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.

• Khursheed Ahmad vs The State2019 LHC 846 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-23
  criminal appealmurderchance witnessacquittal of co-accusedfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusdelayed FIRmedical evidencesafe custody of recoveries
  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 qatl-i-amd. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the ocular account of chance witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, motive, and weapon recoveries, particularly when co-accused attributed effective roles had been acquitted on the same evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charges due to delayed and ante-timed FIRs, uncorroborated chance witnesses, defective and unproved recoveries, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence. The Court reiterated that where eyewitnesses are disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused, their testimony cannot sustain the conviction of the remaining accused without strong independent corroboration, and applied the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained on the testimony of chance witnesses without strong independent corroboration?
  • Whether an accused can be convicted on the same set of evidence upon which co-accused attributed effective roles have already been acquitted?
  • Does a delay in conducting post-mortem examinations and lodging the FIR without plausible explanation vitiate the sanctity of the prosecution case?
  • What is the effect of the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe custody of recovered crime weapons and forensic samples?
  Read full judgment →
• Khursheed Ahmad vs State2020 MLD 649, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1212 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-25
  criminal appealmurder convictionchance witnessfalsus in uno falsus in omnibussafe custody of evidenceante-timed FIRacquittal of co-accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, setting aside the conviction and ordering the appellant's release. The Court found the FIR was ante-timed and lacked sanctity, and that the cited eye-witnesses were "chance witnesses" whose presence was not credible. Furthermore, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, and the motive was not established. Crucially, the Court applied the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, ruling that since the eye-witnesses were disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused, they could not be relied upon against the appellant without strong independent corroboration, which was absent. Additionally, the Court held that failure to prove the safe custody of recovered weapons rendered forensic reports unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained when the eye-witnesses are found to be chance witnesses and the FIR is proven to be ante-timed?
  • Does the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply when eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding co-accused?
  • Is independent corroboration required to sustain a conviction when co-accused attributed with effective roles have been acquitted?
  • Does the failure to prove the safe custody of recovered weapons render forensic reports unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurram vs The State, etc2019 SCMR 1317, 2019 SCP 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-15
  criminal appealmurderabduction for ransomlast-seen evidencebenefit of doubtacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Khurram, for abduction for ransom, homicide, and screening of evidence, while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal question involves the reliability of circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, the credibility of belated disclosures regarding ransom, the propriety of summoning a court witness mid-trial to establish tenancy, and the certainty of corpse identification without DNA profiling in advanced putrefaction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that when the prosecution case against the appellant rests on the same shaky testimony that led to the acquittal of identically placed co-accused, and suffers from uncorroborated last-seen evidence, doubtful corpse identification, and improper mid-trial introduction of court witnesses, the conviction cannot be sustained. The key principles laid down are that parity in treatment must be extended to co-accused facing identical evidence, and that powers to summon court witnesses must not be exercised to the detriment of the accused's adversarial balance without solid proof.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital crime be sustained on last-seen evidence that lacks temporal specificity and corroboration?
  • Does the acquittal of identically placed co-accused entitle the remaining appellant to an acquittal on the principle of parity?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the identity of the recovered dead body is doubtful due to advanced putrefaction and lack of DNA analysis?
  • To what extent can a trial court summon a witness mid-trial without disturbing the adversarial balance of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurram Shehzad vs United Bank Limited2020 P C T L R 1246, 2019 CLD 1205 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Khurram Shahzad vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2020 PCTLR 163, PTCL 2019 CL. 712, 2019 PTD 1124, 2019 LHC 1324 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
• Khurram Abbas & 2 others vs The State & another2019 LHC 275 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-25
  criminal appealmurder convictiondying declarationocular evidencereasonable doubtacquittalinvestigative inconsistencies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given significant doubts surrounding the dying declaration, the reliability of the ocular testimony, and inconsistencies in the investigative process. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with contradictions, particularly regarding the deceased's physical capacity to provide a detailed dying declaration and the unexplained injuries sustained by one of the appellants. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution had cast an overly wide net, rendering the specific roles assigned to each appellant implausible. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and ordered their immediate release. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where a prosecution case is riddled with doubts, exaggerations, and investigative failures, it is unsafe to maintain a conviction, as the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt remains unsatisfied.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's case relies on a dying declaration that is inconsistent with the declarant's physical capacity?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused assigned a specific role necessitate independent corroboration for the remaining accused?
  • Is a conviction safe when the prosecution evidence is riddled with exaggerations and investigative contradictions?
  • Should a court ignore investigative conclusions that are synchronized with the contextual framework of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Buksh vs State etc.PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 908 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-19
  pre-arrest bailtheftdelayed FIRmala fiderecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions seeking pre-arrest bail arising out of FIR No. 427 of 2018 registered at Police Station Kot Mithan, District Rajanpur under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in respect of a theft of livestock. The core legal questions relate to whether the petitioners have made out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in the light of delayed reporting, lack of incriminating evidence, and allegations of mala fide. The Lahore High Court allowed both petitions and confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners, holding that the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, deficiency in evidentiary material, lack of corroborative statements from the foot tracker, and potential mala fide on the part of the complainant warranted the relief, especially when investigation was complete and no recovery remained to be effected through incarceration. The key principles laid down are that delay in lodging an FIR coupled with deficient evidentiary material and plausible grounds of mala fide support the grant of pre-arrest bail, and that recovery alone does not justify sending an accused behind bars when it can be achieved through other legal means.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and deficient evidentiary material justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted on the grounds of mala fide and previous similar complaints filed by the complainant?
  • Is the necessity of recovery alone a sufficient ground to deny pre-arrest bail when the investigation is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh etc vs The State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 596, 2019 YLR 1622, 2019 LHC 598 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-04
  pre-arrest bailcross-versionfurther inquirymala fidesuppression of factsmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 356/2018, registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i)(v), and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the occurrence, specifically the existence of a cross-version, the complainant's suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party, and the delay in FIR registration. The Court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the complainant party had suppressed the fact that multiple individuals from the accused side sustained injuries, which were medically documented prior to the FIR's registration, indicating mala fide on the part of the prosecution. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant party was found to be the aggressor during the investigation. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing that the suppression of material facts and the existence of a cross-version warrant further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party in the FIR constitute mala fide sufficient to warrant pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the existence of a cross-version where the complainant party is found to be the aggressor bring a case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the recovery of weapons irrelevant for bail purposes when a significant amount of time has elapsed since the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khubaib Khan vs Addl. District Judge, Mian Channu District Khanewal2019 PLJ Lahore 523 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-15Read full judgment →
• Khial Badshah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through District2019 CLC 1401, 2019 PHC 134 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-11Read full judgment →
• Khawer Hanif vs Imran Hanif & others2019 CLD 971, 2019 KLR Criminal Cases 161, 2019 PLD Sindh 564, 2019 SHC · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Muhammad Yahya vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1394 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-03
  post-arrest bailextortionpolice encounterstatement of co-accusedfurther inquiryunlicensed weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from three criminal cases involving post-arrest bail applications filed by Khawaja Muhammad Yahya, who sought bail in multiple FIRs registered under sections related to extortion, assault on police, terrorism, and arms possession. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail where the prosecution's case primarily rested on an inadmissible statement of a deceased co-accused, lacking identification parades or incriminating recoveries from the applicant's direct possession other than an unlicensed weapon. The court held that since the applicant was not nominated in the initial FIR, the co-accused's statement before the police was inadmissible, no identification parade was conducted, and no incriminating evidence regarding the extortion was recovered from the applicant, a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was made out. The key principles laid down include that reliance on the statement of a deceased co-accused recorded before police does not sustain pre-trial detention without corroborative evidence, and that absence of incriminating recoveries alongside lack of identification warrants the grant of bail for further probe.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the applicant is not nominated in the FIR and the prosecution case relies solely on the statement of a deceased co-accused?
  • Does the absence of an identification parade and failure to record a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make a case one for further inquiry under Section 497(2)?
  • Is a statement made by an accused person to the police admissible in evidence against a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Muhammad Asghar vs Muhammad Irfan and 4 others2019 MLD 1603 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-02
  Section 324 PPCcharge sheetjudicial mindattempt to commit qatl-i-amdlethal weaponsmagisterial cognizanceSection 173 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate accepting a police report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which omitted Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite allegations of an attack with lethal weapons. The core legal question was whether Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, is applicable when an accused attempts to commit qatl-i-amd but fails to cause injury due to external circumstances, and whether a Magistrate is bound by the police's assessment in a charge sheet. The Court held that the omission of Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was unlawful, as the section covers attempts to commit qatl-i-amd regardless of whether injury is sustained. The Court further held that a Magistrate is not bound by the police report and must apply an independent judicial mind to the material before accepting it. Consequently, the Court set aside the Magistrate's mechanical acceptance of the charge sheet, emphasizing that the Magistrate must form an independent opinion rather than merely endorsing the Investigating Officer's conclusions.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, require the victim to sustain injuries for the offense to be complete?
  • Is a Magistrate legally bound to accept the conclusions reached by the Investigating Officer in a report submitted under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an act be considered an attempt to commit qatl-i-amd if the offender fails to cause injury due to circumstances independent of their will?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan vs The State2019 P Cr. LJ 1800, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 658 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-19
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidenceinterested witnesscapital chargeSection 342 examinationmotiveabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the provided ocular evidence, motive, and other incriminating circumstances. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the ocular witnesses were related to the deceased and inimical toward the appellant, requiring independent corroboration which was absent. Furthermore, the alleged motive remained unproven, and the disclosure statement made to the police was inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as no new facts were discovered. The court also found that the trial court erred by failing to put the circumstance of abscondence to the appellant during his Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 examination. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, and that conviction in capital cases cannot rest on uncorroborated, interested testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to put the circumstance of abscondence to an accused during their Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 examination render it inadmissible as evidence?
  • Is a disclosure statement made to the police admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, if no new facts are discovered as a result?
  • Can a conviction in a capital case be sustained solely on the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the motive once it has been specifically asserted in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 946 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-27
  criminal appealmurderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtchance witnesseyewitness testimonyacquittalrecovery evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for the murder of Sakhawat Ali. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on chance witnesses, the absence of the appellant's name in the initial FIR, and inconsistencies in the recovery evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The eyewitnesses were found to be unreliable 'chance witnesses' whose presence at the scene was not established, and the complainant's identification of the appellant was deemed suspect due to the lack of an identification parade and the complainant's own admission of weak eyesight. Furthermore, the Court found significant contradictions in the recovery of the weapon and the motive. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitting the appellant. The key principle laid down is that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is the evidence of a 'chance witness' sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other corroborating ocular evidence?
  • Does the failure to hold an identification parade for an accused not named in the FIR undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and others2019 SCP 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-05-22
  service lawposting and transfercivil servantrules of businessseparation of powersultra virestenure of postingown pay and scale
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter arose from a challenge to a notification transferring the petitioner, an Acting Divisional Director of Education, and replacing him with a junior officer. The core legal question was whether a provincial Minister possesses the authority to order the posting or transfer of civil servants, and whether such delegation of power via administrative notification is consistent with the Constitution and the Balochistan Government Rules of Business, 2012. The Supreme Court held that the notification delegating transfer powers to the Minister was ultra vires the Rules of Business and the constitutional scheme of governance, which bifurcates policy-making in the political domain from administrative implementation in the bureaucratic domain. The Court ruled that Ministers lack the authority to post or transfer civil servants, as such powers undermine the Secretary's role in maintaining discipline and efficient administration. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that arbitrary transfers, particularly those requiring a senior to serve under a junior or those made on an own pay and scale basis, are legally impermissible and violate established principles of good governance and tenure security.

  Questions settled

  • Does a provincial Minister have the legal authority to order the posting or transfer of civil servants under the Balochistan Government Rules of Business, 2012?
  • Is a notification delegating the power of posting and transfer of civil servants to a provincial Minister consistent with the constitutional scheme of governance?
  • Can a civil servant be transferred to serve under a subordinate officer without cogent reasons?
  • Is the appointment of a civil servant on an own pay and scale basis legally permissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad (decd.) through L.Rs. etc vs Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others2019 SCP 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-01
  inheritancepre-deceased sonlimited estateMuslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961co-sharerlimitationsuccessionShariat
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the inheritance rights of the daughter and widows of a pre-deceased son (Rajada) of the last male owner (Ahmad), who died in 1944. The core legal question was whether the daughter and widows of the pre-deceased son were entitled to inherit from the propositus's legacy, given the timing of the succession and the subsequent enactment of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The Court held that because the widows held a limited estate that terminated after the promulgation of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, the provisions of Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, became applicable at the time of the termination of that limited estate. Consequently, the legal heirs of the pre-deceased son were entitled to their respective Shari shares. The Court affirmed that inheritance rights of co-sharers are not barred by limitation, as possession by one co-sharer is deemed possession of all, and wrong revenue entries provide a fresh cause of action. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 apply to the inheritance of a pre-deceased son's heirs when the limited estate of the widows terminates after the Act's promulgation?
  • Does the law of limitation bar a suit for inheritance filed by a co-sharer who has been denied their share in the legacy?
  • Are the heirs of a pre-deceased son entitled to inherit from the original propositus if the succession opened prior to the enactment of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, but the limited estate terminated after its enactment?
  • Does a wrong entry in the revenue record regarding inheritance provide a fresh cause of action for a co-sharer?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Mir vs State2020 YLR 881, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1689 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Khan Afsar vs Muhammad Akhtar2019 CLC 2033 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-10-05Read full judgment →
• Khamas Saeed vs Director General of Trade Organization etc2019 IHC 174 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-09Read full judgment →
• Khalil Aziz vs The District Coordination Officer, Rajanpur and another2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 209 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 2017-09-26
  service appealdismissal from serviceacquittal on compromisehonourable acquittalback benefitsdepartmental inquirysuperannuationPEEDA Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant, a Secondary School Teacher, under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, following his conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. After the Lahore High Court upheld his conviction, the appellant was dismissed from service without a regular inquiry or opportunity of hearing. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Pakistan acquitted the appellant pursuant to a compromise with the legal heirs. The core legal questions concerned whether an acquittal based on a compromise constitutes an honourable acquittal for service matters, and the legality of dismissing a civil servant without a proper departmental inquiry. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that all acquittals, including those based on a compromise, completely exonerate an accused and are deemed honourable, and that dismissing a civil servant without a regular inquiry violates natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the dismissal orders, ruled that grant of back benefits is the rule upon reinstatement, and directed the authorities to issue the appellant's retirement notification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal based on a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased constitutes an honourable acquittal for the purpose of reinstating a civil servant?
  • Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory before imposing a major penalty of dismissal under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
  • Whether the grant of back benefits is the rule upon the reinstatement of a civil servant following the setting aside of a dismissal order?
  • Does an ultimate acquittal in a criminal case completely exonerate a civil servant vis-a-vis the criminal charge for all future purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalida Bibi vs Mst. Shabnam un Nisa and others2019 IHC 94 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-06-17Read full judgment →
• Khalid Sikandar vs Additional District Judge, Kamalia etc2019 LHC 3293 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-04Read full judgment →
• Khalid Sikandar and another vs Additional District Judge, Kamalia etc2019 LHC 3287 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-04Read full judgment →
• Khalid Sajjad and 4 others vs The State through Advocate General Azad2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 76 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Khalid Rehman Qureshi & Another vs Advocate General Sindh & Others2019 SHC 98 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-05Read full judgment →
• Khalid Razzaq vs The State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.c. 1583, 2019 LHC 3233 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-19
  narcoticschain of custodygovernment analyst reportbenefit of the doubtcontrol of narcotic substancescriminal appealacquittal
  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 possession of charas and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and unbroken chain of custody of the recovered narcotic substance and whether the forensic report complied with the mandatory requirements of law. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody and transmission of the samples, noting that multiple recovered packets were lumped into a single parcel and the chemical examiner's report lacked full protocols as required by the rules. The court laid down the principle that strict adherence to sampling procedures and proof of an unbroken chain of custody is pivotal in narcotics cases, and any failure thereof creates a serious doubt, entitling the accused to an acquittal on the basis of the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure by the prosecution to maintain an unbroken and safe chain of custody of recovered narcotics vitiate the conviction?
  • Is a consolidated forensic report that fails to provide individual sample details and full testing protocols legally sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Whether non-compliance with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 renders the government analyst report unreliable?
  • What is the effect of discrepancies in police testimonies and mishandling of case property on the prosecution's burden of proof in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood and another vs Customs Appellate Tribunal and 32019 PTD 613 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-05Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs The State etc2019 LHC 3800 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-16
  narcotics controlchemical examiner reportDuquenois testTetrahydrocannabinolbenefit of doubtcriminal appealcharas recovery
  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 recovery of 22.800 kilograms of Charas and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether a chemical examiner's report that lacks complete protocols, net and gross weights, and relies solely on the Duquenois test without detecting Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is legally sufficient to prove the nature of the contraband substance. The Court accepted the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the chemical examiner's report suffered from fatal infirmities since the Duquenois test only detects the presence of a drug generally and not the specific nature or kind of drug, and that the omission of test protocols renders the report not in the prescribed form under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Govt. Analysts) Rules, 2001. Consequently, the principle laid down is that a conviction for the possession of Charas cannot be sustained on a chemical report that fails to confirm the presence of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) through proper test protocols.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a chemical examiner's report that omits test protocols and form requirements can be treated as valid evidence under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Govt. Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Does the Duquenois test alone conclusively prove the specific nature and kind of contraband substance such as Charas?
  • Is the detection of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) necessary in a chemical report to substantiate a conviction for the recovery of Charas?
  • What is the legal consequence when a chemical examiner report fails to state the protocols of the test applied?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs Naseem Akhtar and others2019 MLD 820 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-30
  constitutional petitionmaintenance allowancequantum of maintenancesalary slipdocumentary evidencedowry articlesFamily Courts Act 1964
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court challenging the judgments and decrees of the Family Court and Additional District Judge regarding maintenance allowance and recovery of dowry articles. The core legal questions pertained to whether the courts below misread and non-read material documentary evidence, specifically the husband's salary slip, when fixing the quantum of child maintenance allowance under Section 17-A(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, and whether documentary evidence takes precedence over oral assertions. The High Court observed that both lower courts decided the quantum of maintenance in a slipshod manner without examining the husband's salary slip (Mark-D/I), which proved his net income to be Rs. 18,252/- per month, while ignoring his existing family liabilities. The High Court held that documentary evidence excludes oral evidence and carries a presumption of truth over mere verbal assertions. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition in part, modifying the lower court decrees by reducing the maintenance allowance for the two minor children from Rs. 5,000/- per month each to Rs. 3,000/- per month each with a 10% annual increase.

  Questions settled

  • How is a Family Court required to determine the financial status and resource capacity of a defendant for fixing child maintenance under Section 17-A(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does documentary evidence of a husband's net income take precedence over mere oral assertions when determining maintenance allowance?
  • Whether a Family Court judgment fixing maintenance allowance without evaluating material documentary evidence on record is sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain vs Judge, Family Court, etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 1010 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-03Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain vs Judge Family Court and others2019 YLR 1604 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-03Read full judgment →
• Khair-Ul-Bashar vs The StatePLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 372, 2019 SCP 132, 2019 SCMR 930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-08
  NarcoticsHeroinControl of Narcotic Substances ActGovernment Analyst ReportForensic analysisTest protocolsEvidentiary valueMandatory provisionsPurposive interpretationBenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of heroin. The core legal question concerned the mandatory nature of information required in the Report of the Government Analyst under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, specifically regarding the inclusion of individual test results and test protocols. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the Report of the Government Analyst in the present case was deficient as it failed to provide results for each test (only a consolidated result) and did not signify the test protocols applied, thus non-complying with Rule 6. The Court reiterated that Rule 6 is mandatory, requiring the Report to specify all tests, the result of each test, and the name of all protocols applied. Non-compliance diminishes the reliability and evidentiary value of the Report, and re-testing for deficient reports is impermissible. The Court emphasized purposive interpretation to ensure convictions are based on reliable reports and to protect fundamental rights.

  Read full judgment →
• Khair-ul-Bashar son of Sajawal Khan vs The State2019 SCP 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-08
  Government Analyst reporttest protocolsnarcotic substancesmandatory rulespurposive interpretationbenefit of the doubtchemical examiner
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possessing heroin, and his conviction was upheld by the High Court. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the report of the Government Analyst complied with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. The core legal question was whether the requirements of Rule 6—specifically detailing the tests, results, and test protocols applied—are mandatory and whether a deficient report vitiates the conviction. The Court held that Rule 6 is mandatory, and a Government Analyst's report must explicitly state the tests performed, individual results, and the specific test protocols applied to ensure reliability and evidentiary value. The Court reiterated that non-compliance diminishes the report's credibility, and flaws in prosecution evidence must benefit the accused. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was granted the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Are the requirements under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 regarding test results and protocols mandatory?
  • Does a Government Analyst report lacking specific test protocols and individual test results possess sufficient evidentiary value to sustain a narcotics conviction?
  • Can the prosecution be permitted to resend samples for re-testing when the original chemical examiner's report is found to be deficient in material particulars?
  • What are the essential elements required for a valid report prepared by a Government Analyst under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad and another vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 26 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-10
  circumstantial evidencelast seeninterested witnessmurder convictionrecovery of crime weaponmotiveQanun-e-Shahadat Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution sufficiently established guilt through circumstantial evidence—specifically the deceased being last seen with the appellants, the recovery of the crime weapon, and forensic reports—despite the lack of direct eyewitnesses to the shooting. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the appellants to the crime. The Court affirmed that mere relationship between witnesses and the deceased does not render them interested witnesses absent proof of enmity. Furthermore, the Court held that motive is not a necessary component of a crime when other evidence is sufficient, and the non-production of a witness does not invalidate the prosecution's case when the evidence presented is of sufficient quality. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the arguments regarding misreading of evidence or procedural irregularities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically render them an interested witness?
  • Is proof of motive a necessary requirement for a murder conviction when other evidence is sufficient?
  • Does the non-production of a prosecution witness invalidate the case if other evidence is sufficient?
  • Is a disclosure statement made in police custody admissible if it leads to the discovery of incriminating evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khair Jan vs Abdul Qudoos Bizanjo and 22 others2019 CLC 1520 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-12-19Read full judgment →
• Khadim Nabi son of Muhammad Umar vs The State etc2019 PHC 236 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-02
  murdercapital punishmentenhancement of sentencerelated witnesseseyewitness accountmotivemitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eyewitnesses, the corroborative value of medical and circumstantial evidence, and the existence of mitigating circumstances justifying a lesser sentence than death. The Peshawar High Court held that the ocular account furnished by the complainant and an eyewitness was trustworthy, natural, and confidence-inspiring, and was sufficiently corroborated by prompt lodging of the FIR, medical evidence, and a proven land dispute serving as motive. The court ruled that mere relationship to the deceased does not disqualify a natural witness. Finding no mitigating circumstances and concluding that the murder was premeditated, the court dismissed the appellant's appeal, allowed the revision petition, and enhanced the sentence from imprisonment for life to the normal penalty of death. The key principle laid down is that reliable ocular testimony from natural witnesses is sufficient for a capital conviction without mandatory independent material corroboration, and the absence of mitigating circumstances warrants the normal death penalty for premeditated murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses related to the deceased can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship when their presence is natural and their testimony is confidence-inspiring?
  • Does the failure to send crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiate an otherwise established prosecution case based on trustworthy ocular testimony?
  • Whether a pre-planned murder stemming from a land dispute leaves room for mitigating circumstances to warrant a lesser sentence than death?
  • Can the appellate court enhance a sentence of life imprisonment to the normal penalty of death in the absence of valid reasons given by the trial court for awarding the lesser sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs District Police Officer, Muzaffargarh and another2019 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 5 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 2017-12-13
  service appealdepartmental inquiryPEEDA Actdismissal from servicenatural justiceAudi Alteram Partemback benefitssuperannuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenges the dismissal of a police official from service following departmental proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The core legal question was whether the departmental inquiry, which resulted in the appellant's dismissal, was conducted in accordance with statutory requirements and the principles of natural justice. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the impugned dismissal orders were illegal because the inquiry was conducted ex parte, in haste, and without associating the appellant or providing him a fair opportunity to defend himself. The Tribunal emphasized that the principles of natural justice, specifically the rule of Audi Alteram Partem, and Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, were violated. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal orders. It further ruled that ordering a de novo inquiry against a civil servant who has already reached the age of superannuation is a futile exercise. The Tribunal directed the department to issue a retirement notification and determined that the intervening period of unemployment should be treated as leave of the kind due.

  Questions settled

  • Is a departmental inquiry valid if conducted ex parte without associating the accused civil servant?
  • Can a major penalty be imposed on a civil servant without providing a fair opportunity of defense?
  • Is it legally permissible to order a de novo departmental inquiry against a civil servant who has already attained the age of superannuation?
  • Does the failure to follow the inquiry procedure under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 vitiate a dismissal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain Shah vs Judicial Magistrate and others2019 MLD 363 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-12
  constitutional petitiondischarge of accusedJudicial Magistratephysical remandcriminal breach of trustremand of caseinvestigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by the complainant challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 22.04.2017, whereby the accused in case FIR No. 255/2017 under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was discharged. The core legal question was whether the Judicial Magistrate exercised proper judicial discretion in discharging the accused at an initial stage of investigation where allegations involved the misappropriation of a substantial sum of money. The Lahore High Court held that the magistrate acted in haste without providing the investigating officer proper opportunity to conclude the investigation, especially considering the magnitude of the financial allegation (Rs. 17,00,000/-). The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the magistrate's order, and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision based on the available record. The key principle established is that an Illaqa Magistrate should not prematurely discharge an accused during early investigation without due consideration of the record and the gravity of allegations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Illaqa Magistrate can prematurely discharge an accused during the early stage of investigation involving financial misappropriation without properly considering the record?
  • Whether an order discharging an accused passed without giving the investigating officer adequate opportunity to conclude investigation is legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain Kutrio and another vs The State and others2019 P Cr. L J 1001 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-18
  corruption and corrupt practicesmisuse of authoritywhite-collar crimeaccountability courtland record manipulationburden of proofcriminal accountability appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Criminal Accountability Appeals filed against the judgment of an Accountability Court, which convicted the appellants for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether the appellants, as government officials, misused their authority by manipulating land records and verifying bogus No Objection Certificates (NOCs) to facilitate the illegal transfer of government land. The Court upheld the convictions, holding that the prosecution successfully established that the appellants deliberately exercised their authority for improper purposes, thereby causing significant loss to the government exchequer. The Court affirmed that 'misuse of authority' involves a wrong or improper exercise of power for objectives not intended by law. It established that once the prosecution proves the charge, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt. Additionally, the Court emphasized that in white-collar crimes, the standard application of the benefit of doubt differs from private-capacity offenses, as the court must prioritize the protection of society and the integrity of public institutions.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes 'misuse of authority' under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused in corruption cases once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Are the standard principles regarding the benefit of doubt in ordinary criminal cases applicable to white-collar crimes involving public functionaries?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and 3 others vs Azad Government through Chief2019 P.S.C. 157, 2019 CLC 75 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-03-16Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and 18 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Irrigation Department SIndh and 4 others2020 PLJ Karachi 65, 2019 YLR 2390 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-13Read full judgment →
• Khadija Siddiqui vs Shah Hussain, etc2019 PLD Supreme Court 261, 2020 P SC (Crl.) 597, 2019 SCP 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-23
  criminal appealacquittalrevisional jurisdictionmisreading of evidenceinjured eyewitnessperversityconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent of charges involving a murderous assault on two victims. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s acquittal, predicated on alleged misreading and non-reading of evidence, was legally sustainable and whether the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s judgment was perverse, as it ignored critical evidence, including the testimony of injured eyewitnesses, and misconstrued the record regarding medical evidence and procedural history. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the acquittal, and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Court laid down the principle that an acquittal judgment suffering from serious misreading or non-reading of evidence that materially affects the final outcome is perverse and subject to judicial interference. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in exercising revisional jurisdiction, the High Court must confine itself to the legality and propriety of lower court proceedings rather than conducting a full-fledged reappraisal of evidence, particularly when concurrent findings of fact exist.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment that suffers from serious misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Does the High Court exceed its revisional jurisdiction by conducting a full-fledged reappraisal of evidence?
  • Is an acquittal judgment that ignores critical evidence considered perverse and subject to interference?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadija Siddiqui and another vs Shah Hussain and anotherPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 57, 2019 PLD Supreme Court 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-23
  criminal appealacquittalmisreading of evidencenon-reading of evidencerevisional jurisdictioninjured witnessattempt to commit qatl-i-amdperverse judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals arose from a high-profile Lahore incident where two sisters, Khadija Siddiqui and Sofia Siddiqui, were attacked in broad daylight with multiple knife blows, sustaining severe injuries. The trial court convicted the assailant, Shah Hussain, under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the appellate court partly modified the sentences. However, the High Court accepted the accused's revision petition and acquitted him of all charges. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the record and held that the High Court's judgment of acquittal suffered from grave misreading and non-reading of material evidence, including eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and critical documents, rendering the acquittal perverse. The Supreme Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction should not entail a full-fledged reappraisal of evidence concurrent findings of fact by lower courts without legal error. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's conviction and sentencing of the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judgment of acquittal passed by a High Court in revision can be interfered with by the Supreme Court when it suffers from serious misreading and non-reading of evidence?
  • Can a High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction embark upon a full-fledged reappraisal of evidence in the presence of concurrent findings of fact by the courts below?
  • Does the failure of an injured victim to immediately name the assailant due to critical medical condition and unconsciousness vitiate the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal scope of interference by a higher court with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and appellate courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Kenneth F. Salomon and Sterathal Katzaelson Montigny LLP vs Judith Matte-Thompson and 166376 Canada Inc_2019 SCMR 738 · Supreme Court of CanadaRead full judgment →
• Kashmir United Flour and General Mills Limited vs Azad Jammu & Kashmir2019 SC AJK 168 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-11-04Read full judgment →
• Kashif Dars S/o Muhammad Usman Dars vs The State2020 PCr. L J 259, 2019 SHC 266 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-16
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationcyber crimedefamationmalafidesmobile data analysissupervisory jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal applications filed under Sections 498 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail and setting aside an order of the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi, Malir, which had cancelled the post-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant by a Magistrate in a case involving cyber crimes under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether pre-arrest bail was warranted when technical analysis, mobile phone records, and incriminating digital material directly connected the accused to fake Facebook profiles used for circulating defamatory content, and whether the Sessions Court rightly cancelled bail granted perfunctorily by the trial Magistrate. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant failed to establish mala fides on the part of the investigating agency or complainant, and that the Sessions Court correctly set aside the trial court's order since the material on record prima facie connected the accused to the offence. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail requires clear proof of mala fides, which cannot be inferred merely because technical investigation by the FIA successfully traced internet and mobile data to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted on the sole ground of mala fides when an accused is nominated or connected through technical investigation?
  • Whether the High Court can uphold the cancellation of bail where the trial Magistrate granted bail in a perfunctory manner without discussing available material?
  • Does the use of a registered mobile number associated with fake social media profiles constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to connect an accused to cyber offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Ali and another vs The State2019 YLR 1573 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-21
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtinterested witnessesrobberyrecovery of weaponcontradictory evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants under Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of robbery with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given discrepancies in the recovery of the alleged crime weapon and the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with fatal contradictions, including a discrepancy between the FIR and trial testimony regarding the caliber of the recovered weapon, the failure to produce the weapon in court, and the acquittal of the appellant in a companion case under the Sindh Arms Act. The Court emphasized that the testimony of interested witnesses requires independent corroboration, which was absent here. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to establish the recovery of the crime weapon and relies on contradictory evidence from interested witnesses without independent corroboration, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of an accused in a companion case regarding the recovery of a weapon fatally undermine the prosecution's case in the main trial?
  • Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of a material contradiction between the FIR and the trial testimony regarding the description of the recovered weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Kasb Invest (Private) Limited & Another vs The Registrar Modaraba2020 CLD 523, 2019 SHC 464 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Kasb Corporation Limited through Chief Executive Officer and another vs Bank Islami Pakistan Limited through President2019 YLR 345 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-18
  suit for declarationinterim injunctionattachment before judgmentamalgamationbanking lawfinancial liabilityequity instrumentsright sharesminimum capital requirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a suit for declaration and injunction filed by KASB Corporation Limited against the defendant bank following the amalgamation of KASB Bank into the defendant's entity. The plaintiffs sought directions for the defendant to deposit US$ 10 million (approximately Rs. 981 million) with the Court, arguing that this amount, originally advanced for the future issuance of right shares, should be treated as a financial liability under International Accounting Standard 32 (IAS 32). The core legal question was whether the advance constituted a debt liability or equity capital, and whether the defendant should be compelled to secure the amount pendente lite. The Court dismissed the applications, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. The Court observed that the advance was explicitly made to meet minimum capital requirements per State Bank of Pakistan directives and was recorded as equity at its inception. Under IAS 32, initial classification as equity cannot be unilaterally altered due to subsequent circumstances. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the defendant intended to frustrate a potential decree, a prerequisite for attachment before judgment.

  Read full judgment →
• Karim Dad vs The State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.c. 1543, 2019 P Cr. L J 821 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-28
  qatl-i-amdchance witnessrelated witnessbenefit of doubtindependent corroborationacquittal of co-accusedweapon recoveryviolation of section 103 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing qatl-i-amd. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related and chance witnesses, the requirement of independent corroboration when co-accused with similar roles have been acquitted, and the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery made in non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the testimony of the ocular witnesses was untrustworthy, lacked independent corroboration, and failed to establish their presence at the scene, while the recovery of the weapon was vitiated due to the failure to associate independent local witnesses. Consequently, the court established that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. The court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Can a conviction be sustained against an appellant on the same evidence upon which co-accused attributed similar roles have already been acquitted?
  • Is a weapon recovery admissible in evidence if mandatory provisions regarding independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are violated?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux Lashari vs The State2019 SHC 350 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-06
  murderdeath sentence commutationmitigating circumstancesunproven motiveocular testimonyinterested witnessesmedical corroborationyouth as mitigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal and confirmation case arose from a judgment by the Sessions Judge, Thatta, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the complainant's brother following a refusal of a marriage proposal, resulting in a death sentence. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the unproven motive and appellant's youth constituted mitigating circumstances warranting the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Sindh High Court held that the ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and prompt recovery of the weapon, proved the appellant's culpability beyond a doubt. However, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive and noting the appellant's youth at the time of the offense, the court held that these factors operated as mitigating circumstances. The ratio decidendi is that while ocular and medical evidence establish guilt for murder, an unproven motive coupled with the youth of the convict serves as a valid ground to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment. The court dismissed the appeal with modifications, converting the death sentence to imprisonment for life under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while maintaining the compensation order under Section 544-A.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere relationship of an eye-witness with the deceased renders them an interested witness requiring independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serve as a valid mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can the youth of an accused at the time of the commission of the offense be considered a mitigating factor for the commutation of a death sentence?
  • Is the uncorroborated testimony of a single complainant sufficient to uphold a murder conviction if found confidence-inspiring?
  Read full judgment →
• Kareem Nawaz Khan vs The State2019 SCP 312, PLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 231, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 12, 2019 SCMR 1741 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-06-21
  criminal reviewmurdercompromisedeath sentence commutationanti-terrorismprovocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal review petition arises from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner for triple murder and terrorist charges following an incident stemming from an ancestral property dispute. The core legal question concerns whether a valid compromise between the parties regarding the murder charges under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code can serve as a ground to reduce the petitioner's death sentence for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to imprisonment for life, alongside considerations of recent provocation. The Supreme Court held that a valid and accepted compromise in a coordinate compoundable offence is a valid mitigating ground for reducing a sentence of death to imprisonment for life under the Anti-Terrorism Act, particularly when combined with circumstances of recent provocation. The Court laid down the principle that while terrorism charges are non-compoundable, a genuine compromise between the heirs and the convict in related murder charges can be utilized judicially to commute the death penalty to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise reached between the parties in murder charges under Section 302(b) PPC be used as a ground to reduce a death sentence under Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether recent provocation in the absence of ongoing enmity warrants the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can a criminal review petition be converted into an appeal and partly allowed based on subsequent developments such as a compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamat Bi vs Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government and others2019 SC AJK 134 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-23Read full judgment →
• Karam Shah & others vs Provincial Secretary Forest KPK & others2020 CLC 1085, 2019 PHC 330 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
• Karachi Tubes Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. through duly authorized officer, Lahore2019 PTD 1723 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-07Read full judgment →
• Karachi Metropolitan Corporation through Mayor and another vs Messrs Zafar Memorial Education Society Karachi through President2019 CLC 1697 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Kanwal Rasheed vs Accountant General, Punjab etc2019 PLJ Lahore 445, 2019 LHC 827 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-15Read full judgment →
• Kanwal Rasheed vs Accountant General, Punjab and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 783 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-15
  family pensionvested rightretrospective effectconstitutional petitiongovernment servantpension rulesexecutive notification
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notification issued by the Finance Department, Punjab, which prohibited the simultaneous drawal of two family pensions by an unmarried daughter of deceased government servants, classifying pension as a 'regular source of income.' The petitioner, whose parents were both government servants, sought to retain both pensions. The core legal question was whether a child of deceased government servants is entitled to draw two pensions simultaneously and whether the impugned notification could retrospectively divest this right. The Lahore High Court held that pension is a vested right acquired through past service, not a bounty, and cannot be arbitrarily abridged by executive action. The Court ruled that the impugned notification could not operate retrospectively to take away vested rights. Furthermore, the Court clarified that receiving a pension does not constitute a 'regular source of income' that would disqualify a beneficiary. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the notification was set aside, and the entitlement of the child to draw two pensions simultaneously was upheld based on eligibility.

  Questions settled

  • Is a pension considered a vested right or a bounty for a government servant?
  • Can an executive notification retrospectively divest a citizen of a vested right to a pension?
  • Does the receipt of a family pension constitute a 'regular source of income' that disqualifies a beneficiary from receiving another family pension?
  • Is the child of deceased government servants entitled to draw two family pensions simultaneously?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaneez Begum through L.Rs vs Abdul Khaliq and another2020 [M] C L R 728, 2019 MLD 1952 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-22Read full judgment →
• Kamran Shah and others vs The State and othersPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 565, 2019 SCMR 1217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-21
  narcoticsconscious possessionsafe custodychain of custodybenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportlife imprisonmentacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of three appellants for the possession of 20 kilograms of charas recovered from secret cavities of a bus in which they were travelling as passengers. The trial court and High Court had sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Supreme Court, upon reappraisal of evidence, observed that the prosecution failed to establish 'conscious possession' of the contraband by the passengers, as the vehicle was being driven by a co-convict. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody of the recovered substance at the police station and its safe transmission to the Chemical Examiner, as the relevant Moharrir and the Constable who delivered the samples were not produced or failed to testify to these facts. Following the precedent in 'The State v. Imam Bakhsh', the Court held that gaps in the chain of custody are fatal to the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of doubt.

  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Chandio vs P.D.O.H.a and Others2019 SHC 368 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-17Read full judgment →
• Kamran and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 24 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-15
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidenceQatl-e-Amdunlawful assemblycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Kamran and Kaleem Akhtar alias Nadir, who were accused in FIR No. 515 of 2017 registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of Muhammad Younas. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps and the nature of the medical evidence. The Court observed that the FIR failed to specify the time of the occurrence. Furthermore, the medical evidence indicated the cause of death was myocardial infarction and asphyxia, and none of the specific injuries attributed to the petitioners were deemed fatal. The Court held that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that the investigation was complete and that indefinite detention without trial is not justified, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners, establishing that where medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's narrative of fatal injury, a case for further inquiry is made out.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a specific time of occurrence in an FIR provide grounds for post-arrest bail?
  • When medical evidence attributes death to causes other than the injuries inflicted by the accused, does it constitute a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when the investigation is complete but the trial has not yet commenced?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran alias Kami alias Kamoo and another vs The State2019 YLR 887 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-06
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtchance witnessidentification paradeforensic evidencecapital punishmentocular evidencemedical jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the sole eyewitness and the integrity of the forensic evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found the alleged eyewitness to be a "chance witness" whose presence at the crime scene was not established, and noted that his testimony conflicted with medical evidence regarding the distance of the firearm discharge. Furthermore, the court ruled that the identification parade was legally deficient because the witness failed to assign specific roles to the accused. Additionally, the unexplained four-month delay in sending the crime empty to the forensic laboratory destroyed its evidentiary value. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused as a matter of right, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an eyewitness to assign a specific role to an accused during an identification parade render the identification evidence unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular testimony of a chance witness contradicts the medical evidence regarding the distance of the firearm discharge?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending crime empties to a forensic laboratory destroy the evidentiary value of the recovery?
  • Is the testimony of a chance witness admissible without corroboration when their presence at the crime scene is not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Ahmed Mallah and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 41 · Sindh High Court
  regularization of serviceconstitutional petitioncontract employeesstate enterprisediscriminatory treatmentretrospective applicationmaster and servantfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the regularization of contract employees serving at Sui-Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGCL). The petitioners challenged the company’s refusal to regularize their services and its unilateral, retrospective enhancement of recruitment criteria from 35% to 60% in aptitude tests. The core legal questions addressed were whether SSGCL, a state-controlled entity, is amenable to the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction, and whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization based on their long-standing service and applicable government policies. The Court held that SSGCL performs functions connected to the affairs of the Federation and is thus subject to Article 199 jurisdiction. It further ruled that the company’s retrospective application of new, more stringent recruitment criteria to existing employees was discriminatory and mala fide. The Court affirmed that long-serving contract employees performing permanent functions are entitled to regularization based on the principles of equity and parity. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent company to consider the petitioners' regularization in accordance with established government policies and relevant Supreme Court precedents within a specified timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Is a state-owned company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance 1984 amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
  • Can an employer retrospectively apply enhanced recruitment criteria to contract employees already in service to deny them regularization?
  • Are long-serving contract employees performing permanent functions entitled to regularization based on the principle of parity and equity?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamil Rehman and others vs Haji Rehman Bangash and another2019 IHC 180 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-21Read full judgment →
• Kalyan Chowdhary vs Cipla Limited & another2019 PCTLR 1054 · Competition Commission of India · 2019-05-10Read full judgment →
• Kalu s/o Mangu vs Mst. Sakeen Bibi, widow2019 SC AJK 166 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Kaloo Khan and others vs OGDCL and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 519 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-26
  fake degreesbogus educational testimonialsdismissal from servicemisconductservice benefitsdepartmental inquiryalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addressed multiple writ petitions filed by employees of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) impugning office memoranda whereby they were dismissed from service after being found guilty of misconduct for submitting bogus educational testimonials during their employment. The core legal questions involved whether the submission of fake educational certificates constituted misconduct warranting dismissal, whether the penalty of dismissal was excessively harsh, and whether the petitions were maintainable in the face of an alternate remedy of appeal. The Court held that submitting bogus educational testimonials constitutes a grave fraud not only against the employer organization but also against deserving candidates, amounting to a 'cardinal sin', and that the penalty of dismissal is fully justified even if the certificate was not strictly required for initial appointment. Furthermore, the petitions were barred due to failure to exhaust departmental remedies. The key principles laid down are that use of forged academic documents to secure employment or service benefits disentitles an employee from equitable relief, and public sector corporations are expected to take strict disciplinary and criminal action against such fraud.

  Questions settled

  • Does the submission of a bogus educational certificate by an employee during service constitute misconduct warranting dismissal?
  • Can an employee who submitted a fake educational certificate invoke the equitable jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Is an employee who failed to avail the departmental remedy of an appeal under the service rules entitled to maintain a writ petition?
  • Does the submission of fake educational testimonials amount to fraud against the organization and competing candidates?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaleem Ullah vs The State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 388, 2018 YLR 2363 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-05-02
  appellate jurisdictionFederal Shariat Courtretracted judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencecall data recordSection 164 Cr.P.C. statementpointation of crime sceneacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed before the Federal Shariat Court against a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code in a trial initiated under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The preliminary question was whether the Federal Shariat Court possessed appellate jurisdiction despite the trial court convicting solely under the Penal Code. On merits, the core issue was whether circumstantial evidence, an alleged judicial confession, call data records (CDR), and pointation of the crime scene proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Federal Shariat Court held that under Section 24 of the Ordinance, appellate jurisdiction depends on trial cognizance rather than the final verdict, making the appeal competent before it. On merits, the Court found the judicial confession involuntary and flawed, the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement inadmissible under Section 265-J due to non-production of the witness, and the CDR unverified. Additionally, pointation of an already known spot did not constitute discovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The appeal was allowed and the appellant acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal against a conviction passed under the Pakistan Penal Code lie to the Federal Shariat Court when the trial originated under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. be treated as evidence under Section 265-J Cr.P.C. if the witness is not produced and examined at trial?
  • Does pointation of a crime scene already known and inspected by police constitute discovery of a new fact under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Is an uncorroborated and procedural flaw-ridden retracted judicial confession sufficient to sustain a conviction on a capital charge based on circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaikobad Edul Bankwala vs Messrs Shell Pakistan Ltd, Karachi and 22019 YLR 2337 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-19Read full judgment →
• Kabir Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs vs Allah Bakhah (deceased)2019 PLJ Lahore 506 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Kabir Khan vs The State2019 P Cr. LJ 1464 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-04-08
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtforensic delaymurder convictionrecovery of weaponhearsay evidencejail appealcriminal acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife and causing the death of a fetus under Sections 302 and 338C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the reliability of the weapon recovery, and the impact of unexplained delays in forensic testing and FIR registration. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. Specifically, the court found that the alleged motive remained unproven, the recovery of the weapon from an accessible public place was unreliable, and the significant, unexplained delays in transmitting forensic evidence to the laboratory rendered the forensic report inconsequential. Furthermore, the court rejected hearsay evidence presented by witnesses. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution's case was riddled with discrepancies and lacunae, thereby entitling the appellant to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive in a murder case necessarily result in the acquittal of the accused?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending crime empties and the weapon of offence to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on circumstantial evidence when the recovery of the weapon of offence is found to be unreliable?
  • Is testimony based on information received from an accused person admissible as evidence against that accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Kabal Khan & others vs Rehmanzay & others2020 MLD 1230, 2019 PHC 388 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-04Read full judgment →
• Kaazim Hussain vs The State2020 KLR Criminal Cases 50, 2019 YLR 2717 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-30
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryprohibitory clauseprivate witnessespolice officials as competent witnessesfurther inquiryControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from an application seeking post-arrest bail in case crime No.58 of 2019 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 1600 grams of Charas and 200 grams of Ice from the applicant. The core legal questions addressed involve whether the non-association of private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 vitiates recovery in narcotics cases, and whether the accused made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Balochistan High Court held that the offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 are heinous, falling within the prohibitory clause, and that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 explicitly excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court dismissed the bail application, laying down the principle that police officials are competent witnesses and that narcotics offences involving large quantities disentitle the accused to discretionary relief of bail absent grounds for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Are police officials considered competent witnesses in narcotics recovery cases in the absence of private witnesses?
  • Is an accused found in possession of a large quantity of narcotics entitled to post-arrest bail as a matter of routine?
  Read full judgment →
• K-Electric Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary to the Government of Pakistan and 4 others2020 P C T L R 870, PTCL 2020 CL. 110, 2019 PTD 2021 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-12Read full judgment →
• K-Electric (Pvt) Ltd. through authorized Officer_Attorney and others vs The State and others2021 P T C L R 705, 2019 PLD Sindh 209 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-26Read full judgment →
• Justice Qazi Faez Isa vs The President of Pakistan and others2019 PLD Supreme Court 743, 2019 SCP 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-24
  Presidential Referenceconstitutional petitionjudicial reviewArticle 211 bar of jurisdictionArticle 248 constitutional immunityOrder XXVII-A noticemala fide in lawmala fide in fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises out of Constitution Petition No. 17 of 2019 along with nine connected petitions filed by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, Bar Associations, Bar Councils, and senior advocates. The petitions challenged a Presidential Reference dated 20.05.2019 initiated against the Petitioner-Judge, primarily alleging mala fides in fact and in law pursuant to the principles laid down in Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v. President of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 61). The core legal matters raised included the maintainability of the petitions in light of the constitutional bar of jurisdiction under Article 211, the immunity of the President and Prime Minister under Article 248, and constitutional interpretation requiring notice to the Attorney General. The Supreme Court observed that the points raised warranted consideration, issued notice to the respondents, directed notice to the Attorney General under Order XXVII-A CPC, noted that the retention of the President and Prime Minister as parties would be examined during hearings, and adjourned the proceedings for detailed legal submissions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether notice under Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 must be issued to the Attorney General for Pakistan in proceedings involving the interpretation of constitutional provisions?
  • Whether the retention of the President of Pakistan and Prime Minister of Pakistan as respondents in a constitutional petition must be examined in light of Article 248 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether petitions challenging a Presidential Reference on grounds of mala fides raise substantial legal questions requiring consideration despite the jurisdictional bar under Article 211 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Justice Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan, Judge, Lahore High Court, Lahore vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Division Government of Pakistan,Islamabad and 4 others2019 PLD Supreme Court 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-18
  inter se seniorityAdditional Judgesoath of officeconstitutional petitionjudicial appointmentestoppel against lawentering upon officeseniority list
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution Petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by a sitting Judge of the Lahore High Court challenging an order that re-fixed his inter se seniority. The petitioner and respondents were appointed as Additional Judges via the same notification on 17.02.2010. However, the respondents took their oath on 19.02.2010, while the petitioner, being abroad, took his oath on 20.02.2010. The core legal question was whether seniority is reckoned from the date of the appointment notification or the date of making the oath of office. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Articles 193, 194, and 197, an appointment is only completed and effective when the appointee makes the prescribed oath. The Court clarified that making the oath is the 'final stage' of appointment and the point at which a person 'enters upon office.' Consequently, the respondents, having taken their oath earlier, were legally senior to the petitioner. The Court also ruled that principles of estoppel or acquiescence cannot override constitutional provisions regarding the commencement of judicial office.

  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Iqbal vs Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan2019 CLD 531 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-26Read full judgment →
• Jumoon Bughio vs The State2019 KLR Criminal Cases 325 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-25
  post-arrest baildelay in FIRtentative assessmentcounter versionsprohibitory clauseintent to murder
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under various sections including 324, 147, 148, 149, 109, 395, 337-F(iii), 504, and 337-H(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code, arising from an alleged incident of firing, robbery, and altercation over land affairs. The core legal questions involved whether the unexplained 24-day delay in lodging the FIR, the applicability of Section 324 PPC where the accused did not repeat fire, the existence of a counter-version of the incident, and the advanced age of the 72-year-old applicant justified the grant of post-arrest bail. The High Court held that the unexplained delay, lack of repeated firing indicating questionable intent under Section 324 PPC, absence of recovery, existence of a counter-version requiring trial determination, and the applicant's age warranted the concession of bail. The key principles laid down include that unexplained delay in FIR registration creates doubt, that not repeating a gunshot prima facie brings the intent under Section 324 PPC into further inquiry, and that counter-versions of the same incident make the question of aggressor versus aggressed one to be determined at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of 24 days in lodging an FIR cast sufficient doubt to warrant post-arrest bail?
  • Whether failure to repeat a firearm shot brings the ingredients of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code within the scope of further inquiry?
  • Can the existence of a counter version regarding the same incident establish grounds for further inquiry regarding who was the aggressor?
  • Does the advanced age of an accused person constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Jumo and 4 others vs The State2019 MLD 1966 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-23
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular testimonyunnatural conductdelay in FIRmedical evidenceHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under sections 147, 148, 324, 337-F(i), and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question involved the reliability of the ocular testimony, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the natural conduct of uninjured eye-witnesses. The Federal Shariat Court held that the ocular account was unnatural and improbable, that material eye-witnesses were not produced, and that significant delays coupled with material contradictions rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that uninjured eye-witnesses remaining completely unharmed during sudden indiscriminate firing runs counter to natural human conduct, and that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the convictions were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uninjured status of alleged eye-witnesses during indiscriminate firing renders their presence at the crime scene doubtful under natural human conduct?
  • Does an unexplained delay in recording statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 diminish the evidentiary value of eye-witness testimony?
  • Can medical evidence alone serve as a substitute for substantive independent corroboration to connect an accused with the crime?
  • Is the non-production of a material eye-witness sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Juman vs The State2019 YLR 628 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-16
  attempted rapehostile witnessesdelayed FIRcriminal appealvictim testimonysexual assaultcriminal intimidation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Thatta, for attempted rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376, 511, and 506(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant was accused of intruding into a lady doctor’s office at a hospital, bolting the door, and attempting to commit rape, causing injuries to the complainant. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, the impact of hostile witnesses on the prosecution's case, and the validity of the conviction despite a delay in lodging the FIR. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through the consistent, unshaken testimony of the victim and supporting hospital staff. It ruled that the delay in filing the FIR was adequately explained by the complainant’s mental trauma and shock. The judgment affirms the conviction, reinforcing the principle that where a victim's testimony is confidence-inspiring and corroborated by natural witnesses, minor discrepancies or hostile witnesses do not invalidate the prosecution's case, particularly in crimes against women.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically invalidate a prosecution case involving sexual assault?
  • Can a conviction for attempted rape be sustained when some prosecution witnesses are declared hostile?
  • Is the testimony of a victim of attempted rape sufficient to secure a conviction when corroborated by other hospital staff?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 1610 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-15
  narcotics traffickingdefective chargefair trialconscious possessionSection 342 Cr.P.C.remandfailure of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence for narcotics possession and trafficking. The core legal question is whether the trial court’s defective framing of the charge—specifically omitting the weight of the contraband and details regarding the vehicle involved—vitiated the trial and prejudiced the accused. The High Court held that the conviction could not be sustained, setting aside the judgment and remanding the case for a fresh trial. The Court reasoned that the charge failed to provide the accused with sufficient notice of the specific accusations, thereby violating the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Furthermore, the trial court failed to put incriminating evidence regarding the vehicle to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering that evidence inadmissible against him. The Court affirmed that errors in a charge are not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they result in a failure of justice, and that trafficking charges require proof of conscious possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to specify the weight of contraband in a charge sheet constitute a curable defect under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can evidence not put to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered for conviction?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove conscious possession in cases involving the trafficking of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Under what circumstances does a defective charge warrant the remand of a criminal case for a fresh trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Jubilee General Insurance Company Ltd vs Ravi Steel Company2019 LHC 1994, 2020 CLC 1440 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-03Read full judgment →
• Jindwadda vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 240 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-27
  post-arrest bailemigration offencefurther inquiryabsence of recoverycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by Jindwadda seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 308 dated 30.08.2017 registered under Section 22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 at Police Station FIA, District Multan. The core allegation was that the petitioner and co-accused received money from the complainant, sent him to Saudi Arabia, but failed to arrange an 'Aqama', resulting in his deportation. The Lahore High Court observed that the FIR did not specify which accused received the amount, no documentary evidence linked the petitioner to the travel agency run by a co-accused, nothing was recovered from the petitioner during physical custody, and he had no previous criminal record. The Court held that these circumstances rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing appropriate surety bonds, establishing the principle that lack of specific attribution, absence of recovery, and absence of criminal record warrant further inquiry for bail purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the FIR is silent regarding the specific attribution of receiving the alleged amount among multiple accused?
  • Does the absence of documentary evidence connecting an accused to a travel agency make the case one of further inquiry?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no recovery is made during physical custody and there is no previous criminal record?
  Read full judgment →
• Jibran Rasheed vs Siraj Ul Haq and another2019 YLR 2891 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-08-10
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausebusiness transactionlesser punishmentcriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition is directed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the dishonouring of a cheque given in a business transaction. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and arises from a business dispute. The High Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner, holding that the offence under section 489-F carries a maximum punishment of three years imprisonment or fine, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and where alternate sentences are provided, the lesser punishment must be considered. The key principles laid down are that bail in such cases is a rule and refusal an exception, that disputes arising from business transactions lean towards civil nature, and that the mere pendency of other criminal cases without conviction is insufficient to deny liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is bail to be granted as a rule when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Which punishment is to be considered for the purpose of bail when an offence provides for alternate sentences of imprisonment or fine?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground that other criminal cases are pending against the accused without proof of conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Jess Smith and Sons Cotton LLC vs D.S. Industries2019 CLD 23 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-12Read full judgment →
• Jehanzaib Habib and 7 others vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2019 [M] C.L.R. 1201 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-21Read full judgment →
• Jehangir vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 489, 2019 PHC 412 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-27Read full judgment →
• JCR-Vis Rating Company Ltd vs Competition Commission of Pakistan2019 CLD 1006 · Competition Appellate Tribunal · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
• Jawed Hussain vs The State2019 SHC 210 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-27
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequefresh grounds for bailprotracted trialcriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from an application under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail for the applicant, who is facing trial for offences under Sections 489-F and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relating to a dishonoured cheque exceeding five crore rupees. The core legal question is whether the recording of the complainant's evidence and the passage of a protracted trial period constitute fresh grounds for granting post-arrest bail after a prior bail application on merits was dismissed. The Sindh High Court held that the mere recording of the complainant's evidence does not constitute a fresh ground to justify bail, particularly when the trial is at the verge of final disposal and merits have already been determined against the applicant. The court laid down the principle that recording of the complainant's evidence in a fast-approaching conclusion of trial does not furnish fresh statutory grounds for bail when earlier bail pleas have been dismissed on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of the complainant's evidence constitute a fresh ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail solely on the ground of suffering the agony of a protracted trial nearing its final disposal?
  • Can a successive bail application be maintained on merits after the dismissal of a previous bail application by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawaid and 6 others vs Province of Sindh through Minister,Ministry of Local Government and 4 others2019 CLC 1032 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-30Read full judgment →
• Jawad son of Muzafar vs The State etc2020 YLR 1462, 2019 PHC 238 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-03
  criminal appealmurderfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of doubteyewitness credibilityacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the contradictions in the evidence and the trial court's inconsistent treatment of the co-accused. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution's case was riddled with significant doubts regarding the timing of the FIR and the presence of eyewitnesses. The Court emphasized that the trial court erred by convicting the appellant while acquitting a co-accused on the same set of evidence, which violates the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The Court reaffirmed that once a witness is found to have deliberately lied on a material aspect, their testimony cannot be relied upon. Consequently, the Court held that the benefit of doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, as conviction requires unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court convict an accused based on evidence that it has already disbelieved to acquit a co-accused?
  • Does the rule of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' require the rejection of testimony from a witness found to have lied on a material aspect?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when there are significant, unexplained delays in reporting the crime and contradictions regarding the presence of eyewitnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Javeed Ibrahim vs The State2019 MLD 841 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-19
  bank fraudsuspension of sentencerevisional jurisdictionacquittalappraisal of evidencebail pending appealsuo motu notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter involves appeals against a trial court judgment whereby certain co-accused were convicted while others were acquitted of charges related to fraudulent bank transactions and unauthorized fund transfers. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court properly appreciated the evidence and whether the acquittal of accused individuals facing main allegations—while convicting others based on system ID entries—warrants interference by the High Court. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned judgment prima facie reflects misreading or non-reading of evidence, particularly given that acquitted co-accused were implicated in the FIR and found guilty in an internal bank inquiry. Consequently, the court issued a show-cause notice regarding the acquittal under revisional powers and suspended the sentence of the appellant, granting him post-arrest bail pending the hearing of the appeal. The key principles laid down include the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction to examine acquittals suo motu upon noticing patent illegality, and the principles governing the suspension of sentences and grant of bail where a conviction opens room for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an acquittal without a formal written application?
  • Does a conviction that opens room for further inquiry justify the suspension of a sentence and grant of bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether two signatures on the reverse of a cheque are mandatory for encashment under banking practices?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Khan vs Ali Gohar Shah & others2019 SCP 148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-30
  quashing of FIRcriminal investigationimmovable property disputejudicial scrutinycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had quashed First Information Report No. 5 dated 6.11.2011, registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Charsada, concerning a dispute over immovable property. The appellant, acting as an attorney for the property owner, contended that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR, as the allegations and evidence presented necessitated proper investigative and judicial scrutiny rather than premature termination of proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, upon reviewing the matter and noting the lack of strong opposition from the respondents, allowed the appeal. The Court held that the High Court's decision to quash the FIR was unjustified because the case required a full investigation. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment, thereby restoring the FIR, while preserving the respondents' right to pursue other legal remedies if advised, and maintaining the bail previously granted to them.

  Questions settled

  • Does an FIR concerning an immovable property dispute warrant investigative and judicial scrutiny rather than summary quashing?
  • Can a High Court quash an FIR when the allegations require further investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Khan etc vs The State etc2019 P Cr. L J 1756, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 156, 2019 PHC 78 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-04
  constitutional petitiondischarge of accusedpolice reportinvestigating officerjudicial magistratecognizance of offencefurther investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, impugning an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate whereby the recommendation of the investigating officer to discharge the accused was turned down, and further investigation was ordered. The core legal question was whether a magistrate is bound by the police report recommending discharge of an accused and whether a magistrate can direct further investigation or disagree with the police report. The Peshawar High Court held that a police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not binding on the court, and the determination of guilt or innocence is the exclusive domain of the courts of law. The court ruled that a magistrate is fully competent to disagree with the investigating officer's report, take cognizance of the offence, or direct further investigation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, upholding the impugned order of the Judicial Magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police report recommending the discharge of an accused binding on a magistrate?
  • Can a magistrate direct further investigation or disagree with the report of an investigating officer?
  • What is the scope of a magistrate's powers upon receiving a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior and 3 others2019 YLR 1247 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-29Read full judgment →
• Javed and others vs State2019 PHC 186 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-01Read full judgment →
• Javed Akhtar vs Secretary, Education and Literacy Department2019 PLC (C.S.) 989 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-04
  constitutional petitioncontractual appointmentmaster and servanttermination of servicestatutory rulesmisconductopportunity of hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a contractual employee challenging his termination order from the Sindh Education Foundation. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against a statutory body governed by specific service rules, and whether the termination of a contract employee accused of misconduct without regularisation violated principles of natural justice and fundamental rights. The Sindh High Court held that since the Sindh Education Foundation Employees Service Rules, 1999 were framed under section 16 of the Sindh Education Foundation Act, 1992 and were statutory in nature, the constitutional petition was maintainable. However, on merits, the court held that a contract employee governed by the principle of master and servant has no vested right to seek reinstatement or regularisation. The court found that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity through show-cause notices and an inquiry committee proceeding regarding allegations of misconduct, and that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 is maintainable against an educational foundation having statutory rules of service?
  • Does a contract employee possess a vested right to claim reinstatement or regularisation in service?
  • Can the service of a temporary or contract employee be dispensed with upon the expiry of the contract or in accordance with the terms of employment?
  • Whether disputed questions of fact regarding allegations of misconduct can be adjudicated within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →