by a co-defendant vendor binding upon a subsequent purchaser/co-defendant?
  • Can concurrent findings of lower courts be set aside in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC on the ground of patent errors of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad Aziz vs Standard Chartered Bank Pakistan2019 CLD 558 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs Muhammad Sarfraz and another2019 CLD 523 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-04
  condonation of delaylimitation periodintellectual property tribunalwrong forumspecial law vs general lawtime-barred appeallegal advice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Miscellaneous Appeal filed against an order passed by the Intellectual Property Tribunal, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, based on the appellant's claim that they were misled by legal advice and had pursued a wrong remedy in a different forum. The Court held that the appeal was time-barred. It reasoned that the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012, being a special law, provides an explicit forum and limitation period for appeals, which prevails over general limitation laws. Furthermore, the Court determined that the appellant’s explanation for the delay was insufficient and lacked substance. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that wrong legal advice does not extend limitation periods and that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is restricted to suits and does not apply to appeals filed before the wrong forum. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was rejected as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to appeals filed before a wrong forum?
  • Can wrong legal advice serve as a sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal?
  • Does the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act 2012 prevail over the general law of limitation regarding appeal periods?
  • Is an appeal a continuation of a suit for the purposes of invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State, etc2020 YLR 176, 2019 LHC 2443 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-25
  murderbenefit of doubtinjured witnessdelayed FIRpost-mortem delayocular accountcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 302(b), 324, 337A(i), 337F(iii), and 337F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and causing injuries. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular evidence, the reliability of injured and related witnesses, the effect of delayed FIR and medical examinations, and the benefit of doubt in criminal jurisprudence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unexplained and extraordinary delays in lodging the FIR and conducting post-mortem and medical examinations, doubtful presence and unnatural conduct of the eyewitnesses, lack of local independent witnesses in the investigation, and an unconvincing motive. The court laid down the principle that the presence of injury stamps on a witness does not automatically render their testimony truthful, and that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injury stamps on the person of a witness automatically guarantee the truthfulness of their testimony?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained when there is an unexplained and extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR and conducting medical examinations?
  • What is the effect of an investigating officer's failure to associate independent local witnesses during the investigation of a criminal case?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State and another2020 PSC (Crl.) 386, 2019 SCMR 2057 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-12
  capital sentenceidentification paradeforensic evidence delaybenefit of doubtdiscrepancy in ageacquittalanti-terrorism act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a decision of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of appellant Muhammad Amin under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with an acquitted co-accused, fired at a police patrolling party, causing the death of a constable. The Supreme Court evaluated the evidence on record and identified significant contradictions, including a stark discrepancy between the ages of the unknown assailants recorded in the FIR and court statements and the actual age of the appellant. Additionally, the Court noted a substantial delay in sending the recovered empty cartridges to the forensic laboratory, which occurred only after the appellant's arrest. Finding that the evidence failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does a major discrepancy between the age of unknown accused mentioned in an FIR and the actual age of the suspect create reasonable doubt regarding identity?
  • Can a positive forensic science report be relied upon when recovered empty cartridges are dispatched to the laboratory after the arrest of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when identification parade results are undermined by significant evidentiary contradictions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin etc vs Chairman Municipal Committee Sadiqabad etc2019 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 56 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 2019-01-17
  regularization of servicework-charge employeesdaily wagersgrievance petitionlabour appealgovernment policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment by the Punjab Labour Court which conditionally allowed grievance petitions for the regularization of appellants' services, requiring compliance with the criteria laid down by the Government of the Punjab. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted lawfully by making the regularization of work-charged employees conditional upon fulfilling the government-prescribed criteria and policy guidelines. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that government departments and officers are bound to perform their duties in accordance with applicable rules, regulations, and government policies, and that directing compliance with the regularization criteria laid down by the Government of the Punjab involves no illegality. Consequently, the tribunal maintained the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal as meritless. The key principle laid down is that the regularization of daily-wage and work-charge employees in public establishments must strictly adhere to the established government policy, criteria, and administrative directives.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the regularization of work-charge employees can be made conditional upon fulfilling the criteria laid down by the Government?
  • Are government departments bound to follow administrative policies and criteria issued by the Government for the regularization of daily wagers?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 412 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-26
  narcotics controlforensic reportadmissibility of evidencewaiver of objectioncriminal appealmode of proofacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, recorded by the trial court. The core legal question was whether a mere copy of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency report, admitted into evidence following the withdrawal of an objection by the defense counsel, constitutes admissible evidence under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to produce the original or a proper certified copy of the forensic report, and that the waiver of an objection by the defense cannot cure the fundamental inadmissibility of a document, as there is no estoppel against a question of law in criminal trials. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a copy of a chemical examiner or forensic report be read in evidence under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 without the production of the original or a certified copy?
  • Does the withdrawal of an objection by a defense counsel regarding the admissibility of a document amount to a binding waiver or estoppel against questioning a point of law in a criminal trial?
  • Is a trial court justified in basing a criminal conviction on an inadmissible forensic document merely because the defense initially withdrew its objection?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen vs Government of Punjab and others2019 PLD Lahore 330 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen etc vs The State etc2019 PCRLJ 1172, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 635, 2019 LHC 508 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-11
  private complaintdefective investigationpolice officersmaintainabilitycriminal revisionPolice Order 2002
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by an Additional Sessions Judge summoning the petitioners—who included police officers—to face trial in a private complaint. The core legal question was whether a private complaint is maintainable against police officers for alleged defective investigation in light of the Police Order, 2002. The High Court held that Article 155(2) of the Police Order, 2002 creates a statutory bar against initiating private complaints directly against police officers for such conduct. The court reasoned that prosecution against police officers for defective investigation requires a report in writing by an officer authorized under the rules, rather than a private complaint. Consequently, the court quashed the summoning order against the police petitioners, clarifying that the complainant must instead seek redress through the authorized departmental channels or by requesting the trial court to order prosecution under Article 155 if mala fide intent is established. The court affirmed that private complaints against police officials for investigation-related grievances are not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a private complaint maintainable against police officers for alleged defective investigation?
  • Does Article 155(2) of the Police Order, 2002 bar the initiation of private complaints against police officials?
  • What is the procedure for initiating prosecution against police officers for defective investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, S&Gad, Punjab, Lahore2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 121 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  service regularizationseniorityadhoc appointmentback benefitscivil servicelimitationdiscrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Stenographer appointed on an adhoc basis in 1989, challenged orders denying him seniority and service benefits from his initial appointment date, despite his eventual regularization in 2011. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, upon regularization, is entitled to seniority and service benefits from the date of initial appointment or merely from the date of regularization. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to regularization from the date of his initial appointment in 1989, along with all consequential service benefits. The Tribunal reasoned that the department failed to provide valid grounds for the denial and that the appellant had been discriminated against compared to other employees. The key principle laid down is that seniority for civil servants is reckoned from the date of initial appointment, not from the date of confirmation or regularization. Furthermore, public functionaries cannot shift the burden of administrative delays or wrongful exercise of power onto employees who have rendered long, satisfactory service.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant entitled to seniority and service benefits from the date of initial appointment upon regularization?
  • Can an administrative authority deny service benefits to an employee regularized after long-term adhoc service without valid justification?
  • Does the delay in filing an appeal against service orders warrant condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, when the employee has been actively pursuing the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alim vs The State2019 YLR 1791 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-03-21
  criminal revisionbenefit of doubtwithholding of witnessadverse presumptionappreciation of evidenceacquittalocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, which convicted the petitioner for offences involving hurt and rioting. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the petitioner's presence and participation in the alleged occurrence, particularly given the withholding of a key independent witness. The High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions, including the complainant's hearsay evidence and material improvements in the testimonies of injured witnesses. Crucially, the court found that the prosecution deliberately withheld the testimony of a Levies employee who was present at the scene and whose statement under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exonerated the petitioner. Applying the principle that the withholding of a central independent witness warrants an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the petitioner was acquitted, reaffirming the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's narrative entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withholding of a central independent witness by the prosecution entitle the court to draw an adverse presumption against the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's ocular account suffers from material contradictions and improvements regarding the accused's presence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State2019 YLR 684 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-03-12
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtcapital punishmentocular testimonyrecovery of weaponmedical evidenceappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The trial court had convicted the appellant while acquitting his two co-accused. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution’s ocular testimony was reliable, whether the recovery of the weapon of offense was proven, and whether a conviction could be sustained when the trial court had already disbelieved the prosecution's case regarding the co-accused based on the same evidence. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inherent defects and contradictions. Specifically, the recovery witnesses denied the recovery of the weapon, and the medical evidence was procedurally flawed. Furthermore, the court emphasized that where the prosecution's evidence is mutually destructive and the complainant has falsely implicated innocent persons, the entire case becomes doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, holding that the benefit of doubt is a fundamental right of the accused, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained when the prosecution's evidence against co-accused has been rejected by the trial court?
  • Does the failure of recovery witnesses to support the prosecution's version of the recovery of the weapon of offense create a reasonable doubt?
  • Is the testimony of a medical officer who did not conduct the postmortem admissible without explanation for the absence of the original doctor?
  • Does the principle of benefit of doubt apply when prosecution evidence is found to be mutually destructive?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Mukhtar vs Ansar Hussain Butt2019 SC AJK 118 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-22
  registration of FIRJustice of Peacedelay in reportingquashing of orderprivate complaintleave to appealcounter case
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court which set aside an order passed by the Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace directing the registration of a criminal case under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner had alleged that the respondents caused him a grievous injury, but failed to report the matter to the police promptly or explain a one-month delay in approaching the Justice of Peace, besides refusing medical examination. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the direction for registration of an F.I.R. and relegating the petitioner to filing a private complaint. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference was proper given the unexplained delay and the existence of a counter-case, affirming that an aggrieved person may pursue an alternate remedy through a private complaint. The key principle laid down is that extraordinary intervention for the registration of an F.I.R. requires prompt reporting without unexplained delays, and the High Court may properly decline such relief where an alternate remedy like a private complaint is available.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside an order of the Justice of Peace directing the registration of an F.I.R. after an unexplained delay?
  • Can a petitioner seek a direction for registration of a criminal case under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure after a significant and unexplained delay?
  • Is the filing of a private complaint an appropriate alternate remedy when the High Court declines to order the registration of a police case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alamgir vs The State2019 SHC 438 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-07
  explosive substancesillegal arms recoveryanti-terrorism appealpolice witnessescredibility of testimonyminor contradictionsillegal confinement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and Sindh Arms Act, 2013, arising from the recovery of a hand grenade, a pistol, and ammunition. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, whether police testimony without private mashirs is reliable, and whether the defense plea of false implication via prior illegal confinement was established. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the recoveries through consistent, confidence-inspiring testimony of police officials corroborated by forensic and bomb disposal unit reports, and that minor contradictions do not dent the prosecution case, while the defense's delayed and unsupported plea of illegal detention was an afterthought. The court dismissed the appeals, maintaining the convictions and sentences. The key principles laid down are that police officials are as good witnesses as private individuals unless malafide or ill-will is established, and minor discrepancies in evidence do not vitiate a sound prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials can be relied upon for conviction in the absence of private mashirs when private witnesses refuse to cooperate?
  • Do minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses justify the acquittal of an accused?
  • Whether a defense plea of prior illegal confinement and false implication holds weight without contemporaneous complaints or constitutional petitions?
  • Does the uncorroborated statement of a defense witness outweigh consistent and corroborated ocular and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam s/o Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State2019 SHC 492 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Addl. District Judge, Alipur, etc.2019 [M] C.L.R. 698, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 66 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram alias Akrai vs The StatePLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 479, PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 532, 2019 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-07
  murderocular accountmedical evidencemotivesentence commutationimprisonment for lifeidentificationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a criminal appeal against the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of Muhammad Riaz under Section 302(b) PPC. The prosecution case rested on the ocular testimony of the deceased's brother and a friend, supported by medical evidence. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of night-time occurrence and lack of light source. The Court found the eyewitness accounts to be confidence-inspiring and consistent, noting that the parties were closely related, making identification possible even in low light. While the Court upheld the conviction based on the ocular and medical evidence, it observed that the prosecution failed to prove the specific motive alleged in the FIR. Applying the principle that the failure to prove an alleged motive entitles the accused to a reduction in sentence, the Court partly allowed the appeal. The conviction was maintained, but the death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life, with the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. extended to the appellant.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram (deceased) through L.Rs vs Mst. Near Begum2019 PLD Supreme Court 599, 2019 P.S.C. 1443, 2019 SCP 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-06-11
  declaratory suittenancy rightsproprietary rightsconsequential reliefcivil court jurisdictionmutationacquiescencespecific relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a declaratory suit filed in 1983, wherein the plaintiff sought to challenge long-standing tenancy and ownership mutations regarding government land, claiming exclusive rights to the detriment of a widow. The core legal question was whether such a suit was maintainable given the plaintiff’s prior acquiescence in the mutations, the acquisition of proprietary rights by the defendant, and the failure to seek consequential relief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the suit was barred under the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as the plaintiff failed to seek further relief beyond a mere declaration. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts was barred under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, as the matter fell within the domain of designated authorities. The principle established is that a party cannot challenge decades-old transactions to which they were a consenting party, especially after proprietary rights have merged into absolute ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Is a declaratory suit maintainable if the plaintiff fails to seek further relief when such relief is available?
  • Does the jurisdiction of Civil Courts extend to matters where specific authorities are designated under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912?
  • Can a party challenge mutations and proprietary rights after decades of acquiescence and participation in the underlying transactions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs The State etc2019 LHC 1976, 2022 P Cr.LJ 1233 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-18
  narcotics casesafe custody of case propertyunbroken chainchemical examinerbhang recoverybenefit of doubtacquittalfalsus in uno falsus in omnibus
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing them to life imprisonment for the alleged recovery of bhang. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the unbroken chain of safe custody of the case property and sample parcels, and whether the same set of discredited witnesses could be relied upon against the appellants after co-accused were acquitted. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove safe custody and safe transmission of the samples and case property, noting significant unexplained delays, discrepancies in the weight and description of the recovered material, and the absence of proper malkhana entries or guard. The key principle laid down is that proving an unbroken chain of safe custody of the case property and sample parcels is mandatory in narcotics cases where the recovery itself constitutes the charge, and failure to do so is fatal to the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the unbroken chain of safe custody of narcotics and sample parcels is fatal to the case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending sample parcels to the forensic science laboratory vitiate the conviction in a narcotics case?
  • Can the testimony of prosecution witnesses be relied upon against the remaining accused when co-accused based on the same evidence have been acquitted?
  • Is the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus an integral part of criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar alias Bhola and others vs The State and others2020 PSC (Crl.) 382, 2019 SCMR 2036 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-23
  murderdeath sentencereappraisal of evidenceinjured witnesscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction and death sentences of the appellants for the murder of two persons and causing injuries to another during an incident occurring inside the complainant's house. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence, prompt FIR registration, and corroborative recovery of blood-stained weapons. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the guilt of the appellants were well-founded, noting that the crime was committed in broad daylight by desperate persons over a petty dispute without any mitigating circumstances. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, and the convictions and sentences maintained, affirming the principles regarding the evaluation of natural and injured eyewitness accounts and the confirmation of guilt through corroborative forensic evidence in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts can be disturbed upon reappraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the testimony of natural and injured eyewitnesses provide sufficient basis for a capital conviction when supported by medical and forensic evidence?
  • Whether a petty motive justifies leniency in the matter of sentence for a brutal double murder committed with daggers?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Ali vs Mst. Fatima Bibi and 2 others2019 YLR 1763 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-01
  ejectmentlandlord-tenant relationshipsale agreementspecific performancerent controllerconstitutional petitiondenial of title
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate court judgment that reversed a Rent Controller's ejectment order against the respondent. The petitioner, a landlord, had rented premises to the respondent, who subsequently entered into a sale agreement for the property. Upon the respondent's failure to pay the balance amount, the petitioner cancelled the agreement and initiated ejectment proceedings based on non-payment of rent. The appellate court had set aside the ejectment order, opining that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to decide title disputes. The High Court held that the appellate court erred in its reasoning. The Court affirmed that a tenant who denies the landlord's title or claims ownership based on a disputed sale agreement cannot maintain possession of the premises. The established legal principle is that such a tenant must first vacate the premises and then pursue a claim for specific performance in a competent civil court. Furthermore, the pendency of a civil suit does not alter the status of a tenant or preclude rent proceedings, as the Rent Controller's inquiry into the landlord-tenant relationship is summary in nature.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding property title bar a landlord from initiating rent proceedings?
  • Can a tenant avoid ejectment by claiming ownership based on a disputed or cancelled sale agreement?
  • Is a tenant who denies the proprietary rights of a landlord required to vacate the premises before contesting those rights in a civil court?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the authority to decide disputes concerning the title of a property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal Qureshi vs Nazia Bibi and others2019 P.S.C. 493 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahsan through Attorney vs Shahid Khan Yousufzai and 22019 YLR 1126 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed Pansota others vs Federation of Pakistan etc2020 PLD Lahore 229, 2019 LHC 4124 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1171 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-15
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of the doubtchance witnessesdelayed FIRocular accountacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life for the murder of the deceased. The Lahore High Court examined the evidence, focusing on the inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report, the credibility of the eyewitnesses who were established to be chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, and medical evidence inconsistencies regarding the cause of death and lack of struggle marks on the well-built deceased against a juvenile assailant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies, doubtful eyewitness accounts, and delayed reporting. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges, extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report without a valid explanation create serious doubt regarding the prosecution story?
  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses who fail to satisfactorily establish their presence at the place of occurrence be relied upon?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt arising from inconsistencies in medical evidence and shaky ocular testimony must be resolved in favor of the accused?
  • Is the uncorroborated statement of interested witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder when their presence at the scene is doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad vs Additional District Judge and others2019 CLC 89 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Khan Bittani vs The Government of Khyber2020 CLC 78, 2019 PHC 212 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal, etc vs Addl. District Judge, etc2019 YLR 2423, 2019 LHC 1387 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Civil Defence Officer, Jhelum etc.2020 PLD Lahore 85, 2019 PLJ Lahore 621 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal (decd.) through L.Rs. etc vs Muhammad Bashir and another2020 SCMR 197, 2019 SCP 364, 2020 P SC 745 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-20
  specific performancesale agreementattesting witnessesadmission of executionQanun-e-Shahadat Ordercivil appealdocumentary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement regarding property comprising 29 kanals. The appellants challenged concurrent findings of the lower courts, arguing that the sale agreement was inadmissible because only one of the two required attesting witnesses was examined, despite the executant admitting the document's execution. The core legal question was whether the failure to examine all attesting witnesses renders a document inadmissible when the executant admits to its execution. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were correct. The Court clarified that while documents required by law to be attested generally necessitate the examination of attesting witnesses, Article 81 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, provides a specific exception. The Court established that the admission of execution by the party to an attested document constitutes sufficient proof of its execution against them, rendering the examination of attesting witnesses unnecessary in such instances. Consequently, the sale agreement was validly admitted, and the concurrent findings were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine all attesting witnesses invalidate a document where the executant admits its execution?
  • Is the admission of execution by a party to an attested document sufficient proof of its execution under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does Article 81 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 act as an exception to the general rule requiring the examination of attesting witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzaal vs The StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C.1427, 2019 MLD 1707 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-22
  criminal appealrapestatement of accusedsection 342 CrPCbenefit of the doubtmedical evidenceconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 376(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rape and sentencing him to fourteen years imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained when crucial incriminating evidence, including the complainant's ocular testimony and the medical evidence, was not put to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that any piece of evidence or circumstance not put to an accused person during the recording of their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be considered or used against them for conviction. The court established that failure by the trial court and prosecution to put vital incriminating evidence to the accused is a fatal flaw vitiating the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the basis of the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can incriminating evidence not put to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used for conviction?
  • What is the legal effect of omitting material medical and ocular evidence from the examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to put crucial circumstances of the case to him during his trial examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aftab Khan vs Inspector General of Police, Government of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 4 others2019 P.S.C. 41 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar vs Muhammad Anwar and another2019 CLC 1410 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan vs The State2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  juvenile offendernarcotics controlpoor investigationbenefit of doubtexpeditious trialchild protectioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, by leave of the Court, assails the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant, a minor child at the relevant time, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged transportation of a large quantity of narcotics, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal questions revolved around the severe investigative flaws by the police, the failure of the Trial Court and the High Court to properly evaluate the capacity, age, and culpability of a juvenile offender under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, and the reliance on unreliable, contradictory testimony of prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the inept investigation and judicial delays led to an innocent child spending over eleven years incarcerated. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, laid down principles emphasizing the paramount protection of juveniles in the criminal justice system, and issued mandatory directions for the expeditious trial and prioritization of appeals involving juvenile convicts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction of a juvenile can be sustained when the prosecution relies on contradictory and uncorroborated testimonies of doubtful witnesses?
  • Does a Juvenile Court have a mandatory duty to determine the capacity, understanding, and points for determination concerning a child accused under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000?
  • What are the legal consequences under Section 10(7) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, if a juvenile's trial is not concluded within a year?
  • Whether High Courts and Juvenile Courts are required to prioritize and expedite the trials and appeals of juvenile convicts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan vs The State and another2019 LHC 4222 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirynon-vital injuryvicarious liabilitycriminal investigationheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 324, 148, 109, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, accused of causing a single non-fatal firearm injury, was entitled to bail despite the heinous nature of the alleged offence, given that the fatal injury was attributed to a co-accused. The Court held that the petitioner’s case warranted the concession of bail because his role was distinguishable from that of the co-accused who caused the fatal injury, and he had been declared innocent during the investigation. The Court determined that the petitioner’s liability required further inquiry, bringing the matter within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that mere involvement in a heinous offence does not automatically preclude the grant of bail when the accused’s specific role is distinct, non-fatal, and subject to further evidentiary scrutiny at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere involvement in a heinous offence automatically preclude the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • When can a case be considered one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the fatal injury is attributed to a co-accused and the accused's role is limited to a non-vital part of the body?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adil Siddiqui son of Javaid Siddiqui vs Muhammad Farooq2021 P Cr.LJ 64, 2019 SHC 418 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid Shahzad vs Federation of Pakistan & others2019 SHC 320 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-29
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servantnon-statutory rulesservice disputeNADRA regulationsdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners impugned their dismissal from service and the issuance of show-cause notices by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), seeking to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether constitutional petitions are maintainable against a statutory authority that operates under non-statutory service rules and whether the principle of master and servant applies. The court held that NADRA's service regulations are non-statutory instructions meant for internal control and management, meaning that service disputes involving its employees cannot be enforced through constitutional petitions under Article 199. The court laid down that mere adoption or reference to government rules, such as the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, does not impart statutory status to internal regulations, and that employees governed by non-statutory service rules must seek alternative remedies rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Are constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable for employees of a statutory authority governed by non-statutory service rules?
  • Does the mere adoption of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 render an organization's internal service regulations statutory?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to regular and contractual employees of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA)?
  • Can unreasoned orders of termination and show-cause notices issued under non-statutory rules be challenged through a writ petition in the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The State, etc2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-22
  criminal appealrapebenefit of doubtdelay in FIRcontradictory evidencemedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the acquittal of his co-accused. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the prosecution's case in light of an unexplainable delay in lodging the FIR, major contradictions regarding material recoveries, lack of corroborative medical evidence for the charge of rape, and the absence of marks of violence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that serious discrepancies in ocular and medical evidence, coupled with unexplained delays in reporting the crime and failure to prove essential elements of the offense, entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt resulting in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplainable delay in reporting a crime to the police render the prosecution story doubtful from its inception?
  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained when medical evidence reveals no marks of violence on the victim's person or private parts and serological reports are negative?
  • Whether material contradictions between the statements of the complainant and the investigating officer regarding recoveries are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs Evacuee Trust Property and another2019 YLR 2737, 2019 LHC 1936 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Moeti Atif vs Government of Sindh & another2019 SHC 138 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aarez Ali vs Multan Development Authority through Director General and 19 others2019 CLC 155 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aamir Malik vs Mrs. Afshan Ateeq and another2019 YLR 1690 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aamir Khan vs Government of KPK through Senior Member2019 P.S.C 1324, 2019 SCP 248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-24
  civil serviceage relaxationpatwariprecedentdiscriminationdiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the Peshawar High Court's dismissal of his writ petition, which sought appointment as a Patwari. Despite passing the Patwar Examination in 2009, the petitioner was denied appointment for being overage. Under the relevant NWFP Revenue & Estate Department (Tehsildar, Naib-Tehsildar/Subordinate Revenue Service) Rules, 2008, as amended by a notification dated January 1, 2010, the upper age limit for Patwaris was extended to 35 years 'once for all' with an absolute bar on further relaxation. The petitioner argued that general provincial age relaxation rules should apply and cited subsequent High Court orders where other overage candidates were granted relief. The Supreme Court held that specific service rules govern the post of Patwari to the exclusion of general provincial rules. It further ruled that a court cannot relax statutory limits where the law expressly prohibits it, and a wrong precedent cannot justify a claim of discrimination, as two wrongs do not make a right. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can general provincial civil servant age relaxation rules override specific service rules that expressly prohibit any age relaxation beyond a set limit?
  • Can a petitioner claim equal treatment based on a prior court order that was passed in violation of express statutory provisions?
  • Is a subsequent bench of a High Court bound by an earlier decision of a coordinate bench on the same legal issue?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aamir Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PLC (C.S) 1014, 2020 PLJ Supreme Court 12, 2019 SCMR 1021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-25
  age relaxationPatwari appointmentservice rulesnotificationjudicial precedentper incuriam
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from an impugned judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding his appointment as a Patwari. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was over the maximum age limit of 35 years prescribed by the specific departmental rules and notification, could claim further upper age relaxation under general civil servant rules or precedents. The Supreme Court held that recruitment to the post of Patwari is strictly governed by the specific service rules and the notification dated 01.01.2010, which expressly barred any further age relaxation under any circumstances, and that general age relaxation rules do not apply. The ratio decidendi is that specific departmental rules and notifications governing recruitment prevail over general rules, and courts cannot grant age relaxation in contravention of express statutory bars. Furthermore, a wrong precedent or an earlier order passed per incuriam cannot be made the basis for claiming discriminatory relief, as two wrongs do not make a right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether general rules for the relaxation of upper age limit apply to the specific recruitment of Patwaris governed by departmental rules?
  • Can an authority grant upper age relaxation beyond the maximum limit expressly barred by a specific recruitment notification?
  • Does a wrong precedent or an order passed in disregard of existing judgments create a legally enforceable right to claim similar relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhamma Gul vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2019 PLD Peshawar 184 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-04
  writ jurisdictionalternate remedyexhaustion of remediesfood safety authoritymaintainabilityconstitutional petitiondismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, bakery owners, challenged fines imposed by the Food Safety Authority through constitutional petitions filed directly in the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, when an alternate statutory remedy exists. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable because the petitioners failed to exhaust the efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Chief Secretary, as explicitly provided under Section 16(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Food Safety Authority Act, 2014. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is not intended to bypass statutory hierarchies or render them redundant. Absent proof of jurisdictional error, lack of authority, or flagrant disregard for natural justice, the High Court will not entertain petitions where an alternate remedy is available. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed in limine, with liberty granted to the petitioners to pursue their statutory right of appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, when an alternate statutory remedy is available?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable if the petitioner has failed to exhaust the appellate remedy provided under Section 16(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Food Safety Authority Act, 2014?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court bypass an alternate statutory remedy in a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudassir Manzoor vs The State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1497, 2019 LHC 1719 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-29
  rapebenefit of doubtcriminal appealperjurymedical evidencecorroborationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences including rape under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where the victim's testimony was inconsistent, medical evidence failed to corroborate the allegation of sexual assault, and co-accused with identical roles had already been acquitted by the trial court. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide unimpeachable evidence. It found that the victim's testimony was unreliable, marked by material improvements, and unsupported by medical findings. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle that where eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding some accused persons attributed effective roles, they cannot be believed against other accused persons with similar roles without independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, granting the appellant the benefit of doubt. Additionally, the Court directed proceedings for perjury against a prosecution witness who provided false testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted on the testimony of eye-witnesses who have been disbelieved regarding co-accused persons with identical roles?
  • Does the failure of medical evidence to support allegations of sexual assault create a reasonable doubt in a rape case?
  • Can a court initiate proceedings for perjury against a witness who provides false testimony in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudassar etc vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 30 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-13
  murderocular evidencemedical evidenceforensic reportcriminal appealacquittalcorroborationbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony, the necessity of corroborative evidence, and the legal validity of forensic reports where the weapon and crime empties were dispatched to the laboratory simultaneously. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies: the eye-witnesses contradicted each other, their conduct was unnatural, and their testimony conflicted with medical evidence. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the motive, and the forensic report was deemed inconsequential because the weapon and empty casings were forwarded to the laboratory together. The Court emphasized that where eye-witnesses are found to have falsely implicated co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon against the remaining accused without independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, accepted the appeal, and acquitted the appellant, dismissing the revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on ocular evidence when the testimony is contradicted by medical evidence and natural human conduct?
  • Is a forensic report reliable when the recovered weapon and crime empties are sent to the laboratory on the same day?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused based on the same ocular testimony necessitate independent corroboration for the remaining accused?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to prove the motive in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubashir Hussain vs Syed Hussain Abbas, etc2019 CLC 1417, 2019 LHC 1562 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Ijaz Awan vs Federation of Pakistan through President and 62019 PCTLR 569, PTCL 2019 CL. 325, 2019 PTD 1 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Aziz Qadri vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and 4 others2019 YLR 725 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mubarrak Shah & others vs Rahim Khan & others2019 CLC 1806, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 315, 2019 PHC 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mst: Shaista Bano vs P.O Sindh & others2019 SHC 548 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zulekha Khanum vs Pervaiz Akhter and others2019 YLR 1817 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zareena Begum and another vs Haji Faqeer Muhammad through L.R.2019 MLD 1070 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-09-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaibunisa and others vs Iqbal Ahmed and others2019 PLD Sindh 574 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaib-UN-Nisa vs Mohammad Essa and 2 others2019 YLR 1101 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahoora Begum, Headmistress, Government Girls High School2019 PLJ AJ&K 45 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Mst. Zahoora Begum vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir University through Vice-Chancellor, Muzaffarabad and 6 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1092, 2019 PLJ AJ&K 45, 2019 MLD 899 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Perveen and another vs Iftikhar Hussain and 2 others2019 YLR 474 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-20
  rent evictiontentative rent orderlandlord-tenant relationshipspecific performanceconstitutional jurisdictioninterlocutory orderestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenge orders passed by the Rent Controller dismissing applications under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which sought directions for respondents to deposit rent arrears. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller is justified in refusing to pass a tentative rent order because the tenants had filed suits for specific performance of alleged sale agreements. The High Court held that the Rent Controller erred in dismissing the applications. The court ruled that the mere pendency of a suit for specific performance does not sever the landlord-tenant relationship or absolve the tenant of the obligation to pay rent. Until a decree for specific performance attains finality, the tenant remains bound by the tenancy terms. Furthermore, the court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is maintainable against interlocutory orders where a subordinate court fails to exercise its vested jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that a tenant cannot deny the landlord's title during tenancy, and the Rent Controller must pass tentative rent orders regardless of pending civil suits for specific performance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement absolve a tenant from the obligation to pay rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can a Rent Controller refuse to pass a tentative rent order under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, based on a pending civil suit for specific performance?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interlocutory order of a Rent Controller where the court failed to exercise its vested jurisdiction?
  • Does the execution of a sale agreement in favor of a tenant automatically sever the landlord-tenant relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waris Jan vs Liaqat Ali, etc2019 PLD Lahore 333, 2019 LHC 190 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-14
  specific performanceagreement to sellnovation of contractilliterate grantornon est factumburden of proofreadiness and willingnessbona fide purchasercivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land filed by the plaintiff against an illiterate seller (first defendant) and subsequent purchasers (second defendants). The plaintiff alleged an initial agreement, novated by a subsequent agreement to sell, with partial payment and delivery of possession. The defendants denied the sale, alleging fraud and asserting that the land was merely leased. The Lahore High Court allowed the revision and dismissed the suit. The ratio of the judgment establishes that under novation of contract, the party asserting novation must prove the prior valid agreement and its cancellation, which requires producing the written document per Article 102 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. For an illiterate vendor, the beneficiary must prove that the contents were read over, adequately explained, and that the illiterate party received independent, disinterested advice. An illiterate relative's presence does not fulfill this requirement. Additionally, a plaintiff seeking specific performance must strictly plead and prove readiness and willingness to perform, including tendering the balance purchase money on the agreed date or depositing it upon first appearance in court, failing which relief is barred under Section 24(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.

  Questions settled

  • What elements must a party prove to establish a novation of contract under Section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872?
  • On whom does the initial burden of proof lie when an illiterate person executes an agreement to sell?
  • Does the presence of an illiterate spouse satisfy the requirement of independent advice for an illiterate vendor executing a contract?
  • How does a failure to tender balance sale consideration or deposit it at first appearance in court affect a claim for specific performance under Section 24(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Can oral evidence be produced to prove the contents of a written agreement when the written document itself is not produced before the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tuharat Firdos vs Imtiaz Khan2019 PHC 54 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tuharat Firdos vs Imtiaz Khan and 2 others2019 CLC 1562 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-13
  dissolution of marriagekhularestitution of conjugal rightsdowerreciprocal benefitsirretrievable breakdownwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the concurrent findings of lower courts which dismissed the petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage and granted the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner alleged cruelty and oral divorce, neither of which was substantiated by the record. The core legal question concerned whether the marriage should be dissolved on the ground of khula despite the failure to prove specific grounds of cruelty, and how to adjudicate the return of dower benefits. The High Court held that while the petitioner failed to prove cruelty, the irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship necessitated dissolution on the ground of khula. Regarding the return of benefits, the Court rejected a rigid application of full restoration, emphasizing that the court may adjust financial matters based on reciprocal benefits and the parties' circumstances. Consequently, the Court dissolved the marriage, ordering the return of cash and gold ornaments but allowing the petitioner to retain the house, balancing the equities between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a marriage be dissolved on the ground of khula when specific allegations of cruelty are not proven?
  • Is the return of all dower benefits mandatory upon the grant of khula?
  • Can a court adjust the return of benefits in a khula decree based on the principle of reciprocal benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tanzeela Bibi and another vs State through Advocate-General of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 5 others2019 MLD 102 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira Noor and others vs Shahid Humayun and others2020 CLC 427, 2020 [M] C L R 357, 2019 IHC 140 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surriya Parween and 6 others vs Moinuddin Siddiqui and others2019 CLC 1198 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughran Bibi vs The State and another2019 PC.r LJ 1297 · Lahore High Court · 2013-09-02
  pre-arrest bailabsconsionrule of consistencylalkaraheinous offenceliberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a case involving charges of murder and other offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether a female accused, assigned only the role of raising a lalkara and having a history of absconsion, is entitled to pre-arrest bail on grounds of consistency with a co-accused already granted bail and the explanation offered for her absence. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the interim bail already granted. The court laid down the principles that mere absconsion does not disentitle an accused to bail if a proper case is otherwise made out, especially when considering the protective role of a mother fleeing with young children to avoid retaliatory violence, and that the rule of consistency applies when a co-accused with a more active role has been admitted to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether absconsion alone is sufficient to deny pre-arrest bail when a proper case for bail is otherwise made out?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused assigned the role of lalkara when a co-accused with a more active role has already been released on bail?
  • Whether surrender before a judicial forum is equivalent to surrender before the police in the context of absconsion?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sidra Asif vs Additional District Judge and 2 others2019 YLR 2692 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sherinai etc vs Zareen etc2021 KLR Revenue Cases 32, 2020 YLR 1643, 2019 PHC 314 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shelly Nathaniel vs Ixth Additional District and Sessions Judge, South Karachi and others2019 P Cr.LJ 890 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharmila Faruqui vs Government Of Sindh through Chief Secretary2019 P Cr. L J 1407 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-28
  plea bargaindisqualificationpublic officeretrospective punishmentconstitutional petitionvoluntary returnNational Accountability OrdinanceEhtesab Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition addresses the question of the duration of disqualification from holding public office for Miss Sharmila Faruqui following her entry into a plea bargain under section 25(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which was accepted by the trial court in 2001. The petitioner argued that the reference was originally initiated under the Ehtesab Ordinance, 1996, where no disqualification period was prescribed for voluntary returns, and that imposing a 21-year disqualification violated Article 12 of the Constitution against retrospective punishment. The High Court held that substantive rights regarding sentences and disqualification periods are governed by the law prevalent when the action was initiated, and that the imposition of a penalty greater than or of a kind different from that prescribed at the time of the offense violates Article 12. The Court concluded that the plea bargain should be treated as a voluntary return under the initial Ehtesab Ordinances, rendering the disqualification void, and that even otherwise, any applicable disqualification period would have long expired. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a change in the sentence and disqualification period under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 constitutes a substantive vested right that cannot be applied retrospectively?
  • Does Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 prohibit the imposition of a penalty greater than or different from the one prescribed by law at the time the offense was committed?
  • Can an order of disqualification passed without legal authority or contrary to the applicable law be deemed void without any time limitation?
  • Whether a plea bargain entered into under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 in proceedings transferred from the Ehtesab Ordinance 1996 attracts the disqualification provisions in force at the time of the initiation of the reference?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamshad Khatoon vs Province of Sindh through Secretary to Government and 4 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1459 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-19
  Shaheed recognitioncompensationpolice constableconstitutional petitionstatutory interpretationterrorismroad accident death
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking a declaration that her late husband, a police constable who died in a road accident while on duty, should be recognized as a 'Shaheed' (martyr) and that his family be granted due compensation and benefits. The core legal question was whether a police official who dies in a traffic accident while performing official duties qualifies as a 'Shaheed' under the relevant statutory framework. The Sindh High Court held that according to the definition of 'Shaheed' under the Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act, 2014, a person must lose their life in counter-terrorism, become a victim of a terrorism operation, or be targeted and killed by a terrorist group. Since the deceased died in a road accident and not due to terrorist acts, the petition was dismissed. The court laid down the principle that where the plain language of a statute is clear, it must be given its full effect, and terms explicitly defined in legislation cannot be expanded by analogy or executive practice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a police official who dies in a road accident while on duty qualifies as a Shaheed under the Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act, 2014?
  • What are the statutory criteria required to declare a person as a Shaheed under the Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act, 2014?
  • Should plain language of a statute be given its full effect when it admits no other interpretation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Bibi and another vs Nazeer Ahmed and 3 others2019 MLD 753 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-18
  Hizanatcustody of minorsMuhammadan Lawwelfare of minorsremarriage of motherhabeas corpusstep-father abuse
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order by the District and Sessions Judge, Malir, which granted custody of three minors to their biological father. The core legal question concerned whether the mother, having remarried a stranger, retained her right of Hizanat (custody) and whether the minors' welfare necessitated remaining with their father. Upon interviewing the minors, the Court found they expressed a clear desire to remain with their father, citing physical abuse by their step-father. The Court held that under Muhammadan Law, a mother forfeits her right of Hizanat upon marrying a man who is not within the prohibited degree of the children. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the welfare and well-being of the minors are paramount. Given the documented cruelty of the step-father and the minors' expressed wishes, the Court dismissed the application, affirming that custody should remain with the biological father, while noting the mother may pursue her claim through the appropriate Guardian and Ward Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mother lose her right of Hizanat upon marrying a stranger who is not within the prohibited degree of the minors?
  • Can the court consider the expressed wishes of minors in determining their custody?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in custody disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Regional Police Officer, etc2019 PLJ Lahore 65 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar vs Water and Power Development Authority2019 PLC (C.S.) 1139 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-01
  constitutional petitionBPS-15service benefitsdepartmental policyretrospective effectupgradationnon-statutory rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an office order issued by the respondent authority which retrospectively modified the date of her placement/promotion to BPS-15 from 14.10.1991 (the date she acquired her B.Ed qualification) to 13.10.1994, thereby affecting her pay and financial benefits. The petitioner argued that the revised order violated the authority's applicable policy decision and non-statutory departmental rules, which allowed grant of BPS-15 upon obtaining the requisite qualification. The respondents contended that the initial grant was erroneous and was rectified accordingly. The High Court examined the relevant departmental policies, clarification orders, and record, holding that non-statutory departmental rules, regulations, and instructions are binding on the employer and cannot be departed from to the detriment of an employee. Finding the impugned modification order to be contradictory, unreasonable, and lacking legal sanctity, the court set it aside and restored the petitioner's BPS-15 grade with effect from 14.10.1991 along with all consequential service benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Are non-statutory departmental rules and policies binding on an employer regarding employee terms and conditions?
  • Can a departmental authority retrospectively modify an order granting a higher pay scale to an employee contrary to its established policy?
  • Whether an employee is entitled to BPS-15 from the date of acquiring the prescribed qualification in terms of the employer's policy memorandum?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahla Faiz vs Vice-Chancellor, University of Education, Lahore2019 MLD 908 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shabana Kausar and another vs Station House Officer, Police2019 YLR 1575 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sehat Khatoon vs Station House Officer, Police Station, Faizoo2019 YLR 1737 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-15
  non-speaking orderduty to give reasonsjudicial discretionpolice reportfair hearingcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Khanpur, which disposed of a police report filed under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by simply noting "file" without providing any reasoning or affording a hearing to the affected party. The core legal question was whether a judicial order disposing of a police report requires the provision of reasons and an opportunity for a hearing. The High Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable as it was a non-speaking order, failing to comply with the statutory mandate requiring authorities to provide reasons for their decisions. Relying on Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897, the Court established the principle that any authority or judicial officer exercising powers under an enactment must provide reasons for their orders and ensure that the affected parties are given a fair opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Magistrate to pass a fresh, reasoned order after hearing all concerned parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judicial order disposing of a police report require the provision of reasons?
  • Is a judicial order that fails to provide reasons or a hearing to the affected party sustainable under the law?
  • What is the scope of the duty to provide reasons for an order under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sehar Gull vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1160 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-25
  quashing of proceedingsCall Detail Recordproduction of evidenceinvestigating officer inactionfair trialcriminal procedurerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly dismissed an application by the complainant to place Call Detail Record (CDR) evidence on the record, which had not been collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation but was mentioned in the initial complaint. The High Court held that the trial court's dismissal was improper because the CDR data was relevant evidence clearly referenced in the complaint and the complainant should not suffer due to the Investigating Officer's inaction. The Court upheld the Revisional Court's order allowing the production of this evidence. The key principle laid down is that under Sections 94 and 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the trial court is obligated to ensure justice by allowing the prosecution to substantiate its version, particularly when the evidence in question is not a surprise and is relevant to the case, thereby ensuring a fair adjudication of the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complainant be allowed to produce evidence not collected by the Investigating Officer if it was mentioned in the initial complaint?
  • Does the trial court have the power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to allow the production of relevant evidence to ensure justice?
  • Is the inaction of an Investigating Officer a valid ground to prevent the prosecution from producing relevant evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwari Begum & Another vs Malik Mukhtar Ahmad & Another2019 CLC 1836, 2019 LHC 1671 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sanober Bibi vs Deputy Commissioner, D.G. Khan and 2 others2019 MLD 1696 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saman Naz vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 IHC 184 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-23
  deputationrepatriationwedlock policycivil servicevested rightabsorptionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenge the repatriation orders issued by the Federal Directorate of Education (F.D.E.) to the petitioners' respective parent departments. The core legal questions concern whether a deputationist possesses a vested right to complete a specific deputation tenure, whether they can claim permanent absorption into the borrowing department, and whether the "wedlock policy" grants a right to remain at a specific station indefinitely. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that repatriation is a discretionary administrative power exercised by the competent authority. It was determined that a deputationist has no vested right to continue in a borrowing department or to be absorbed therein, particularly when the parent department refuses to issue a No Objection Certificate for extension. The Court established that deputation is a contractual arrangement subject to the exigencies of service. Furthermore, the "wedlock policy" does not confer an indefinite right to remain on deputation or override the necessity of formal concurrence for absorption. Consequently, the petitioners, having no legal entitlement to remain in the borrowing department, were lawfully repatriated to their parent departments.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to complete the entire period of their deputation?
  • Can a deputationist claim permanent absorption into a borrowing department as a matter of right?
  • Does the wedlock policy entitle a civil servant to remain on deputation indefinitely at the station where their spouse is employed?
  • Is the consent of the parent department required for the permanent absorption of a deputationist into a borrowing department?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salma Kausar vs Anayat Ali and others2020 [M] C L R 872, 2019 CLC 1566 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →