Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Manzoor Hussain alias Babo vs The StatePLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 452, 2019 SCMR 1325, 2019 SCP 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a criminal appeal and a cross-petition arising from a murder conviction. The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased during a marriage ceremony, with the prosecution alleging intentional firing motivated by prior acrimony and land disputes. The appellant raised a defense of accidental discharge, claiming a stuck bullet fired unintentionally during aerial firing. The trial court convicted the appellant and imposed a death sentence, which the High Court later commuted to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the appellant's plea of accidental discharge could be sustained against the medical and ballistic evidence presented. The Supreme Court rejected the defense of accidental fire, finding the mechanics of the weapon and the bullet's trajectory inconsistent with an accidental discharge. The Court held that the evidence, including the trajectory and the face-to-face positioning of the parties, conclusively established intentional firing. Consequently, the Court dismissed both the appellant's appeal against the conviction and the complainant's petition for the restoration of the death penalty, affirming the life sentence as appropriate.
Questions settled- Can a plea of accidental discharge be sustained when the trajectory of the bullet and the mechanics of the weapon contradict such a theory?
- Does the presence of a motive and consistent eyewitness testimony outweigh a defense of accidental firing in a murder case?
- Is a sentence of life imprisonment appropriate when the evidence establishes intentional firing but the circumstances of the incident involve a marriage ceremony?
- Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through Legal Heirs, etc vs Muhammad2020 CLC 400, 2020 PLJ Lahore 172, 2019 LHC 4110 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmed Shah and others vs The State and others2019 SCMR 2000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from convictions under Sections 302(b), 324, 334, 336, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, concerning a multi-victim shooting incident. The core legal questions pertained to the effect of a partial compromise among legal heirs and whether vicarious liability under Section 34 PPC applies when common intention is unproven in a sudden occurrence. Upon the death of one appellant, his appeal abated. For the remaining appellants, a compromise was verified and accepted regarding one deceased victim and two injured victims. Concerning the second deceased victim, where the compromise was incomplete, the court evaluated the merits and found that the appellants had not inflicted any injuries on her, the motive was unproved, and no crime-empties connected their firearms to the scene. The Supreme Court held that without proof of common intention, each participant in a sudden event is liable only for their individual acts. Consequently, the court accepted the compromise for part of the charges and acquitted the appellants on merits for the remaining murder charge.
Questions settled- Does an appeal abate with respect to an appellant who dies during its pendency?
- Whether convictions based on vicarious liability under Section 34 PPC can be sustained when sharing of common intention is not proved?
- Can accused persons be acquitted on merits regarding a deceased victim when a compromise is incomplete but individual participation is unproven?
- Manzoor Ahmed Malik vs Secretary, Govt. of Punjab Agriculture2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 207 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 2017-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal filed before the Punjab Service Tribunal by a former employee of the Agriculture Department, Government of the Punjab, who subsequently joined and was absorbed into the Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR), a federal body. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having previously served the provincial government, qualified as a 'civil servant' under Section 2(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for the transfer of accumulated GP Fund profits. The Tribunal held that the appellant did not qualify as a civil servant since his lien with the provincial department stood terminated upon his absorption into a federal body and the phrase 'who has been' in the statute applies to those who retired or were penalized, not those who voluntarily left service. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a person who voluntarily left provincial service and was absorbed into a federal body?
- What is the true import of the phrase 'who has been' in the definition of a civil servant under Section 2(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974?
- Does a provincial employee retain civil servant status after the termination of their lien upon regular absorption in a federal institution?
- Manzoor Ahmad and 3 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. (Lahore) 377 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal miscellaneous applications for the suspension of sentences pending an appeal against conviction by the trial court under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions relate to whether a short sentence of imprisonment and sentences involving financial penalties like Daman can be suspended, and bail granted, when the main appeal cannot be heard in the near future and the convicts were previously on bail without misuse during trial. The Lahore High Court held that keeping a convict behind bars for an indefinite period when the appeal is unlikely to be fixed early amounts to punishment in advance, warranting the suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where a sentence is short and there is no prospect of an early hearing of the appeal, the sentence may be suspended to avoid pre-hearing incarceration, particularly if the accused did not abuse bail during trial.
Questions settled- Can a sentence of imprisonment be suspended and bail granted when an appeal is unlikely to be fixed for hearing in the near future?
- Does keeping a convict behind bars awaiting a delayed appeal amount to punishment in advance?
- Should a sentence involving the payment of Daman be suspended on the same principles as a short sentence of imprisonment?
- Does the fact that an accused remained on bail during trial without misusing the concession support the suspension of sentence on appeal?
- Manzi Gul son of Said Nabi, r/o Ali Masjid Jamrud, District Khyber vs The2019 PHC 350 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the recovery of 21 kilograms of heroin from a vehicle under his control, registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. During proceedings, the court identified significant discrepancies in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, which had been tampered with to change the substance identification from 'Chars' to 'heroin'. Despite conflicting testimonies from the Director of FSL and the Government Analyst regarding the substance's nature and the report's integrity, the court observed that the petitioner was apprehended red-handed with a substantial quantity of narcotics. The recovery was corroborated by the seizing officer and witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court held that the manipulated FSL report, while warranting a serious departmental inquiry, did not entitle the petitioner to bail given the strong ocular evidence of possession. The bail petition was dismissed, and the court directed the Inspector General of Police to initiate disciplinary action against the delinquent officials involved in the tampering.
Questions settled- Does a manipulated or contradictory Forensic Science Laboratory report automatically entitle an accused to bail in a narcotics case?
- Can the court deny bail when there is strong ocular evidence of recovery despite irregularities in the forensic report?
- What is the scope of the court's authority to direct departmental inquiries against officials involved in tampering with evidence?
- Manzar Khan vs NAB through Chairman NAB, Islamabad & two others2020 P Cr. L J 136, 2019 PHC 190 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former government employee, sought bail in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference alleging he defrauded 27 individuals of Rs. 44.414 million through a tractor booking scheme. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s alleged actions constituted an offence of cheating the “public at large” under Section 9(a)(ix) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, thereby justifying NAB’s jurisdiction, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite prior absconsion. The Court held that the number of affected persons (27) did not meet the threshold of “public at large,” relying on Supreme Court precedents and NAB’s own Standing Operating Procedures (SOPs) which quantify this term as involving more than 50 persons and amounts exceeding Rs. 100 million. Consequently, the Court found a serious question regarding NAB’s jurisdiction, which constitutes a valid ground for bail. The principle laid down is that where there is a serious question regarding the jurisdiction of an investigating agency, such as the failure to meet statutory conditions precedent for cognizance, it provides sufficient grounds for the grant of bail, even if the accused had previously absconded.
Questions settled- Does the number of affected persons in a fraud case constitute 'public at large' under Section 9(a)(ix) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 if the count is below 50?
- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the ground of prior absconsion if the case is otherwise fit for bail?
- Does a serious question regarding the jurisdiction of an investigating agency constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Manzar Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan & 03 others2019 SHC 164 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The instant Constitution petition challenged the appointment of a BS-19 officer to a BS-20 post on an "Own Pay and Scale" (OPS) basis, seeking a writ of quo warranto. The core legal question was whether such an appointment is permissible under the prevailing service laws and rules. The High Court held that the appointment was illegal, setting aside the impugned notification and declaring the post vacant. The court ruled that there is no provision in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 or the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 authorizing appointments on an OPS basis. It established that such practices lack legal sanction, undermine the dignity of the civil service, and unfairly block the promotion of senior, eligible officers. The court emphasized that any vacancy in a higher post must be filled strictly through the prescribed legal mechanisms, such as acting or current charge appointments, following proper selection procedures. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that decisions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding questions of law are binding on all courts under Article 189 of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Is the appointment of a civil servant to a higher grade post on 'Own Pay and Scale' (OPS) basis legally permissible under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Does a writ of quo warranto lie against a civil servant holding a public office on an OPS basis without the requisite qualifications?
- Is a petitioner required to be an 'aggrieved person' to file a petition for a writ of quo warranto regarding the occupation of a public office?
- Are the decisions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding questions of law binding on the High Court under Article 189 of the Constitution?
- Manzar Alam vs Malik Muhammad Yamin and another2019 YLR 598 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-01Read full judgment →
- Mansoor Wahid vs Senior Member,. Board of Revenue, Sindh and others2019 PLD Sindh 377 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-08Read full judgment →
- Mansoor Ali Abbasi vs Amir Bux and another2019 MLD 1618 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mansabdar vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1321 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the alleged possession of 1020 grams of heroin. The core legal questions involve the integrity of the chain of custody of the recovered contraband and the legal validity of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency's analytical report under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. The Lahore High Court held that unexplained gaps in the transmission and custody of the sample parcel, coupled with a forensic report that failed to provide test results and protocols as mandated by law, rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, establishing that the prosecution must prove safe custody beyond reasonable doubt and that a Government Analyst report lacking mandatory testing details cannot safely be relied upon for conviction.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay or gap in the chain of safe custody of a narcotic sample between the police station and the forensic laboratory vitiate the prosecution's case?
- Is a report of the Government Analyst legally valid if it fails to provide the results of the tests carried out and the test protocols applied pursuant to Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
- Can an accused be convicted of a narcotics offence solely on the basis of oral testimonies of police witnesses when the forensic report and chain of custody are found to be doubtful?
- Mansab Ali vs The State2019 PLJ SC Cr.C. 401, PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 546, 2019 SCMR 1306, 2019 SCP 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, wherein the trial court sentenced him to death and the High Court subsequently altered the sentence to imprisonment for life, while co-accused were acquitted. The central legal question pertained to whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of ocular account when substantial contradictions existed between the crime report, witness testimonies, and medical evidence. The Supreme Court observed that eyewitness testimonies materially deviated from the initial crime report regarding the number and location of firearm injuries, and were further contradicted by the medical officer's findings showing exit wounds rather than entry wounds on the targeted body parts. Furthermore, co-accused were acquitted on the same set of evidence without challenge. Holding that the prosecution case was fraught with serious doubts, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under Section 302 PPC be sustained when ocular evidence directly contradicts both the initial crime report and the medical evidence regarding the nature and entry points of firearm injuries?
- What is the effect on the prosecution's case when eyewitnesses make material departures during trial from their previous statements without justification?
- Whether the unchallenged en bloc acquittal of co-accused upon the same evidence creates sufficient doubt to render unsafe the conviction of the principal accused?
- Manik and another vs The State2019 MLD 1342 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application arises out of a post-arrest bail petition filed by the applicants seeking release in a murder case registered under sections 302, 337-H(2), 449, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail where no active role of firing is attributed to them, one applicant is named only in a belated supplementary statement under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the main accused attributed with the fatal shot was placed in column No. II by the police, and the case falls within the realm of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants successfully made out a case for further inquiry, noting contradictory statements, delayed FIR and supplementary statements, and the fact that bail cannot be used as a punitive measure. The court granted post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of solvent sureties, affirming that vicarious liability and the applicability of prohibitory clauses require deeper assessment during trial.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when no active role of firing is attributed and their name is introduced through a belated supplementary statement under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Does the tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage warrant granting bail when the primary accused attributed with the fatal shot has been let off by the police during investigation?
- Can bail be withheld as a punishment when the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Mani vs The State of Kerala and others2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 688 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The present appeals arise from a judgment maintaining the conviction of the appellant-Mani for murder and upholding the acquittal of other co-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant acted in the right of private defence, whether common intention could be attributed to all accused persons, and whether the offence fell under Section 302 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to a sudden fight without premeditation. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish common intention among the accused and that the plea of private defence was not fully made out as the appellant inflicted a fatal chest injury despite receiving minor injuries. However, considering that the encounter was a sudden fight arising without premeditation in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, the Court altered the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. The key principle laid down is that where a sudden fight occurs without premeditation and without a shared common intention to kill, a fatal injury inflicted in the heat of passion falls under Exception 4 to Section 300, warranting conviction under Section 304 Part I rather than Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Questions settled- Whether the conviction of an accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code can be sustained when a fatal injury is inflicted during a sudden fight without premeditation?
- Can common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code be inferred merely because multiple accused arrive together and injuries are inflicted during an unanticipated clash between two groups?
- Does the right of private defence extend to inflicting a fatal stab wound on a vital part of the body when the injury sustained by the accused in the same occurrence is minor?
- Whether an offence falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code when a sudden quarrel erupts without any prior enmity or pre-planning?
- Manhattan Community Access Corporation, Et Al vs Deedee Halleck Et Al2019 SCMR 1419 · Supreme Court of United StatesRead full judgment →
- Mangla Metals (Private) Limited vs Additional Collector Central Excise2019 SC AJK 108 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-10Read full judgment →
- Managing Director, Public Procurement Regulatory Authority2019 PLC (C.S.) 1348 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These intra-court appeals were filed by the Managing Director of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (P.P.R.A.) to challenge a judgment that allowed writ petitions filed by successfully appointed candidates and declared that their concluded appointment process could not be recalled. The core legal question centered on whether candidates who emerged successful in a competitive recruitment process could be deprived of their appointments due to procedural lapses, specifically the non-confirmation of meeting minutes and failure of the Managing Director to sign them under Section 7(6) of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002. The Islamabad High Court held that once the Board of Directors approved the recommendations of the Human Resource Committee in its meeting, strong vested rights were created for the candidates, and the authority could not penalize candidates for its own procedural omissions or lapses. The court laid down the principle that an employer or statutory authority cannot take advantage of its own procedural irregularities or internal faults to deny vested rights to successfully selected employees.
Questions settled- Whether candidates who successfully pass a competitive recruitment process acquire a vested right to be appointed?
- Can a statutory authority refuse to issue appointment letters based on its own procedural lapses and failure to sign meeting minutes?
- Whether an autonomous body can take advantage of its internal omissions to deprive employees of their lawful appointments?
- Mamdan Bibi vs Arif Hussain Shah2019 PLD Lahore 148 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-06Read full judgment →
- Mall Road Traders Association vs The Deputy Commissioner, Lahore2019 CLC 744 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the judicial oversight of urban rehabilitation efforts in Lahore, specifically the transformation of Mall Road into a 'Model Road.' The core legal questions involved the authority of the court to direct administrative bodies to remove encroachments, enforce building maintenance, regulate signage, and mandate traffic safety measures, including the use of helmets and e-challan systems. The court held that under the principle of continuing mandamus, it possesses the jurisdiction to monitor and direct executive authorities—including the Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore, and the Punjab Safe Cities Authority—to ensure compliance with public interest directives regarding urban aesthetics, safety, and traffic management. The ratio establishes that courts may actively supervise administrative implementation of civic duties where public welfare is at stake. Key principles laid down include the legitimacy of judicial intervention to compel executive action for the preservation of protected heritage buildings, the enforcement of traffic regulations to reduce public injury, and the authority to mandate the regularization of unauthorized building plans to ensure compliance with municipal standards.
Questions settled- Can a High Court invoke the principle of continuing mandamus to monitor the implementation of urban rehabilitation projects?
- Does the court have the authority to direct executive agencies to enforce traffic safety measures such as mandatory helmet usage?
- Can the court order the de-sealing of commercial premises contingent upon compliance with municipal building regulations?
- Is the court empowered to direct the implementation of electronic traffic enforcement systems like e-challans?
- Malik Zafrullah vs The State and another2019 MLD 906, 2019 PHC 48 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
- Malik Waseem Khokhar vs Taimur Kamal etc2020 CLC 315, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 360, 2019 LHC 3769 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-06Read full judgment →
- Malik Tariq Ayub and another vs State and 6 others2019 PLJ Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-07-12Read full judgment →
- Malik Shakir Bashir Awan vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 508 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the significant inconsistencies in the complainant's allegations, specifically the claim that the offence occurred on the same day at two geographically distant locations (Lahore and Jouharabad). The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the ad-interim bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the complainant's contradictory versions regarding the place of occurrence, coupled with an unexplained delay of over one month in reporting the incident, created serious doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations. The key principle laid down is that while deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, the Court must tentatively assess the material to determine if the prosecution's case is tainted by mala fide or ulterior motives, particularly when the complainant's own narrative is inherently contradictory and physically impossible.
Questions settled- Does the existence of two FIRs alleging the same offence at different locations on the same day create sufficient doubt to grant pre-arrest bail?
- Is an unexplained delay in reporting an offence a relevant factor for the court when considering a pre-arrest bail application?
- Can a court grant pre-arrest bail when the complainant's narrative is physically impossible due to geographical distance?
- Malik Sajjad vs Shafqat Zama N and 2 others2019 CLC 284 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-11-09Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Nadeem vs LESCO and others2020 YLR 611, 2019 LHC 4089 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-06Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Mustafa vs Province of Punjab through Secretary2019 YLR 1696, 2019 LHC 1083 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-01Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Jalil vs Federal Secretary for Defense, Islamabad and 7 others2019 CLC 127 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to enforce contractual obligations arising from an agreement dated 28.11.2017 for the construction and operation of a petrol pump and allied facilities. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable for the enforcement of purely contractual rights and obligations. The Peshawar High Court held that contractual rights, commitments, and obligations must be enforced through courts of ordinary jurisdiction and should not be interfered with by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The court established the key principle that a breach of contract or failure to honour obligations arising out of a private agreement cannot be adjudicated or remedied within the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, and the aggrieved party must avail the normal remedy of a civil suit.
Questions settled- Can contractual obligations arising from an agreement be enforced through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable for the redressal of a breach of contract?
- What is the appropriate remedy under the law for the enforcement of contractual rights and commitments?
- Malik Muhammad Bashir Lakhesar, Assistant Advocate-General Punjab vs Government of Punjab etc2020 [M] C L R 735, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 266, 2019 PLD Lahore 1, 2018 LHC 2523 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by an Assistant Advocate-General challenging the order dispensing with his services and seeking release of his salary following long absence due to medical issues. The core legal questions involved whether the post of Assistant Advocate-General is a pleasure post terminable without notice, whether the principle of audi alteram partem applies, and whether the principle of 'no work no pay' is attracted upon prolonged absence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the post of Assistant Advocate-General is held during the pleasure of the government in the public interest, and an incumbent has no vested right to continue against the government's wishes. The Court ruled that continuous absence without proper sanction amounts to gross misconduct, that removal without stigma on the basis of displeasure does not attract the strict right to a notice or hearing, and that the principle of 'no work no pay' disentitles the petitioner to salaries for the period of absence.
Questions settled- Whether the post of an Assistant Advocate-General is a pleasure post held during the pleasure of the government?
- Does an Assistant Advocate-General possess a vested right to continue in office so as to require a formal show-cause notice before removal?
- Does long and continuous absence from duty by a law officer constitute gross misconduct warranting dispensation of services?
- Is a public officer who remained absent from duty entitled to salary under the principle of 'no work no pay'?
- Malik Iqbal Hassan vs Defence Housing Authority through Secretary2019 [M] C.L.R. 685, 2019 PLD Lahore 145 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra Court Appeal (ICA) challenged the dismissal of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which had sought to set aside a judgment passed in a writ petition. The core legal questions addressed were whether an Intra Court Appeal is competent against an order dismissing a Section 12(2) C.P.C. application arising from a writ petition, and whether the appellant satisfied the requirements of limitation. The Lahore High Court held that no substantive right of appeal is provided under the law against the dismissal of a Section 12(2) C.P.C. application stemming from constitutional jurisdiction, as Intra Court Appeals under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 are confined to orders passed under Article 199(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and original civil jurisdiction was not exercised. Furthermore, the court held that under Article 175(2) of the Constitution, no court can exercise jurisdiction unless conferred by law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as incompetent, and the appellant also failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the application.
Questions settled- Whether an Intra Court Appeal is competent against the dismissal of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 arising from a writ petition?
- Does an order passed in a writ petition and subsequently challenged via Section 12(2) C.P.C. constitute an order passed in original civil jurisdiction?
- Is a right of appeal a substantive right that must be expressly provided by statute?
- Malik Iftikhar etc vs Syed Abid Hussain2020 YLR 895, 2019 PHC 326 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
- Malik Din vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau and anotherPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 170, 2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 13, 2019 SCMR 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged the Islamabad High Court's dismissal of an appeal against the petitioner's conviction by an Accountability Court. The petitioner, a former Administrator of a housing society, was convicted under Sections 9(a)(vi) and 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for misusing authority by illegally allotting and converting plots. The Supreme Court addressed contentions regarding NAB's jurisdiction, alleged discrimination, and the necessity of personal financial gain or actual financial loss for conviction. The Court held that NAB's initiation of a reference based on a Standing Committee's letter constituted a valid 'complaint' under Section 18(b)(ii) of the Ordinance. It further ruled that challenging prosecution on grounds of discrimination is not a valid defence, and that Section 9(a)(vi) does not require personal financial gain by the accused or actual financial loss to the society, as it covers benefiting any other person. The conviction was maintained, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment was reduced from five years to four years, while the fine, disability, and disqualifications remained intact.
- Maleeha Syed vs Pakistan Medical & Dental Council etc2021 [M] C L R 721, 2019 LHC 3314 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
- Makhdoom Hussam-Ul-Haq vs Syed Ghulam Mohiuddin and 2 others2019 CLC 1063 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-14Read full judgment →
- Makhan vs Allahdino and 4 others2019 MLD 1383 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 302, 324, 114, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, giving them the benefit of the doubt. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related ocular witnesses, the corroboration of circumstantial and medical evidence, and the grounds for interfering with an acquittal judgment carrying a double presumption of innocence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in the testimony of closely related eye-witnesses lacking independent corroboration, unexplained delays in sending the weapon to the forensic laboratory, and inconsistencies between the medical and ocular evidence. The court reaffirmed the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's judgment is arbitrary, capricious, or suffers from gross misreading of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- What are the parameters for an appellate court to interfere with a judgment of acquittal carrying a double presumption of innocence?
- Can uncorroborated testimony of closely related eye-witnesses full of material contradictions be relied upon for a conviction?
- Does an unexplained delay in dispatching a recovered crime weapon to the forensic laboratory create a doubt in the prosecution case?
- Whether inconsistencies between medical evidence and ocular accounts warrant the extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
- Major Raja Zahid Mahmood vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government2019 IHC 162 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-01Read full judgment →
- Major Muhammad Nouman vs Usman Habib and another2020 [M] C L R 1455, 2020 [M] C L R 1501, 2019 PLD Islamabad 255 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-09-24Read full judgment →
- Major (R) Pervaiz Iqbal vs Munir Ahmad & others2019 SCP 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against concurrent judgments of the lower courts which decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell executed on July 10, 1986. The core legal question concerned whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, given that it was filed in 1996 based on an agreement where the seller had not yet acquired title to the property. The Supreme Court held that the cause of action for specific performance remained inchoate and suspended until the petitioner formally acquired title to the property on March 2, 2000, rendering the suit neither premature nor time-barred. The Court laid down the principle that a plea of limitation cannot succeed where the defendant himself successfully maintained that the suit was premature, as the pleas are mutually destructive, and that limitation under Article 113 does not run until the vendor is legally competent to perform the contract and convey title.
Questions settled- When does the period of limitation begin to run for filing a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell immovable property where the vendor's own title is pending finalization?
- Can a defendant simultaneously plead that a suit for specific performance is both premature and barred by limitation?
- Does the pendency of litigation regarding a vendor's title suspend the cause of action for a subsequent vendee seeking specific performance?
- Majmua-Tun-Noor "Hajj" and "Umrah" Service through Member vs2019 CLC 1206 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-02Read full judgment →
- Majid Hussain and others vs Farah Naz and others2019 MLD 1999 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-15Read full judgment →
- Majid alias Dodo and 3 others vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 201 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Sukkur, which dismissed the applicants' request to transfer their case to a court of ordinary jurisdiction. The applicants were accused of murdering a person after the complainant party objected to their operation of illegal gambling and narcotic dens. The core legal question was whether the alleged offence constituted an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, necessitating trial by a special court. The High Court upheld the impugned order, holding that the offence fell within the ambit of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court established that in determining whether an act constitutes terrorism, the "design" or "manner" of the act is paramount, rather than the underlying motive or personal enmity. Because the incident was premeditated and intended to create a sense of fear and insecurity in the neighborhood, it constituted an act of terrorism, thereby justifying the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court.
Questions settled- Does an offence committed due to personal enmity automatically exclude it from the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Is the 'design' or 'manner' of an act the primary factor in determining whether it constitutes terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Can an Anti-Terrorism Court refuse to transfer a case to an ordinary court if the act was designed to create a sense of fear or insecurity in the public?
- Majid Ali Khan vs State and 14 othersPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 184 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan, which directed the joint trial of three separate FIRs (No. 340/2011, No. 6/2012, and No. 53/2012). The petitioner, who is an accused in FIR No. 340/2011 but not in the other two cases, argued that a joint trial involving him in cases where he is not an accused is legally impermissible. The core legal question was whether a joint trial is permissible under Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, when the accused persons in the respective cases are different. The Court held that the impugned order was a patent illegality and violated the statutory requirements for joint trials. The Court established that for a joint trial to be valid under Section 234, the accused in all cases must be the same, the offences must be of the same kind, and the number of cases must not exceed three. Finding these conditions unsatisfied, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed separate trials.
Questions settled- What are the essential requirements for conducting a joint trial under Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Is a joint trial permissible when the accused persons in the respective FIRs are different?
- Can a court order a joint trial for cases where the accused is not named in all the FIRs?
- Majid Akhtar vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary New Sindh2019 PLC (C.S.) 771 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a notification issued by the Home Department, Government of Sindh, which retrospectively regularized the service of the fourth respondent and restored his promotion, despite a prior judgment by the Sindh Service Tribunal (upheld by the Supreme Court) that had set aside such retrospective regularization. The core legal question was whether the executive authority could override a binding judicial decision regarding service seniority and regularization. The Court held that the impugned notification was unlawful as it circumvented the finality of the Service Tribunal's judgment. The Court reaffirmed that ad-hoc appointments do not confer a vested right to seniority from the date of initial induction, and that seniority in a grade must take effect only from the date of regular appointment. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notification and the subsequent promotion of the fourth respondent, emphasizing that executive authorities cannot sit in appeal over judicial decisions or ignore established service laws regarding the calculation of seniority.
Questions settled- Can an ad-hoc employee claim seniority from the date of their initial induction rather than the date of regular appointment?
- Does an executive authority have the power to issue a notification that effectively overrides a final judgment of the Service Tribunal?
- Is a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting valid if the head of the department, who is a mandatory member, is excluded from the proceedings?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to set aside an executive order that violates a binding judicial decision regarding service matters?
- Majeed alias Majeedi and others vs The State and othersPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 508, 2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 59, 2019 SCMR 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a robbery incident where one person was killed and three others were injured. The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Sections 302(b), 392, and 394 PPC, with the High Court later modifying the convictions to Section 302(b) and four counts under Section 397 PPC. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the identification evidence, noting that the incident occurred at night in dense fog and that the culprits had muffled faces. The Court found the test identification parade conducted after a two-month delay to be highly suspect due to interpolations in the record and conflicting testimonies between the Magistrate and eye-witnesses regarding its authenticity. Furthermore, the Court observed that identification before the trial court is generally unsafe. As the recoveries of cash and a pistol were already ruled out by the High Court for lack of evidentiary links, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.
- Maj. (Retd.) Syed Muhammad Tanveer Abbas and another vs Federation2019 SCMR 984 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two appeals arose from the termination of contract-based employees of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA). The appellants had opted for 'Option I' under a 2012 regularization scheme, which provided for an open-ended contract until superannuation but included a clause allowing termination upon three months' notice without assigning reasons. Their services were subsequently terminated under this clause, leading to constitutional petitions in the High Court, which were dismissed for lack of maintainability. The Supreme Court examined whether the NADRA Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002, were statutory and whether the principle in the 'DHA case' (2017 SCMR 2010) applied. The Court held that while NADRA is a 'person' under Article 199, the 2002 Regulations are non-statutory. It distinguished the DHA case, noting that the appellants remained contractual employees by choosing Option I, unlike the regularized employees in the cited precedent. Consequently, the Court ruled that contractual employees of a statutory body cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction to challenge termination based on valid contract terms. The appeals were dismissed.
- Mahmooda Tapal & another vs Standard Chartered Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. & 52021 PLD Sindh 28, 2019 SHC 76 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-06Read full judgment →
- Maher Shahbaz vs The State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 689, 2019 LHC 493 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 256/18 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Haji Pura, District Sialkot. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner, to whom a lalkara was attributed and whose co-accused was stated by the complainant to have been nominated due to misunderstanding, is entitled to post-arrest bail under the principle of further inquiry. The Court held that sufficient grounds existed to bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting the complainant's statement exonerating the main accused, the absence of recoveries from the petitioner, police opinion regarding absence from the scene, and delayed trial proceedings. The Court accordingly admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where the primary accused is exonerated by the complainant and the role attributed to the petitioner requires further evaluation during trial, the case warrants the concession of bail.
Questions settled- Whether the attribution of a proverbial lalkara warrants further probe into the guilt of an accused under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the exoneration of a main co-accused by the complainant through a statement provide sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail to a co-accused?
- Whether the absence of any recovery from the petitioner during investigation entitles them to post-arrest bail?
- Mahar Allah Yar and another vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 685 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the criminal appeals filed by Mahar Allah Yar, Muhammad Akram, and Rana Dildar against their convictions and sentences under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 342 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court. The appellants were initially charged alongside co-accused who were acquitted by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the appellants could be convicted based on the same evidence that the trial court had already rejected to acquit their co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's narrative was neither plausible nor believable. Applying the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus'—which the Supreme Court of Pakistan has declared an integral part of criminal jurisprudence—the High Court determined that since the trial court disbelieved the prosecution evidence regarding the co-accused, that same evidence could not be relied upon to sustain the convictions of the appellants. Consequently, the court accepted the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court uphold a conviction when the trial court has already disbelieved the same prosecution evidence to acquit co-accused in the same case?
- Is the rule of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' an integral part of criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
- Maham Jahangir vs Government of Punjab, etc2019 PLJ Lahore 42, 2018 KLR Civil Cases 322 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-17Read full judgment →
- M.D. Ppra, Islamabad and another vs Muhammad Zubair and others2019 IHC 86 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-09Read full judgment →
- M. Iqbal Khattak vs ZTBL2019 PLJ Tr.C. (NIRC) 77 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal assails the order of the Single Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission dismissing a petition filed under Section 54(e) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The appellants, who are office-bearers and members of an employees union, challenged office memoranda issued to them regarding unauthorized absence and transfer, alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the employer. The core legal question was whether the issuance of office memoranda or show-cause notices and transfer orders by an employer constitutes an unfair labour practice under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Commission held that initiating disciplinary proceedings, issuing show-cause notices or office memoranda, and making transfers are legitimate prerogatives of the employer and do not amount to adverse action or unfair labour practice. The key principle laid down is that pre-empting domestic disciplinary proceedings by invoking unfair labour practice jurisdictions against mere show-cause notices or preliminary inquiries is unwarranted, and compliance with disciplinary norms can only be examined after final penal action is taken.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of an office memorandum or show-cause notice for unauthorized absence amount to an unfair labour practice?
- Can an employee challenge a preliminary show-cause notice or initiation of disciplinary proceedings before the National Industrial Relations Commission?
- Is the transfer of a union officer by an employer considered an act of unfair labour practice per se?
- When can the legality of disciplinary proceedings and compliance with norms be examined by a judicial forum?
- M. Fayyaz Nazir vs Piac2019 PLJ Tr.C. (NIRC) 102 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) single bench, which dismissed the appellant's petition regarding an alleged unfair labour practice. The appellant, a PIAC employee, received a show-cause notice regarding a purportedly fake educational certificate. The core legal question was whether the issuance of such a show-cause notice constitutes an "unfair labour practice" under Section 31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, justifying NIRC intervention. The Commission held that the appeal was meritless. It determined that the mere issuance of a show-cause notice is a procedural step in disciplinary proceedings and does not constitute an adverse action or an unfair labour practice. The court affirmed that employers possess the legal right to initiate disciplinary inquiries for misconduct, such as the submission of forged documents. Consequently, judicial interference at the show-cause stage is premature and unwarranted. The Commission further clarified that while PIA service regulations are non-statutory, any disciplinary action must strictly conform to the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, to ensure due process.
Questions settled- Does the mere issuance of a show-cause notice by an employer constitute an act of unfair labour practice?
- Can the National Industrial Relations Commission interfere in disciplinary proceedings at the show-cause notice stage?
- Are the Pakistan International Airlines Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985 considered statutory or non-statutory rules?
- Does the submission of a fake educational certificate constitute misconduct under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Luqman vs The State and othersPLJ 2019 Cr.c. 1606, 2019 MLD 1788 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302(b) and 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a murder and abduction case where the main nominated accused was acquitted. The core legal question revolves around the reliability of a joint test identification parade, the credibility of chance witnesses, and the application of the benefit of the doubt where co-accused have been acquitted on similar evidence. The Lahore High Court held that a joint identification parade conducted without specifying individual roles is legally improper and valueless, and that uncorroborated evidence from chance witnesses standing at a vast distance fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and that an accused cannot be convicted on shaky identification evidence when the principal co-accused with a direct motive has already been acquitted.
Questions settled- What is the evidentiary value of a joint test identification parade where multiple accused are picked out without specifying their individual roles?
- Does the acquittal of the main accused in a murder case necessitate the acquittal of a co-accused tried on the same evidence?
- Can an accused be safely convicted based on identification made from an implausible distance during night hours?
- Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient for the acquittal of an accused?
- Luban vs The State2019 YLR 1465 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Diamer, which summoned the petitioner to face trial after he had been previously discharged by the police under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a trial court may summon an accused discharged by the police based on testimony provided during trial that contradicts earlier statements made to the police. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the trial court's summoning order was improper. The Court reasoned that the eye-witnesses’ testimony implicating the petitioner during the trial constituted a dishonest and deliberate improvement over their initial statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which had exonerated him. Furthermore, noting that co-accused had already been acquitted on similar evidence, the Court determined that proceeding with the trial would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the court's process. Consequently, the summoning order was set aside, establishing that trial courts should not summon discharged accused where evidence is inconsistent and lacks conviction probability.
Questions settled- Can a trial court summon an accused who was previously discharged by the police under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a witness's contradictory statement, made during trial after exonerating an accused during the police investigation, provide sufficient grounds for summoning the accused?
- Is it an abuse of process to summon an accused for trial when there is no reasonable probability of conviction based on the available evidence?
- Lt.-Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Wali Khan Durrani vs University of Karachi2019 MLD 1882 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-18Read full judgment →
- Lt. Gen. Ravi Dastane, Avsm , Vsm vs Union of India, Ministry of Defence2019 P.S.C. 898 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Lt. Col. (Retd.) Irfan Pirzada vs The State and others2019 KLR Criminal Cases 86, 2019 P Cr. L J 194 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two criminal appeals filed by the appellant challenging orders of acquittal passed by the trial court in a private complaint and a Qalandra. The core legal question was whether the appeals, filed beyond the statutory period, could be entertained and whether the delay could be condoned due to the appellant having initially approached the wrong forum. The Court held that the appeals were time-barred and dismissed them. The Court determined that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which allows for the condonation of delay, is inapplicable to appeals against acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as the latter is a special statute governing the limitation period. Furthermore, the Court established that the negligence of counsel in pursuing a remedy before a wrong forum does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay. It emphasized that statutes of limitation are strict, inflexible, and designed to quieten disputes, and the Court possesses no inherent equity jurisdiction to override these statutory requirements.
Questions settled- Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to appeals against acquittal filed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Can the delay in filing an appeal be condoned on the ground that the appellant mistakenly approached the wrong forum due to the negligence of counsel?
- Is the Court empowered to exercise inherent equity jurisdiction to bypass statutory limitation periods in criminal appeals?
- Limited through Secretary vs Trustee of Port of Karachi (KPT)2019 CLC 1339 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-22Read full judgment →
- Liaquat National Hospital vs Province of Sindh and others2019 KLR Supreme Court 411, 2019 P.S.C. 615, 2019 SCP 278, 2019 SCMR 865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the appellant hospital's constitutional petition regarding property tax exemption. The core legal question was whether a hospital that charges fees to paying patients while offering subsidized services to the needy qualifies for property tax exemption under section 4(f) of the Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, which requires buildings and lands to be used exclusively for public charity. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the appellant's premises and funds were not used exclusively for charitable purposes, it failed to meet the strict statutory threshold for exemption. The Court laid down the key principle that exemption clauses in tax statutes must be construed strictly, and an institution claiming exemption must prove that it falls squarely within the four corners of the provision by establishing exclusive charitable use of the property and its income.
Questions settled- Whether a hospital charging fees to paying patients while offering subsidized services to needy patients qualifies for property tax exemption under Section 4(f) of the Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958?
- Does the mere fact that an organization's profits are reinvested and not distributed among its members establish that it is a charitable organization for tax exemption purposes?
- What is the standard of proof required for an institution claiming an exemption under a tax statute?
- Liaquat Ali vs State2021 YLR 2405, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1598 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Liaquat Ali, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder following a delayed FIR and a subsequent supplementary statement. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of a delayed FIR and a belated supplementary statement implicating an accused who was already known to the witnesses, the legality of an identification parade conducted for a known accused after undue delay, and the application of the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, illegal identification procedures, and improvements made in the supplementary statement. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of the charge. The key legal principles laid down include that a supplementary statement recorded days after the incident cannot be equated with an initial FIR, identification parades of persons already known to witnesses are legally worthless, and deliberate falsehood by a witness attracts the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Questions settled- Can a supplementary statement recorded days after an incident be equated with an initial first information report?
- Is an identification parade legally valid when conducted for an accused person who is already known to the eyewitnesses?
- Whether an accused can be convicted on the same set of evidence that resulted in the acquittal of co-accused without strong independent corroboration?
- What is the legal effect of a delayed first information report lodged without a plausible explanation?
- Liaquat Ali vs Said Muhammad etc2020 [M] CLR 669, 2020 YLR 144, 2019 LHC 1824 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-10Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs Akhtar Hussain and 28 others2019 KLR Civil Cases 286 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-12-19Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali Bhatti & others vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation &2020 PLC (C.S.) 1006, 2019 SHC 362 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiffs seeking the suspension of promotion minutes and orders whereby private defendants were promoted as Chief Engineers in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). The core legal questions involved whether the promotions were made in violation of the applicable working agreement, service rules, and established principles of seniority and structured discretion, and whether an aggrieved senior employee has a right to be considered fairly and furnished reasons upon supersession. The court held that while promotion itself is not a vested right and courts generally refrain from substituting their subjective assessment for that of a promotion board, public authorities and statutory corporations must exercise their discretion in a transparent, fair, and structured manner in accordance with governing rules and agreements. The court found prima facie procedural irregularities, including a lack of supporting evaluation material and failure to provide reasons for superseding senior employees. Consequently, the court suspended the impugned promotion order pending final disposal of the suit and allowed the management to hold fresh promotion proceedings strictly in accordance with law and the governing agreement. The key principles laid down include that discretion in public employment must be structured and exercised reasonably, that reasons must be provided in cases of supersession of senior employees, and that statutory corporations cannot arbitrarily bypass established service regulations and collective agreements.
Questions settled- Whether an employee has a vested right to promotion in a statutory corporation?
- Can a promotion board exercise unguided and unstructured subjective discretion while bypassing established seniority and service rules?
- Is a statutory corporation bound to provide reasons when superseding senior qualified employees for promotion?
- Does a court have the power to suspend promotion orders where the selection process prima facie violates governing service agreements and transparency norms?
- Liaquat Ali & Others vs Collector Land & Others2019 SC AJK 46 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-19Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Zaheer Khawaja and 14 others vs Muhammad Shaukat Qamar2019 CLC 1811 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-11Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Masih vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 334 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court for offences under Sections 279 and 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a fatal traffic accident. The core legal questions were whether an accused can be simultaneously convicted under Sections 279 and 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the same transaction, and whether the prosecution sufficiently established the identity of the driver and the elements of rash and negligent driving. The High Court held that simultaneous conviction under both sections for the same act is illegal. Furthermore, the court acquitted the petitioner, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to visible interpolations in the FIR, lack of evidence identifying the petitioner as the driver, and material inconsistencies in the ocular evidence. The judgment clarifies that criminal negligence requires a gross departure from the standard of care expected of a prudent person, and that the prosecution must prove identity and specific acts of negligence rather than relying on mere high speed.
Questions settled- Can an accused be simultaneously convicted under Section 279 and Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the same act of rash and negligent driving?
- Does the presence of interpolations in an FIR regarding the identity of the accused create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
- What constitutes 'culpable negligence' in the context of criminal liability for traffic accidents?
- Is the speed of a vehicle alone sufficient to establish rash and negligent driving under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Liaqat Ali vs The State, etc2020 YLR 2028, 2019 LHC 2046 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 163 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Liaqat Ali, who was accused of offences under Sections 17 and 22 of The Emigration Ordinance, 1979, regarding an alleged failure to secure employment for the complainant in Saudi Arabia after receiving payment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution's case suffered from significant weaknesses, including an unexplained two-year delay in lodging the FIR and the complainant's failure to specify the date, time, or place of the alleged transaction. Furthermore, the Court noted that the potential sentence under Section 22 allowed for a fine only, making continued incarceration potentially punitive. The Court concluded that the prosecution lacked sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner to the offence, thereby establishing a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioner was a non-convict and the investigation was complete.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can a case be considered for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution fails to specify the time and place of the alleged transaction?
- Is the potential for a sentence of only a fine a relevant factor in determining whether to grant post-arrest bail?
- Liaqat Ali and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1189 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought confirmation of their ad-interim pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 116 dated 6.9.2018 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the allegation of preparing forged and fictitious affidavits and submitting them in a civil suit. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given that the genuineness of the documents was subject to trial determination and they had already joined the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that since the veracity of the alleged forged affidavits is to be determined by the trial court where the civil suit is pending, and given that the petitioners joined the investigation with no recoveries remaining, the pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that where the genuineness of documents presented in pending judicial proceedings is contentious and the accused have fully joined the investigation with no recovery pending, pre-arrest bail may be confirmed.
Questions settled- Are accused persons entitled to pre-arrest bail when the veracity of alleged forged documents submitted in a pending civil suit is yet to be determined by the trial court?
- Does joining the investigation and the absence of any required recovery support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in forgery cases?
- Liaqat Ali alias Liaqi vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1061 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 1230 grams of charas from the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the ambiguity regarding the net weight of the narcotics, specifically whether the weight included the packaging material, potentially bringing the offense under the less severe Section 9(b) of the Act. The Court held that the ambiguity regarding the weighing procedure, combined with the marginal excess over the one-kilogram threshold, rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the recovery weight of narcotics marginally exceeds the threshold for a lesser offense, and the prosecution fails to clarify whether the weight includes packaging material, the case warrants further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail pending trial.
Questions settled- Does the ambiguity regarding whether the weight of recovered narcotics includes the packaging material constitute a case of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Can a case involving a marginal excess of narcotics over the statutory threshold for a lesser offense be considered for bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the determination of the net weight of recovered narcotics a matter to be decided at the trial stage rather than at the bail stage?
- Letter of Administration of Deceased Tahir Ahmed Khan: In the matter2019 PLD Sindh 130 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-02Read full judgment →
- LESCO vs Muhammad Shoaib etc2020 PLC (C.S.) 654, 2019 LHC 3966 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge's order directing the Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) to appoint respondents to the post of Line Superintendent Grade-I. The respondents, possessing higher qualifications (B.Sc. Electrical Engineering), were excluded because they did not meet the specific advertisement criteria of a Matric with a 3-year Diploma and 3-year experience. The core legal question was whether LESCO’s recruitment policy, which excluded overqualified candidates, violated fundamental rights or constituted discriminatory treatment. The Court held that LESCO, as an independent corporate entity, has the discretion to formulate recruitment policies and job criteria based on its organizational requirements. The Court ruled that courts should not interfere in such policy matters unless they are arbitrary, irrational, or discriminatory. It further held that overqualified candidates possess no vested right to be appointed to lower-scale positions, and Article 25 of the Constitution does not mandate identical treatment for all, but only for those similarly situated. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Can a court interfere in the recruitment policy and job criteria formulated by an independent corporate entity?
- Do overqualified candidates have a vested right to be appointed to posts requiring lower qualifications?
- Does the exclusion of overqualified candidates from a recruitment process constitute a violation of the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Layari Development Authority through Law Officer vs Muhammad2019 YLR 1965 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-17Read full judgment →
- Lawyers Foundation for Justice vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2018 [M] C.L.R. 1605, 2019 PLD Lahore 43, 2018 LHC 1856 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns five constitutional petitions challenging the legal existence of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, following the promulgation of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010. The petitioners argued that the Ordinance, having been promulgated during a period of constitutional abeyance, lost its validity after the Eighteenth Amendment because it was not laid before the legislature within the 120-day period prescribed by Article 89 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, remains a valid, permanent law or has become a dead letter. The Court held that the Ordinance is a valid, permanent piece of legislation. The ratio decidendi is that Article 270-AA(2) of the Constitution, as substituted by the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010, expressly validated and granted permanence to laws enacted between October 12, 1999, and December 31, 2003, including the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. Consequently, the Ordinance was not subject to the approval requirements of Article 89, as it had been adopted and affirmed by the legislature itself.
Questions settled- Does the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, remain a valid and subsisting law after the enactment of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010?
- Is the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, subject to the 120-day approval requirement stipulated in Article 89 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- What is the legal effect of Article 270-AA(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, on ordinances promulgated between October 12, 1999, and December 31, 2003?
- Land Acquisition Collector, NHA Abbottabad and 4 others vs Banaras Khan2019 [M] C.L.R. 1328 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Lalichan vs State of Kerala2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 177 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under the Kerala Abkari Act, where the appellant was found in possession of 4.5 litres of arrack and 3.750 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 8(2) and 63 of the Kerala Abkari Act, imposing a sentence of one year simple imprisonment and fines. The High Court of Kerala upheld the conviction but reduced the imprisonment to nine months. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the scope of review was confined solely to the quantum of sentence. The Supreme Court, considering the gravity of the offence, the quantity of contraband seized, and the fact that the appellant had already served thirty-five days in custody, exercised its discretion to modify the sentence. The Court held that the interest of justice would be sufficiently served by reducing the term of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant, while maintaining the fines imposed by the lower courts. The appeal was allowed in part to the extent of this sentence modification.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court modify a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by an accused in a case involving the Kerala Abkari Act?
- Is it permissible for an appellate court to maintain the fines imposed by a trial court while reducing the term of imprisonment?
- Lal Sahib Gul vs Zia-ud-Din etc2019 KLR Revenue Case 47, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 128, 2019 YLR 2385, 2019 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-11Read full judgment →
- Lal Din vs Muhammad Saleem (Deceased) through L.Rs., etc2019 LHC 1152 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-13Read full judgment →
- Lal Din vs Muhammad Saleem (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others2019 CLD 894 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular First Appeal challenges a trial court decree in a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concerning a promissory note. The appellant categorically denied the execution of the instrument and the receipt of consideration. The core legal questions were whether the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, persists after such denial, and whether a court may rely solely on its own comparison of thumb impressions to determine genuineness without expert assistance. The Court held that the presumption under Section 118 is rebuttable, and once the execution and consideration are denied, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove the transaction. Furthermore, the Court ruled that while judges have the power to compare thumb impressions, it is an undesirable and complex exercise to perform without expert opinion, especially when the balance of probabilities is evenly poised. The judgment establishes that in cases of vehement denial, relying solely on a judge's subjective comparison of thumb impressions is an improper exercise of discretion, necessitating expert verification to ensure a just adjudication.
Questions settled- Does the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, remain conclusive after the defendant categorically denies the execution of the instrument and receipt of consideration?
- Is it a lawful exercise of judicial discretion for a court to decide the genuineness of a thumb impression solely through its own comparison without referring the matter to a handwriting expert?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the plaintiff to prove the execution of a negotiable instrument and payment of consideration once the defendant has successfully rebutted the initial presumption?
- Can a court draw an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when a party withholds crucial evidence regarding the transaction?
- Lal Bibi and 10 others vs Abdul Rehman and 8 others2020 KLR Civil Cases 335, 2020 PLJ Quetta 16, 2019 CLC 2016 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-01Read full judgment →
- Lakhani Securities (Pvt.) Limited vs Executive Director (SMD-PRPD), SECP, Islamabad2021 P C T L R 335, 2019 CLD 589 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-01-29Read full judgment →
- Lajpal Rice Mills vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 P C T L R 809, 2019 PTD 1958 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
- Lahore Stock Exchange vs Director (Icw) SECP etc2019 CLD 626, 2020 P C T L R 295, 2019 LHC 1330 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
- Lahore Parking Company Limited vs Corporatization and Compliance2021 P C T L R 174, 2019 CLD 1281 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-04-19Read full judgment →
- Lahore High Court Bar Association, etc vs General (R) Pervez Musharraf, etc2019 SCP 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition concerning the stalled trial of General (Rtd.) Pervez Musharraf before a Special Court for high treason under the Criminal Law (Special Court) Act 1976. The trial had been delayed for years due to the persistent absence of the accused, who was declared a proclaimed offender in 2016. The core legal question was whether the Special Court could proceed with and conclude the trial in the absence of an accused who deliberately absents himself. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that under Section 9 of the Criminal Law (Special Court) Act 1976, the Special Court is empowered to proceed with the trial in the absence of the accused if his absence is self-created or designed to impede justice. The Court laid down the principle that a fugitive from law and proclaimed offender loses their right of audience and forfeits the right to have an advocate appointed to defend them or to record a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, unless and until they surrender to the court.
Questions settled- Can a Special Court proceed with a high treason trial in the absence of the accused under the Criminal Law (Special Court) Act 1976?
- Does a proclaimed offender who is a fugitive from law retain the right of audience and the right to have counsel defend them in their absence?
- Does the voluntary absence of an accused from a trial violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- What is the effect of an accused's failure to appear on their right to record a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Lahore High Court Bar Association and others vs General (Retd.)2020 PSC (Crl.) 7, 2019 SCMR 1029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition concerning the stalled trial of General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf before the Special Court for high treason under the Criminal Law (Special Court) Act, 1976, due to his persistent absence and status as a proclaimed offender. The core legal question was whether the Special Court could proceed with the trial in the absence of the accused and how Section 9 of the Act applied to prevent delays caused by an absconding accused. The Supreme Court held that under Section 9 of the Act, if an accused voluntarily absents himself or impedes justice, the Special Court must proceed with the trial. The Court laid down the key principles that an accused who is a proclaimed offender and a fugitive from law loses the right of audience and forfeiture of defense, and that an accused who voluntarily chooses not to appear waives the opportunity for a Section 342 Cr.P.C. examination, ensuring that control over the trial proceedings does not rest with the absconder.
Questions settled- Can a Special Court proceed with a high treason trial in the absence of an accused who is a proclaimed offender?
- Does an accused who is a fugitive from law lose the right of audience and the right to put up a defence?
- What is the effect of Section 9 of the Criminal Law (Special Court) Act, 1976 regarding the restriction of adjournments due to the absence of an accused?
- Does an accused who voluntarily chooses not to appear lose the right to record a statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Lahore Development Authority etc vs Hafiz Abdul Khaliq etc2019 PLC 175, 2019 LHC 561 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from a service dispute where a Senior Clerk of the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) challenged his dismissal before a Labour Court after exhausting departmental appeals. The core legal question was whether an employee of a statutory body, having been proceeded against under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA Act), could maintain a grievance petition before a Labour Court. The High Court held that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction in this matter. The Court reasoned that the PEEDA Act, 2006, constitutes a comprehensive statutory disciplinary dispensation. Consequently, when an employee is subjected to disciplinary proceedings under this Act, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is excluded. The Court affirmed that such employees must seek redress through the departmental hierarchy or by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The judgment establishes that the PEEDA Act overrides general labour laws for employees of statutory bodies, rendering grievance petitions before Labour Courts unsustainable in such disciplinary contexts.
Questions settled- Can an employee of a statutory body proceeded against under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 maintain a grievance petition before a Labour Court?
- Does the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 have overriding effect over general labour laws regarding disciplinary proceedings?
- What is the appropriate forum for an employee of a statutory body to challenge disciplinary action taken under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
- Krishna Hospital and Research Centre, Haldwani vs Dcit, Haldwani2019 PCTLR 1095 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
- KPT Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Karachi vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 23 others2019 YLR 1671 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-08Read full judgment →
- KPT Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Government of Sindh2019 SHC 48 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
- Konecny vs District Court in Brno-Venkov, CzeCh Republic2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 521 · Supreme Court of United Kingdom · 2019-02-27Read full judgment →
- Kitex Garments Ltd vs Securities, and Exchange Board of India2019 PCTLR 1111 · Securities Appellate Tribunal · 2019-05-21Read full judgment →
- Kissan Support Services Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-III, Ltu, Islamabad and another2019 PTD 1694, 2019 IHC 70 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-06-03Read full judgment →
- Khyber Tea and Food Company, Peshawar and 2 others vs The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Peshawar and 2 others2019 PTD (Trib.) 173 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-07-19Read full judgment →
- Khyber Khan vs Shahid Zaman2019 P Cr. L J 979, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 383, 2019 PHC 7 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting the respondent of a murder charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested on an ocular account, medical evidence, and a dying declaration. Upon review, the High Court found multiple discrepancies, noting that the medical evidence and site plan contradicted the eyewitness testimony regarding the trajectory of the firearm injury. Furthermore, the court observed that the dying declaration lacked essential legal safeguards, including medical certification of the deceased's consciousness and orientation at the time it was made, as well as non-compliance with the procedures outlined in the Police Rules 1934. The court reiterated that an acquittal judgment earns a double presumption of innocence which cannot be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Finding the prosecution's case fraught with reasonable doubts, the appellate court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with an acquittal judgment that enjoys the presumption of double innocence without cogent and tangible evidence?
- What are the essential legal requirements for a dying declaration to be safely relied upon by a court of law?
- Does non-compliance with the procedural requirements for recording a dying declaration under the Police Rules 1834 render it untrustworthy?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence and the site plan directly contradict the ocular account provided by the prosecution?
- Khushi Muhammad vs Addl. Sessions Judge etc2020 KLR Criminal Cases 30, 2019 PLD Lahore 751, 2019 LHC 2904 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenges orders passed by a Magistrate Section-30 and upheld by an Additional Sessions Judge, whereby directions were issued to remove an obstruction allegedly created by the petitioner blocking the natural drainage of village water. The core legal question was whether a complaint under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requires the prior consent of the Advocate General or leave of the court, and whether the Magistrate's conditional order was lawful. The Lahore High Court held that the requirement of consent or leave pertains exclusively to civil suits concerning public nuisance under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, whereas criminal proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 may be initiated upon a police report or any information without such consent. The court laid down the principle that aggrieved local residents have the locus standi to set the criminal law in motion for the removal of public nuisances under Chapter-X of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and dismissed the petition in limine.
Questions settled- Whether the consent of the Advocate General or leave of the court is required for filing a complaint under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a resident of a village have the locus standi to file a complaint regarding an obstruction of a water passage under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the distinction between civil and criminal remedies regarding public nuisance under Pakistani law?
- Khushi Mohammad vs District Collector, Lodhran, etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 1122, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-17Read full judgment →
- Khushi Mohammad and 19 others vs Noor Mohammad alias Photo2019 YLR 740 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-02Read full judgment →
- Khush Baig and another vs Azad Ali and another2019 MLD 1846 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
- Khurshid vs the State2020 MLD 352, 2019 PHC 198 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-17Read full judgment →