Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Ghani ur Rehman vs State2019 PHC 226 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to death. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the reliability of interested and chance eyewitnesses, delayed First Information Report lodging, conflicting medical evidence, unproved motive, and defective weapon recovery. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused due to glaring contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, suspicious delays, and planted recoveries, giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Whether the uncorroborated testimony of interested and chance witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction on a capital charge?
- Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence create a fatal loophole in the prosecution's case?
- What is the legal effect of a delayed reporting of the crime coupled with preliminary police investigation before lodging the FIR?
- Can a delayed submission of a recovered weapon and matching empty to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the recovery ineffective?
- Ghani Global Glass Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2020 PLD Lahore 167, 2021 PLJ Lahore 309, 2019 LHC 3917 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
- Gemalto Middle East FZ-LLC vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division and others2019 IHC 154 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-09-27Read full judgment →
- Gazi and 2 others vs The State2019 MLD 740 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad, which allowed the prosecution's application under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, to admit the evidence of two deceased prosecution witnesses recorded in earlier proceedings. The core legal question was whether evidence recorded during a prior trial, where the accused were tried in absentia but represented by state-appointed counsel who cross-examined the witnesses, could be admitted in a subsequent de novo trial following the death of those witnesses. The Court held that the evidence was admissible. It reasoned that the requirements of Article 47 were satisfied because the proceedings involved the same parties, the issues were substantially the same, and the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses through their appointed counsel. The Court affirmed that the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution does not permit an accused to hold the criminal justice system hostage or benefit from their own absconsion, provided the essential legal safeguards, such as the right to cross-examination, were previously exercised.
Questions settled- Can evidence recorded in a prior judicial proceeding be admitted in a subsequent de novo trial if the witness has since died?
- Does the admission of evidence from a prior trial in absentia violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is evidence admissible under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 if the accused was represented by state-appointed counsel who cross-examined the witnesses during the initial proceeding?
- Gangoo Mal and others vs The State2019 MLD 1569 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves bail applications filed by the accused persons seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 69 of 2018 registered at Police Station Rohri for offences under sections 302 and 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question is whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail given the specific roles attributed to them in the FIR and supporting police statements concerning the abduction and subsequent murder of the deceased over a salary dispute. The court held that the applicants failed to make out a case for bail as ample prima facie material connected them to the alleged offense, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that deeper appraisals of evidence such as medical-ocular conflicts are unwarranted at the bail stage. The key principles laid down include that tentative assessment alone is permissible at the bail stage, that pre-arrest bail requires establishing mala fide or ulterior motives which the applicants failed to do, and that conflicts between medical and ocular evidence cannot be resolved without a deeper appraisal of evidence during trial.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused are nominated in the FIR with specific roles and prima facie connected to an offense falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Can a conflict between medical evidence and the ocular account be deeply appraised and resolved at the bail stage?
- Is it necessary for an accused seeking pre-arrest bail to establish mala fide or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant or prosecution?
- Gajdhar alias Anand vs The State2019 YLR 1971 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a bail application filed by the applicant Gajdhar alias Anand in FIR No. 12/2016 registered at Police Station FIA, C.B.C. Karachi, under sections 409, 468, 471, 477-A, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to financial fraud and unauthorized fund transfers involving millions of rupees. The core legal question raised was whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail solely on the ground of non-compliance by the trial court with an expedited timeline given by the High Court while remanding a case after setting aside a previous conviction. The Sindh High Court held that directions issued by superior courts to conclude a trial within a specified period are directory rather than mandatory, and their non-compliance does not furnish a statutory or automatic ground for bail, particularly where the delay is largely attributable to adjournments sought by the accused and applications filed by the defence. The bail application was accordingly dismissed, with directions to the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether non-compliance with the High Court's directions to conclude a trial within a specified period creates an automatic right to post-arrest bail for an accused?
- Are directions issued by superior courts for the expeditious conclusion of trials mandatory or directory in nature?
- Does a delay in trial caused by the adjournments and applications of the accused entitle them to claim statutory hardship for the grant of bail?
- Gada Ali Abro vs The State2019 MLD 962 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal jail appeal impugned the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine for the recovery of a large quantity of charas. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics from the possession and Otaq of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the non-association of private local witnesses and the testimony of police officials vitiated the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution witnesses remained consistent and unshaken, the chemical examiner's report was positive, and police officials are as competent witnesses as private persons. Furthermore, section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excludes section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the burden under section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to establish innocence rests upon the accused. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of police officials alone is sufficient to maintain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 without independent corroboration from private local witnesses?
- Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding mandatory association of mashirs?
- Where does the burden of proof lie under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 once the prosecution establishes physical custody or concern with the recovered narcotic substance?
- Can a conviction be set aside on the basis of a defense plea of political enmity that is not supported by consistent defense evidence or direct suggestions to prosecution witnesses?
- Fozia Rahat vs Masood Ahmed & Others2019 CLC 1323, 2019 SHC 3 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-10Read full judgment →
- Fouzia Khan vs Chairman/CEO Pi.A. & 2 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1078, 2019 SHC 114 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, employed as Airhostesses by the Pakistan International Airlines Company (PIAC), challenged their transfer orders from Karachi to Islamabad, alleging mala fide intent and violation of internal rotation policies. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to adjudicate service-related grievances, specifically transfers, against PIAC. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court determined that PIAC’s service rules are non-statutory, serving merely as internal instructions for management. Consequently, the relationship between PIAC and its employees is governed by the principle of 'Master and Servant.' The Court affirmed that transfer and posting matters fall within the 'terms and conditions of service,' which, in the absence of statutory rules, are not enforceable through writ jurisdiction. The Court concluded that it could not interfere in such internal administrative matters, thereby dismissing the petitions in limine.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 to challenge transfer orders of employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Company?
- Are the service rules of the Pakistan International Airlines Company considered statutory rules?
- Does the principle of 'Master and Servant' apply to the employment relationship between the Pakistan International Airlines Company and its employees?
- Do transfer and posting orders of employees fall within the ambit of 'terms and conditions of service'?
- Flight Lieutenant Riffat Ullah Khan vs Federal Public Service Commission of Pakistan and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 955 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This statutory appeal was filed under Section 7(3)(d) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977, challenging the Federal Public Service Commission's (FPSC) refusal to allocate a civil service post to the appellant, a Pakistan Air Force officer, in the CSS-2015 batch. The core legal question was whether the FPSC could lawfully apply an unapproved inter-service sub-allocation formula (allocating specific ratios to the Army, Navy, and Air Force) to induct Armed Forces officers into civil services, or whether such induction must be governed strictly by merit and regional/provincial quotas under the Office Memorandum dated 09.09.1991. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the Islamabad High Court held that the sub-allocation formula was illegal as it was never formally approved or incorporated into the relevant rules. The Court ruled that the Armed Forces must be treated as a single institution for civil service induction. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, declaring the appellant's entitlement to induction into the Police Service of Pakistan based on his merit and provincial quota.
Questions settled- Whether an unapproved sub-allocation formula can be used to distribute civil service quotas among different branches of the Armed Forces?
- Are Armed Forces officers seeking civil service induction to be treated as belonging to a single institution or separate service branches for quota purposes?
- Can administrative decisions regarding civil service allocation bypass the statutory criteria of merit and regional quota in the absence of a formally approved amendment?
- Fizza Murtaza Mughal vs Joint Admission Committee for Admisssion in Medical Colleges through Chairman & 19 others2020 MLD 1584, 2019 PLJ AJ&K 77 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-07Read full judgment →
- Fizza Mai vs Shahbaz Hassan Khan and others2019 MLD 1772, 2019 IHC 74 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-06-13Read full judgment →
- First Dawood Investment Bank Ltd. vs Bank Islami Pakistan Ltd.2020 P SC 1425, 2019 SCMR 1925, 2019 CLD 1283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which upheld a banking court's decree in a recovery suit filed by the Respondent Bank against the Petitioner. The core legal question was whether the suit was maintainable, specifically challenging the validity of the powers of attorney executed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Respondent Bank. The Petitioner argued that because the powers of attorney stated they were executed on behalf of the bank's 'Credit Administration Department' and 'Legal Department' rather than the bank itself, they failed to comply with the authorization requirements under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the powers of attorney were valid. The Court reasoned that the documents were executed by the Chief Executive Officer and clearly authorized the officers to file suits on behalf of the bank. The Court clarified that references to specific departments in the recitals were merely explanatory and did not invalidate the authorization. The principle established is that internal departmental references in a power of attorney do not supersede the clear intent and authority granted by the Chief Executive Officer of a financial institution.
Questions settled- Does a reference to a specific department in a power of attorney invalidate the authorization granted by a Chief Executive Officer to file a suit on behalf of a financial institution?
- What are the requirements for the authorization of an officer to file a suit on behalf of a financial institution under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
- First Dawood Investment Bank Ltd vs Bank Islami Pakistan Ltd2019 SCMR 1925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a High Court judgment upholding a Banking Court's decree against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether a suit filed by a financial institution is maintainable when the power of attorney authorizing the filing officer mentions that the authorization is on behalf of specific departments (Credit Administration and Legal) rather than explicitly stating it is on behalf of the bank itself. The petitioner argued this violated Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which requires authorization by the Chief Executive Officer. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the power of attorney was executed by the Chief Executive Officer of the bank and authorized the officers to file suits for the recovery of money. The Court ruled that the references to specific departments in the recitals were merely explanatory and did not invalidate the authorization. The key principle established is that a power of attorney executed by the Chief Executive Officer of a financial institution is valid under the Ordinance even if it contains descriptive references to internal departments, provided the intent to authorize legal proceedings on behalf of the institution is clear.
Questions settled- Does a power of attorney executed by a Chief Executive Officer on behalf of specific internal departments of a bank satisfy the requirements of Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001?
- Are descriptive references to internal departments in a power of attorney fatal to the maintainability of a suit filed by a financial institution?
- Can a power of attorney be considered valid if it is executed by the Chief Executive Officer of a bank despite containing explanatory recitals regarding internal departments?
- Finance Departmevt, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Secretary Finance, Muzaffarabad and 10 others vs Mahboob Ahmed Awan, Senior Teacher and others2020 PLC (C. S. ) 741, 2020 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 93, 2019 P.S.C. 952 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that restrained the government from deducting conveyance allowance from the salaries of education department employees during summer and winter vacations. The core legal question was whether such vacations constitute 'leave,' thereby justifying the deduction of conveyance allowance, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions given the existence of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that under Rule 25-A of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants Revised Leave Rules, 1983, vacations are explicitly defined as duty and not as leave. Consequently, the deduction of conveyance allowance during these periods without a formal rule amendment was unlawful. The Court further held that the High Court's jurisdiction was not ousted because no final departmental order had been passed regarding the deduction, rendering the matter non-appealable before the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed the principle that public functionaries must act in accordance with established rules and that teaching staff remain on call during vacations, thus maintaining their entitlement to allowances.
Questions settled- Does the period of summer and winter vacations for education department employees constitute 'leave' or 'duty' under the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants Revised Leave Rules, 1983?
- Can a government department deduct conveyance allowance from the salary of civil servants during vacations without a formal amendment to the service rules?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus regarding service matters when no final departmental order has been passed by the competent authority?
- Is a letter from the Finance Department sufficient to constitute a final order for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Finance Department, Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu & Kashmir through Secretary Finance vs Ch. Muhammad Naseer, Forest Prosecutor Azad Jammu & Kashmir and 5 others2019 P.S.C. 162 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Finance Department and Others vs Mehboob Ahmed Awan & Others2019 SC AJK 77 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court directing authorities to cease deducting conveyance allowance from the salaries of education department employees during summer and winter vacations and to refund any amounts previously deducted. The core legal questions involved whether teaching and non-teaching staff serving in vacation departments are entitled to conveyance allowance during vacation periods, and whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction was barred by the service tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that under Rule 25-A of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Revised Leave Rules, 1983, vacations count as duty and not as leave, meaning conveyance allowance cannot be unlawfully deducted through executive instructions in the absence of a proper rule amendment or a departmental appealable final order. The Court laid down the principle that vacation periods for teaching staff do not constitute leave, and because staff remain on call during vacations, conveyance allowance remains admissible.
Questions settled- Whether civil servants serving in vacation departments are entitled to conveyance allowance during summer and winter vacations?
- Does the period of vacation count as duty or as leave under the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants Revised Leave Rules, 1983?
- Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 47 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, in the absence of a final departmental order appealable before the Service Tribunal?
- Can executive letters from the Finance Department serve as a basis to deduct conveyance allowance without amending the applicable statutory rules?
- Field General Court Martial through President and another vs Khani2019 YLR 1812, 2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-21Read full judgment →
- Fidaullah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2019 PLC (C.S.) 58 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a teacher appointed on a contract basis, seeking reinstatement in service following his termination. The core legal question was whether a contractual employee governed by non-statutory service rules could invoke constitutional jurisdiction to challenge their termination and seek reinstatement. The Court held that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was purely one of master and servant, as the applicable service rules were non-statutory. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner could not seek reinstatement through a constitutional petition. The key principle laid down is that where an employer-employee relationship is governed by non-statutory rules, the principle of master and servant applies, precluding the remedy of reinstatement in constitutional jurisdiction. In such instances, the aggrieved party's sole remedy for wrongful termination is to file a suit for damages in a competent court of law. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, consistent with the precedent established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding contractual employees.
Questions settled- Can a contractual employee seek reinstatement through a constitutional petition when the governing service rules are non-statutory?
- Is the relationship between an employer and an employee governed by non-statutory rules considered one of master and servant?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for a contractual employee who has been wrongfully terminated in the absence of statutory service rules?
- Fiaz Ahmad and others vs Member Judicial-II, Board of Revenue and Muhammad Makki etc2019 CLC 1053, 2019 LHC 572 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-12Read full judgment →
- FGBC Limited through Attorney and others vs Director General Mines and Mineral Development, Sindh and others2019 CLC 267 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-21Read full judgment →
- FESCO vs Muhammad Maqsood etc2019 LHC 324 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which reinstated a Bill Distributor without back benefits, reversing a Labour Court decision that had dismissed the employee's grievance petition as time-barred. The core legal questions were whether an Assistant Manager had the authority to dismiss the employee and whether the law of limitation applies to a void dismissal order. The Court held that the Assistant Manager lacked the legal competence to dismiss the employee, as the appointing authority (XEN) had not delegated this power. Consequently, the dismissal order was declared void ab initio. The Court established the principle that no limitation period runs against a void order passed by an incompetent authority. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, the power to impose major penalties, such as dismissal, must be exercised by the appointing authority or a specifically authorized officer of equivalent rank, and such authority cannot be assumed without explicit legal backing. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Can a dismissal order passed by an incompetent authority be challenged regardless of the expiry of the limitation period?
- Does the law of limitation apply to an order that is void ab initio?
- Under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, is an Assistant Manager authorized to dismiss a Bill Distributor without specific delegation from the appointing authority?
- FESCO vs Muhammad Akmal, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1164 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate in a case involving the theft of electricity under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act 1910. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence, noting that the respondent was named in the FIR and implicated by prosecution witnesses. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence warranting appellate interference. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case. The court noted a five-day delay in lodging the FIR, physical impossibilities regarding the recovered wire length versus the height of the main supply line, and contradictions among prosecution witnesses. The court affirmed that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and that appellate courts should only interfere if a judgment is perverse, capricious, or arbitrary, which was not established in this instance.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
- Does an acquittal strengthen the presumption of innocence in favor of an accused?
- Is a five-day delay in lodging an FIR without explanation a factor in evaluating the prosecution's case?
- Federation of Pakistan vs Official Assignee / Official Liquidator and others2019 CLD 1359, 2020 PLD Sindh 116, 2019 SHC 180 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-17Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs, Islamabad and 3 others vs Devri Sahib of Bhai Stramdass of Raharki through Care Taker Bhai Niranjan Lal2019 MLD 1781 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-01Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance vs Muhammad Sharif, etc2019 SCP 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the entitlement of government employees to adhoc relief, specifically whether employees who retired after 01.03.1997 are eligible for both a salary increase and a 10% pension increase. The core legal question was whether the 10% pension increase announced by the Prime Minister in 1997 was admissible to government servants who were in service on the cutoff date of 01.03.1997, in addition to the salary increase they already received. The Supreme Court held that the adhoc relief package provided two distinct, mutually exclusive benefits: a salary increase for those in service and a pension increase for those already retired before the cutoff date. The Court set aside the Federal Service Tribunal's judgment, ruling that the respondents were not entitled to both benefits. The Court established that the cutoff date of 01.03.1997 creates two distinct classes of employees—those in service and those retired—and that extending both benefits to the former would violate the scheme of the adhoc relief, creating an unjust imbalance between the two categories.
Questions settled- Are government employees who were in service on the cutoff date of 01.03.1997 entitled to both a salary increase and a 10% pension increase?
- Does the cutoff date of 01.03.1997 create two distinct categories of government employees for the purpose of adhoc relief?
- Is the 10% pension increase announced in 1997 admissible to government servants who retired after the cutoff date of 01.03.1997?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and others vs Muhammad Sharif and others2019 KLR Supreme Court 346, 2019 PLC (C.S) 860, 2019 PLJ SC 536, 2019 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil appeals and petitions regarding the entitlement of government employees who retired after 01.03.1997 to claim both an ad hoc salary increase of Rs. 300 while in service and a 10% increase in pension under a relief package announced by the Prime Minister in 1997 and officialized via Office Memoranda. The core legal question is whether government servants who were in service on the cut-off date and received the salary increase are also eligible for the 10% pension increase intended for those who retired prior to that date. The Supreme Court held that the ad hoc relief established two distinct reliefs for two separate categories of employees split by the cut-off date of 01.03.1997; hence, respondents who retired after the cut-off date cannot claim both benefits. The Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal and allowed the appeals, laying down the principle that the 10% pension increase is strictly admissible only to employees who stood retired prior to 01.03.1997.
Questions settled- Whether government employees who retired after the cut-off date of 01.03.1997 are entitled to both an increase in monthly salary while in service and a 10% increase in pension?
- Does the classification of employees based on the cut-off date of 01.03.1997 for ad hoc relief create a valid distinction between in-service and retired employees?
- Are earlier orders of the Supreme Court refusing leave against Tribunal judgments considered binding precedents on the interpretation of the ad hoc relief policy?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Capital Administration and Development Division, Islamabad, etc vs Nusrat Tahir, etc2019 P.S.C. 1 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves appeals by the Federal Government challenging judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal that declared respondent employees of institutions under the Directorate General of Special Education (DGSE) entitled to a Health Allowance. The core legal questions concern whether employees engaged in education, training, and rehabilitation of disabled persons qualify as 'health personnel' under the applicable Finance Division memoranda, and whether the executive can unilaterally withdraw such an allowance once granted. The Supreme Court held that the respondents fall within the statutory definition of health personnel delivering services in the health sector as per Schedule-I, and that the executive is barred by the rule of locus poenitentiae from unilaterally rescinding a lawful benefit once acted upon and vested. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's judgments, establishing that a mere change of departmental opinion without amending the eligibility criteria cannot lawfully deprive employees of an established allowance, and that administrative memoranda must be applied according to their unamended terms.
Questions settled- Whether employees of the Directorate General of Special Education qualify as health personnel entitled to the Health Allowance under the Finance Division Memoranda?
- Does an executive authority have the power to unilaterally withdraw a financial benefit or allowance once it has been acted upon and conferred a vested right?
- Can the executive alter the eligibility criteria for a previously granted allowance merely through internal departmental instructions without amending the governing memoranda?
- Federation of Pakistan through Prime Minister and another vs Aftab Ahmad2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 115 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-11-06Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan and others vs Nadia Iqbal and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 814 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal challenged an order passed by a learned Single Judge in Chambers that had allowed a writ petition filed by a candidate whose name appeared on the reserve list for the post of Corporal Female. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction, could substitute its own judgment for that of a selection committee by conducting interviews and interfering with subjective selection results, and whether recruitment orders could be based on suppositions regarding unfulfilled vacancies. The court held that the learned Single Judge misdirected himself by assuming the mantle of the selection committee and entering into a merits review rather than a process review, and that courts cannot interfere in subjective interview results or rely on suppositions when all advertised posts have been lawfully filled. The key principles laid down are that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 is strictly confined to reviewing the decision-making process rather than the merits, that courts cannot substitute their own evaluation for that of administrative selection authorities, and that candidates on a waiting or reserve list have no enforceable right to appointment when all sanctioned posts are duly filled.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction can substitute its judgment for that of a selection committee?
- Can a court interfere in the results of an interview conducted by administrative authorities?
- Whether a candidate on a reserve or waiting list can be appointed when all advertised posts have been filled and other candidates are ahead on the list?
- Federal Government Employees' Housing Foundation and others vs Malik Ghulam Mustafa and others2019 [M] C.L.R. 338, 2019 PLD Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Islamabad High Court, through a common judgment on several intra-court appeals, affirmed the decision of a Single Judge in Chambers, declaring the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Land Acquisition Collector for the Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (FGEHF) in Sectors F-14 and F-15 of Islamabad as illegal, void, and without jurisdiction. The core legal question revolved around the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (general law) versus the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 (special law) for land acquisition in the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT), and whether providing housing exclusively for Federal Government employees constituted a 'public purpose'. The Court held that the CDA Ordinance, 1960, being a special law, exclusively governs land acquisition in specified areas of the ICT, overriding the general Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was further ruled that a housing scheme for a limited class of Federal Government employees, funded by prospective allottees, does not qualify as a 'public purpose' under the CDA Ordinance or constitutional provisions, particularly Article 24 and 173 of the Constitution. The Court found evidence of regulatory capture, conflict of interest among public officials, and violations of constitutional rights, directing the return of payments to affectees and allottees, and prohibiting FGEHF from future acquisition proceedings in ICT.
Questions settled- Which law governs land acquisition in the specified areas of the Islamabad Capital Territory, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or the CDA Ordinance, 1960?
- Does a housing scheme exclusively for Federal Government employees constitute a 'public purpose' for compulsory land acquisition under the CDA Ordinance, 1960 and the Constitution?
- Can the Capital Development Authority (CDA) delegate its statutory functions or approve schemes that are inconsistent with its own regulations and the CDA Ordinance, 1960?
- Is the transfer of acquired land directly to a company, rather than vesting it in the Federal Government, a violation of Article 173 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Can a private company, even if controlled by the Federal Government, initiate land acquisition proceedings in the Islamabad Capital Territory for the benefit of a specific class of individuals?
- Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation vs Javaid Iqbal and others2019 IHC 152 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
- Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation through Director2019 [M] C.L.R. 1207, 2019 MLD 34 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-10-10Read full judgment →
- Federal Board of Revenue Islamabad vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 PLJ SC 157, 2019 P.S.C. 1465, 2019 SCP 288, 2019 SCMR 1311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that annulled the tax rate table introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, specifically concerning the sixth slab of taxable income under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The High Court had declared the provision void, citing a lack of certainty, incorrect arithmetical calculation, and an absence of rational basis or reasonableness. The Supreme Court examined whether these grounds were sufficient to invalidate a legislative enactment. The Court held that declaring a parliamentary statute void is a serious matter, permissible only on grounds of legislative incompetence or violation of fundamental rights. The Court clarified that criteria such as arithmetical calculation, reasonableness, or rational basis are applicable to executive actions, not legislative measures. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the tax rate was confiscatory, a standard often used to determine if a tax violates fundamental rights. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, noting that the grievance regarding the 2013 tax year had been redressed by subsequent legislative revisions.
Questions settled- Can a court declare a statute void solely on the grounds of incorrect arithmetical calculation or lack of reasonableness?
- What are the permissible grounds for a court to declare a statute enacted by Parliament to be void?
- Is the standard of reasonableness applicable when testing the validity of legislative measures?
- Under what circumstances can a tax be considered violative of fundamental rights?
- Fazil Shah vs Government of Gilgit-Baltistan through Chief Secretary 62019 PLC (C.S.) 1331 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed for the implementation of a judgment dated 13.04.2015 passed by the Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal, which had directed the promotion of the petitioner to the post of CSO BPS-16, and a subsequent judgment dated 27.11.2017 by the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan affirming the same. The core legal question was whether the respondents could evade the implementation of a final judicial order by citing the petitioner's alleged lack of required length of service, despite the petitioner having already performed the duties and drawn the salary of the post for several years. The Court held that the respondents were bound to implement the earlier judgments in their true letter and spirit. The Court rejected the respondents' arguments, emphasizing that the petitioner could not be penalized for the administrative acts or omissions of the respondents. The key principle laid down is that where a judicial authority has finalized a service-related promotion order, the department cannot subsequently obstruct its execution by raising technical objections regarding service length that were already considered or should have been addressed during the initial proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a government department refuse to implement a final service tribunal order by citing technical deficiencies in service length?
- Is a petitioner entitled to the benefits of a post if they have already been performing the duties and drawing the salary for that post?
- Can a petitioner be penalized for the administrative negligence or omissions of the respondent department?
- Fazeelat Agha vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, MBR, Punjab Lahore2019 P.S.C. 402, 2019 SCP 120, 2019 SCMR 417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arose from a dispute over the inheritance of agricultural land left in India by Nawab Faiz Ali Khan. While the Claims Organization distributed his urban property equally among his four sons, the agricultural land was verified solely in the name of the eldest son, Nawabzada Mumtaz Ali Khan, under an alleged Rule of Primogeniture. The other three sons challenged this, and the Rehabilitation Commissioner eventually ruled in 1992 that the family was governed by Mohammadan Law, dividing the agricultural claim equally. This order was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court in 1995. Despite this finality, the Chief Settlement Commissioner filed a fresh writ petition in 1998, which a Single Judge of the High Court accepted, setting aside the 1992 order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to undo a judgment of the Supreme Court that had attained finality inter se the parties. Such an action violates Article 189 of the Constitution and the principles of res judicata. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the 1992 order.
Questions settled- Can a High Court entertain a fresh writ petition to challenge or undo an order that has already been upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Does the principle of res judicata apply to settlement and rehabilitation proceedings that have attained finality before the apex court?
- Whether a subsequent decision of a larger bench of the Supreme Court on a legal precedent can be used by a lower court to reopen a final judgment decided inter se the parties in the same case?
- Fazeelat Agha vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, MBR, Punjab Lahore &2019 SCP 120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the inheritance of agricultural land abandoned in India by Nawab Faiz Ali Khan, where the eldest son claimed sole ownership under the Rule of Primogeniture, while his brothers asserted equal inheritance rights. Following extensive litigation, the Rehabilitation Commissioner determined that the family was governed by Islamic law, not primogeniture, and ordered equal distribution. This order was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1995. Subsequently, the Chief Settlement Commissioner filed a writ petition challenging this settled matter, which the High Court allowed, effectively reopening the case. The petitioner, a bona fide purchaser of the land, challenged this High Court decision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s judgment was coram non judice and violated the principles of res judicata and Article 189 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that once a matter is finally decided by the Supreme Court, no lower forum may reopen it. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the Rehabilitation Commissioner's order, and upheld the petitioner's title as a bona fide purchaser.
Questions settled- Can a High Court entertain a writ petition to challenge a matter already finally decided by the Supreme Court?
- Does the Rule of Primogeniture apply to the inheritance of agricultural land by Mandal Afghans?
- Is a judgment of the Supreme Court binding on all subordinate courts under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a party that was part of previous litigation initiate a fresh round of litigation on the same subject matter?
- Fazal-Ur-Rehman vs The State and another2019 MLD 57 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under Section 2(3) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which had resulted in a five-year imprisonment sentence and a compensation order. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant restored possession of the disputed property to the complainant. The parties subsequently reached a compromise, wherein the complainant agreed to forgo the compensation and did not press for the conviction, provided the appellant undertook not to interfere with the property in the future. The core legal question was whether the appellate court could reduce the sentence based on this compromise. The Court held that, in exercise of its powers under Section 423(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it could modify the sentence. Consequently, the Court reduced the appellant's sentence to the period already undergone and recalled the compensation order. The judgment establishes that an appellate court may take a lenient view and reduce a sentence where a compromise exists between the parties and the complainant waives their claims.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence based on a compromise between the parties?
- Does an appellate court have the power to recall a compensation order if the complainant agrees to forgo it?
- Can a conviction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be mitigated through a compromise where the complainant does not press for the conviction?
- Fazal-e-Rabi etc vs Mst. Hajira2020 CLC 813, 2019 PHC 288 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-04Read full judgment →
- Fazal-e-Haq vs Superintendent Cenetral Prison etc2020 P Cr. L J 1067, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 62, 2019 PHC 364 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by a convict seeking to reduce the two-year simple imprisonment imposed in default of payment of a fine and to direct that such default imprisonment run concurrently with his substantive sentence. The petitioner, convicted under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had completed his substantive sentence but remained incarcerated due to the default sentence. The core legal questions were whether the court could reduce the default imprisonment and whether it could order default imprisonment to run concurrently with the substantive sentence. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court had acted within its discretion and in compliance with the law. It established that imprisonment in default of payment of a fine is a distinct, additional punishment, and no court has the power to order it to run concurrently with substantive sentences. Furthermore, Section 65 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sets a maximum limit for default imprisonment, not a minimum, and the trial court’s sentence was within these legal parameters.
Questions settled- Can a court order imprisonment in default of payment of a fine to run concurrently with a substantive sentence?
- Does Section 65 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 provide a minimum or maximum limit for imprisonment in default of payment of a fine?
- Does Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower a court to order default imprisonment to run concurrently with substantive sentences?
- Fazal Wahid vs The State2019 YLR 171 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the release of the applicant, Fazal Wahid, who was arrested in connection with FIR No. 154 of 2016 registered under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 at Police Station Shahdadpur. The applicant contended that he is a citizen of Pakistan, supported by documentary evidence including death certificates of his parents issued in Pakistan, his own birth certificate, and national identity documents held by family members. The State opposed the bail. The Sindh High Court observed that the birth and death certificates prima facie supported the applicant's claim of being a Pakistani resident and noted that all prosecution witnesses were police officials without any private public witnesses joined at the time of arrest. Holding that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of surety.
Questions settled- Whether an accused claiming Pakistani citizenship in a case under the Foreigners Act is entitled to post-arrest bail when birth and death certificates support his residency?
- Does the non-joining of public witnesses at the time of arrest make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when all prosecution witnesses are police officials and the trial is likely to take time?
- Fazal Subhan vs The State2019 SCP 150, 2019 SCMR 1027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the convictions of Fazal Subhan and Rehmat Ullah under Section 365-A PPC, Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and Section 17(3) of the Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, where they were sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution provided sufficient and reliable evidence to sustain the conviction for abduction for ransom and robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the convictions and allowed the appeals, ordering the release of the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with doubts, noting that a memo of pointing out the place of occurrence does not equate to a disclosure under Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Additionally, the Court held that verbal assertions of ransom demands without forensic proof of mobile conversations, along with unconvincing evidence regarding the abductee's escape, make it unsafe to maintain a conviction.
Questions settled- Does a memo of pointing out the place of occurrence constitute a disclosure under Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Can a conviction for abduction for ransom under Section 365-A PPC be sustained on verbal assertions of phone demands without forensic proof?
- Is it safe to maintain a criminal conviction where the genesis of the prosecution case is fraught with unresolved doubts?
- Fazal Rehman vs Secretary Defence, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad2019 MLD 92 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-08-17Read full judgment →
- Fazal Karim vs Muhammad Sadique and 5 others2019 P.S.C. 964 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
- Fazal Karim vs Muhammad Sadique & 5 others2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 52 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
- Fazal Karim and 4 others vs Hussan Din and 8 others2019 MLD 1082 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-13Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain vs The State2019 PLJ Cr. C. 920 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for abduction for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of abduction for ransom beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the FIR lacked details regarding the source of the appellant's identification and failed to establish any demand for ransom. The court observed that the prosecution's narrative was inconsistent, particularly given the trial court's acquittal of the appellant on the related robbery charge and the lack of evidence regarding the alleged abduction purpose. The court reaffirmed the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits and cannot rely on defense weaknesses. Emphasizing that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of doubt.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a demand for ransom undermine a conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the prosecution required to prove its case on its own merits without relying on the weaknesses of the defense?
- Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
- Fazal Hussain vs Additional Sessions JUDGE/Justice of Peace Tehsil2019 PLJ Lahore 600 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-21Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain Umrani vs United Bank Limited through President2019 PLJ Tr.C. (NIRC) 63 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition filed under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, wherein the petitioner, a former Universal Teller designated as Officer Grade-III, challenged his termination from service following a departmental inquiry and sought reinstatement with back benefits. The core legal questions concern whether the petitioner qualifies as a workman under applicable labour laws and whether the grievance petition is maintainable under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, given the nature of his duties and the absence of a connection with an industrial dispute. The court recorded the competing claims of the parties regarding the petitioner's job responsibilities—ranging from clerical and manual duties to customer interface and financial transactions—and the preliminary objections raised by the respondents. The judgment sets out the factual and legal background of the termination and the preliminary maintainability challenge, establishing the framework for determining workman status and the prerequisites for filing a grievance petition under the statute.
Questions settled- Whether an employee designated as Universal Teller or Officer Grade-III qualifies as a workman under labour laws?
- Is a connection with an industrial dispute a prerequisite for filing a grievance petition under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
- Can a termination resulting from a departmental inquiry be challenged through a grievance petition when the petitioner's status as a workman is disputed?
- Fazal Ellahi (Deceased) through his legal Heirs vs Mst. Zainab Bi2019 SCMR 1930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the validity of a land mutation entered in 1970, which the respondent challenged as fraudulent on the ground that her paralyzed father, the purported vendor, never participated in or assented to the transaction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Appellate Court reversed this decision and decreed the suit, a holding subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that a mutation does not by itself create title unless backed by a valid transaction, and a sale without the vendor or his authorized agent is a farce. The Court observed that there was no entry in the Roznamcha as contemplated by Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, and no identification by two respectable persons. Crucially, the Court reaffirmed that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings, and consequently, the period of limitation does not bar a justiciable claim directed against a fraudulent transaction.
Questions settled- Does a land mutation by itself create a valid title in the absence of a genuine underlying transaction?
- Whether the period of limitation bars a justiciable claim when the underlying transaction is found to be fraudulent?
- What is the legal effect of failing to comply with the identification and Roznamcha entry procedures under Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Fazal Dar & others vs Shaban & others2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 210 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2018-06-26Read full judgment →
- Fazal Dad son of Naik Muhammad vs Member Board of Revenue, Azad2019 SC AJK 71 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-25Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Hussain vs State & anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1162 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of a sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the trial court in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending the final adjudication of his appeal. The Court observed that the petitioner's appeal had been pending since 2016 without being decided on merits, and the petitioner had already undergone more than two years of incarceration following the filing of the appeal, thereby accruing a statutory right to bail. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's co-accused had been acquitted on the same evidence and the petitioner had no prior criminal record. Consequently, the Court held that the sentence should be suspended and the petitioner released on bail, establishing the principle that prolonged pendency of an appeal coupled with the accrual of statutory rights constitutes sufficient grounds for the suspension of sentence.
Questions settled- Does the prolonged pendency of a criminal appeal entitle a convict to the suspension of their sentence?
- Can a convict be released on bail if they have served more than two years after filing an appeal?
- Is the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence a relevant factor for the suspension of sentence of a remaining convict?
- Fayaz Khan vs The State etc2019 PHC 304 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants for murder and attempted murder of police officials, alongside a connected revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal questions revolve around the credibility of delayed ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of joint identification parades without role attribution, and the reliability of planted recoveries. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, delayed supplementary statements, a legally defective joint test identification parade, and fabricated weapon recoveries. The court established that joint identification parades involving multiple suspects without specific role attribution are legally laconic and devoid of evidentiary value, and corroborative recoveries cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable direct evidence. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- What is the evidentiary value of a joint identification parade where multiple suspects are mixed together without specific role attribution?
- Can corroborative evidence such as weapon recoveries sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable direct or eyewitness accounts?
- What is the legal effect of an unexplained, inordinate delay in recording a supplementary statement and the statement of a crucial eyewitness?
- Does a conviction stand when the prosecution evidence is pregnant with confusions and material contradictions?
- Fayaz Ahmad vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission, through Chairman etc2019 PLC (C.S) 969, 2019 PHC 32 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a candidate for the posts of Subject Specialist and Lecturer advertised by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, after failing to secure the threshold marks required for interviews. He challenged the written test results, alleging that certain multiple-choice questions contained incorrect options, and sought directions for the inclusion of his name in the merit lists, re-evaluation of papers, and participation in the interview process. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, can scrutinize examination papers, interfere with the evaluation process of the Public Service Commission, or award marks for disputed MCQs. The Court held that the High Court cannot assume the role of overseeing examinations conducted by the Public Service Commission, which is the exclusive statutory body mandated for such tasks, and that awarding marks for alleged faulty MCQs would jeopardize the entire selection process. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction can oversee or interfere with the examination process conducted by the Public Service Commission?
- Can a candidate claim credit for un-attempted or allegedly incorrect multiple-choice questions in a competitive examination?
- Whether the High Court can substitute its own evaluation for the expert scrutiny of examination papers by the Public Service Commission?
- Fawad and others vs The State2019 P Cr. LJ 1443 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction, a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence, and an acquittal appeal arising from a murder trial. The core legal questions involve the assessment of ocular testimony, the corroboration rule, the evaluation of minor discrepancies in witness statements, the grounds for enhancing life imprisonment to death, and the strict parameters for interfering with an acquittal judgment. The court held that unimpeachable ocular testimony from natural witnesses, corroborated by medical and ballistic evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even in the presence of minor discrepancies, and that the sentence of life imprisonment should be maintained after weighing mitigating factors such as advanced age and the absence of a brutal, frenzied attack. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse or arbitrary, given the double presumption of innocence. The key principles laid down include the application of the rule of abundant caution regarding corroboration, the holistic evaluation of mitigating circumstances for sentencing, and the rigorous criteria for setting aside acquittals.
Questions settled- Whether the uncorroborated ocular testimony of a single reliable and confidence-inspiring eye-witness is sufficient to base a conviction?
- Can a sentence of life imprisonment be enhanced to death when mitigating factors such as advanced age and the absence of a brutal attack are present?
- What is the scope and standard of interference by an appellate court in a judgment of acquittal where the presumption of innocence is doubled?
- Are minor discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Fawad Ali vs The State, etcPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 229, PLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 92, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 5, 2019 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal petitions seeking the cancellation of bail granted to private respondents. The Supreme Court first addressed the issue of limitation, finding that the main petitions were filed with a 45-day delay without valid or sufficient grounds for condonation, leading to the dismissal of the accompanying miscellaneous applications and the main petitions. Beyond the limitation issue, the Court observed that the petitions were inherently misconceived. The Court held that when an accused person who has been admitted to bail is subsequently declared a Proclaimed Offender or when non-bailable warrants for their arrest are issued, such events ipso facto result in the cancellation of the accused's bail. Consequently, the Court affirmed the legal principle that the issuance of non-bailable warrants or the declaration of an accused as a Proclaimed Offender operates automatically to revoke existing bail, rendering separate petitions for bail cancellation unnecessary in such circumstances.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of non-bailable warrants for the arrest of an accused person admitted to bail ipso facto result in the cancellation of that bail?
- Does the declaration of an accused person as a Proclaimed Offender automatically cancel their bail?
- Are petitions for bail cancellation misconceived if the accused has already been declared a Proclaimed Offender or if non-bailable warrants have been issued against them?
- Fatima Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Deputy Collector and 2 others2019 PTD (Trib.) 469 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-08-30Read full judgment →
- Fatima Enterprises Limited through Chief Executive/Authorized Signatory2019 CLD 1056 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-27Read full judgment →
- Farzand Bibi and 6 others vs Arshad Mehmood alias Arshad and 24 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1135 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-07-26Read full judgment →
- Farzana Bashir, Assistant Director B-17 in duties Directorate of Industries2019 P.S.C. 1186 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Farzana Bashir vs Javed Anwar and 3 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1252 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the effective date of promotion and subsequent seniority between a direct appointee (the appellant) and a promotee (the respondent). The respondent, an officiating Assistant Director, sought retrospective promotion to the date a vacancy arose (05.04.2011), a claim accepted by the Service Tribunal. The appellant, appointed to the same post on 05.04.2011 via the Public Service Commission, challenged this, arguing that the respondent's retrospective promotion adversely affected her seniority and that she was a necessary party not impleaded in the original proceedings. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that even if the vacancy arose on 05.04.2011, administrative processing time is required for promotion. Applying Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Court determined that the first day of the series (the date of the vacancy) must be excluded. Consequently, the Court modified the Tribunal's judgment, ruling that the respondent's promotion could only take effect from the day following the vacancy, thereby protecting the appellant's vested seniority rights.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant be granted retrospective promotion to the exact date a vacancy arises?
- Does the exclusion of the first day of a series of days under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act 1897 apply to the calculation of effective dates for promotion?
- Is a direct appointee a necessary party in service tribunal proceedings where a promotee seeks retrospective promotion affecting the appointee's seniority?
- Faryal Khan vs The Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad2020 PCTLR 154, 2019 PTD 1902 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2019-05-21Read full judgment →
- Farrukh Shahzad vs Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal) Rto, Rawalpindi and others2018 KLR Supreme Court Cases 342, 2018 P.C.T.L.R. 914, 2018 PLJ AJ&K 130, PLJ · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's reference regarding income tax proceedings. Proceedings under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were initiated against the petitioner, resulting in an amended assessment and additions made under sections 18 and 111(1)(b) of the Ordinance after the department found his explanations regarding real estate transactions and unexplained wealth unsatisfactory. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the assessment before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, and subsequently before the High Court. The core legal questions involved whether the tribunal was justified in upholding additions under section 18 as business income and under section 111(1)(b) for unexplained wealth/investments. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to establish entitlement to zero percent capital gains tax under section 37(1)(A) due to his engagement in an ongoing real estate business, and that the unexplained accretion to net wealth was rightly subjected to tax as he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the department was justified in treating the sale consideration of property as business income under section 18 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 instead of applying zero percent capital gains tax under section 37(1)(A)?
- Whether unverified accretion to net wealth can be taxed under section 111(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 upon failure to provide a satisfactory explanation?
- Whether the High Court's interpretation of provisions relating to business income and unexplained investments suffers from any legal or jurisdictional error?
- Farooque vs The State2019 YLR 1392 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for the murder of Imdad Ali Shah, imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the ocular evidence provided by related witnesses was sufficient for conviction despite the acquittal of a co-accused, whether the non-examination of the investigating officer prejudiced the defense, and whether the conviction warranted modification to Section 302(c) due to the nature of the injuries. The Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the acquittal of one co-accused does not automatically invalidate the case against others if independent corroboration exists. It affirmed that the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is inapplicable, favoring the sifting of grain from chaff. The Court rejected the request to modify the sentence, finding the murder was pre-meditated and committed with a deadly weapon, distinguishing the case from precedents where lesser sentences were applied. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's judgment.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of a co-accused in a criminal trial automatically entitle other co-accused to acquittal on the same evidence?
- Is the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus applicable in the administration of criminal justice in Pakistan?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony of related witnesses if the investigating officer is not examined at trial?
- Does the failure to mention witnesses in a sketch of the crime scene (vardat) invalidate their testimony?
- Farooque Jameel Durrani and others vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh and 9 others2019 MLD 1705 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-01Read full judgment →
- Farooq etc vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 375 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous application seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 178 of 2018 registered at Police Station Seetpur, District Muzaffargarh, for offences under Sections 452, 354, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-A(z), 337-F(v), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioners have made out a case for pre-arrest bail in view of general imputations, debatable injury descriptions, and the existence of a cross-version. The court held that the application should be dismissed as withdrawn for certain petitioners, while pre-arrest bail is confirmed for the remaining petitioners either due to lack of specific roles, a potentially fabricated injury, or the existence of a cross-version rendering their culpability a matter of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that general attribution without specific roles, doubtful medical evidence, and a counter-version warrant the confirmation of pre-arrest bail pending trial.
Questions settled- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when accused persons are nominated in the FIR without any specific role attributed to them?
- Does the presence of a cross-version and simple injuries justify confirming pre-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- What is the legal effect of a medical board finding an injury to be potentially fabricated when assessing a pre-arrest bail petition?
- Farman Ali vs The State2020 YLR 1752, 2019 SHC 458 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for the murder of the deceased during a robbery. The appellants were convicted under Section 302(b) and Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the defense's arguments regarding delayed FIR registration, alleged police fabrication, and defects in the identification parade. The Court held that the prosecution's case was established through consistent, reliable, and confidence-inspiring ocular evidence from natural witnesses, which was corroborated by medical evidence, the recovery of the deceased's weapon from the appellants, and forensic reports matching crime scene empties with the recovered weapons. The Court affirmed that minor contradictions in testimony do not invalidate a case when the core evidence is solid. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions and sentences, emphasizing the need for deterrent punishment in cases of brutal street crimes and robbery-murders, and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a minor defect in an identification parade necessarily invalidate the entire prosecution case?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence when there is a delay in the registration of the FIR?
- Is the recovery of a weapon belonging to the deceased from the accused sufficient to establish guilt in a robbery-murder case?
- Does the presence of minor contradictions in witness testimony warrant the acquittal of an accused?
- Faridoon through Legal heirs and others vs Government of Khyber2019 MLD 1942 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
- Faridoon & others vs Govt. of KPK & others2019 PHC 58 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
- Farid Khan vs Fazla Qadir and others2020 PLJ Peshawar 8, 2019 PHC 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-13Read full judgment →
- Farhat Aziz, Ex-Assistant Resident Engineer, Muzaffarabad vs Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 5 others2019 P.S.C. 46 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner, an ex-Assistant Resident Engineer, from service. The core legal question concerned whether a civil servant could remain absent from duty for an extended period without sanctioned leave and subsequently invoke the Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction for reinstatement. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the petitioner failed to justify his prolonged unauthorized absence, particularly the period between 2011 and 2015. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the High Court's judgment was legally sound. The key principles laid down are that civil servants are bound by prescribed leave rules and cannot remain absent at their own discretion; that the privilege of leave requires adherence to the statutory mode of sanction; and that relief under extraordinary writ jurisdiction is discretionary, requiring the petitioner to approach the Court with clean hands. Unauthorized absence for extended periods constitutes misconduct and precludes the granting of equitable relief.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant remain absent from duty for an extended period without sanctioned leave and subsequently claim reinstatement?
- Is the grant of relief under extraordinary writ jurisdiction discretionary for a petitioner who has not approached the court with clean hands?
- Does a civil servant have the right to remain absent from duty based on their own discretion while awaiting the sanction of leave?
- Farhat Aziz vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir2019 PLC (C.S.) 767 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which upheld the termination of the petitioner's employment with the Hydro Electric Board. The petitioner, a civil servant, had remained absent from duty for an extended period, claiming medical and study leave, much of which remained unsanctioned. The core legal question was whether a civil servant could justify prolonged unauthorized absence from duty by merely applying for leave without obtaining formal sanction, and whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing relief. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the petition, holding that a civil servant cannot remain absent at their own discretion for years without following the prescribed legal procedure for leave. The Court emphasized that the privilege of leave is subject to statutory rules and that unauthorized absence for an extended period constitutes misconduct. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction is discretionary and is not available to a petitioner who approaches the Court with unclean hands or seeks to justify illegal acts of prolonged absence.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant remain absent from duty for an extended period without obtaining formal sanction for leave?
- Is the remedy of extraordinary writ jurisdiction available to a petitioner who has remained absent from service for years without authorization?
- Does a civil servant who remains absent from duty for more than five years cease to hold the status of a civil servant?
- Farhad Alam vs The State2019 MLD 1585 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 109, 114, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in FIR No. 16/2018. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail when not initially nominated in the FIR, implicated later via a supplementary statement, charged with abetment where co-accused were released under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and where the trial had already commenced. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the petitioner's case fell under further inquiry pursuant to Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitling him to bail as a matter of right notwithstanding the commencement of the trial, particularly as the charge was one of abetment and two co-accused had already been discharged. The key principle laid down is that where an accused's case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail must be granted as a matter of right even if the trial has already commenced or is near completion.
Questions settled- Whether an accused not nominated in the initial FIR but named in a supplementary statement is entitled to bail when co-accused are released under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the commencement of a trial disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail when the case otherwise falls under the further inquiry clause of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the case of an accused charged with abetment stands on a lower pedestal compared to principal accused for the purpose of grant of bail?
- Fareeha Rehman and others vs Province of Punjab through Secretary2019 PLC (C.S.) 103 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 2018-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants, a group of female lecturers, challenged the order of the Higher Education Department, Government of the Punjab, which regularized their services effective from December 4, 2014, rather than from their initial dates of appointment in 1998-1999. The appellants had served on contract basis for approximately fifteen years without interruption. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to regularization and seniority from their initial dates of appointment. The Punjab Service Tribunal observed that the appellants had been subjected to discriminatory treatment compared to other employees whose services were regularized differently. Relying on the principle established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Aslam Awan v. Federation of Pakistan (2014 SCMR 1289), the Tribunal held that the seniority of a civil servant must be reckoned from the date of initial appointment, not from the date of confirmation or regularization. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and directing that the appellants be regularized from their initial dates of appointment.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant entitled to seniority from the date of initial appointment rather than the date of regularization?
- Can the government regularize contract employees from a date later than their initial appointment despite years of continuous service?
- Does the principle of seniority apply to civil servants from the date of their initial appointment?
- Fareed-ud-Din Masood vs Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur and others2019 KLR Supreme Court 408, 2019 PLJ SC 420, 2019 SCMR 842, 2019 SCP 270, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an eviction petition filed under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, in which the petitioner was impleaded as a party. The petitioner's application for leave to contest was dismissed, and the eviction order was upheld by the appellate court and the High Court. The core legal question was whether a third party claiming ownership of the property can litigate title disputes within rent proceedings or seek to halt eviction when the tenant has not contested further and no landlord-tenant relationship is established. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a Rent Tribunal or Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction to determine questions of title, which must be resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction in pending civil proceedings. The key principle laid down is that title disputes cannot be adjudicated within summary eviction proceedings, and a party claiming ownership without a recognized landlord-tenant relationship or valid proof of tenancy cannot obstruct an eviction order.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Tribunal or Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to determine questions of title or ownership in eviction proceedings?
- Can a third party claim ownership of a rented property to halt eviction proceedings without establishing a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Whether an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be used to convert an eviction proceeding into a title suit?
- Fareed Ud Din Masood vs Additional District Judge Bahawalpur and others2019 SCMR 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld eviction orders passed against a tenant under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. The petitioner, claiming ownership of the disputed property via a Tamleek Nama, sought to intervene in eviction proceedings, arguing that his title claim rendered the eviction order improper and that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction while the title dispute was sub judice. The core legal question was whether a third party claiming title to a property can intervene in eviction proceedings to have that title determined by a Rent Controller. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a Rent Tribunal or Rent Controller lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate complex questions of title or ownership. The Court affirmed that such disputes must be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that eviction proceedings are distinct from title suits, and a Rent Controller cannot resolve ownership disputes, nor can a third party use an impleadment application in eviction proceedings to litigate title.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller or Rent Tribunal have the jurisdiction to determine questions of title or ownership of a property during eviction proceedings?
- Can a third party claiming ownership of a property intervene in eviction proceedings to have their title adjudicated by a Rent Controller?
- Is an eviction order final if the tenant against whom the order was passed does not challenge it?
- Fareed Ahmed Khan and others vs M. V. Miski The Vessel and another2019 SHC 348 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-06Read full judgment →
- Faraz Sherwani and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment and 2 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1084 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a notification issued by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) promoting the petitioners to the post of Private Secretary (BPS-17). The petitioners contended they were entitled to promotion as Assistant Directors (BPS-17) under the NAB Employees Terms and Conditions of Service (TCS), 2002, alleging discrimination and violation of statutory rules. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (BPS-17) and if the impugned notification was unlawful. The Court held that the petition was maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution, as NAB employees are not civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. However, on merits, the Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioners failed to meet the requisite length of service criteria for the post of Assistant Director (BPS-17) under the applicable rules. The Court affirmed that promotion is not a vested right but depends on eligibility, fitness, and vacancy, and that courts should not interfere with the government's authority to prescribe qualifications and promotion policies.
Questions settled- Are employees of the National Accountability Bureau considered civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Can an employee claim promotion to a higher grade as a vested right?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to hear service grievances of National Accountability Bureau employees?
- Is the determination of eligibility and fitness for promotion a matter for the competent authority rather than the court?
- Farak Ali Abbasi vs Taimoor Ahmed & Others2019 SC AJK 38 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which recalled the pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner in a case involving an alleged assault. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in cancelling the bail granted by the trial court, given the discrepancies in the FIR and medical evidence. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the High Court's decision was unsustainable. The Court observed that the FIR was registered after an unexplained 83-day delay and that the medical report contradicted the prosecution's timeline, as the complainant was admitted to the hospital a day prior to the alleged occurrence. Emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused even at the bail stage, the Court concluded that the case required further inquiry and that the element of mala fide could not be ruled out. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and confirmed the bail, reaffirming that strong grounds are required to cancel bail once granted by a competent court.
Questions settled- Is the benefit of doubt available to an accused at the pre-arrest bail stage?
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for granting bail?
- What is the legal standard for cancelling bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Can a court grant pre-arrest bail if the prosecution's case is prima facie doubtful due to medical evidence contradictions?
- Faqir Said vs State2020 YLR 1169, 2019 PHC 260 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies between the medical evidence and the eyewitness account. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, acquitting the appellant. The court observed that while the eyewitness attributed the firing to two individuals using different weapons, the medical evidence indicated injuries consistent with a single assailant using one weapon. Relying on the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the court emphasized that deliberate falsehood undermines the judicial system and must be rejected. The judgment reiterated that the benefit of doubt is a right, not a concession, and that procedural lapses in investigation—such as the failure to link recovered weapons to the crime and inconsistencies in the site plan—further weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.
Questions settled- Does the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to criminal cases in Pakistan?
- Can a conviction be sustained when medical evidence contradicts the eyewitness account regarding the number of assailants?
- Is the benefit of doubt in criminal cases a matter of right or a matter of grace?
- Can evidence from one criminal case be read into another case?
- Faqir Khan vs Bakhtawar Jan and 4 others2019 P Cr. L J 1558 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition sought the quashment of an order passed by the Justice of Peace directing the registration of an FIR under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the subsequent FIR registered at police station Timergara, District Lower Dir. The core legal question concerned territorial jurisdiction: whether an FIR for dishonouring a cheque can be lodged where the drawee bank is situated, or where the complainant deposited the cheque in their own account, and whether civil and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously. The court held that while the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is completed where the cheque is dishonoured, the consequences ensue where the cheque is deposited and notice of dishonor is received, attracting Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the complainant has the option to initiate proceedings at either place. The court also reiterated that civil and criminal proceedings may proceed side by side, and disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.
Questions settled- Can an FIR for dishonouring a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be lodged at the place where the complainant deposited the cheque in their account?
- Does the simultaneous pendency of civil litigation bar criminal proceedings for the issuance of a dishonoured cheque?
- Can disputed questions of fact be resolved within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow criminal proceedings to be initiated at either the place where the cheque was dishonoured or where the consequences ensued?
- Faqir Ahmed Khan (decd.) through L.Rs vs Riaz Ahmed & others2020 PSC 347, 2020 SCMR 346, 2019 SCP 388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns a dispute over the inheritance of agricultural land following the death of Nawab Khan in 1932. The appellants, successors of the deceased's son, Faqir Ahmed, argued that the land was inherited solely by him under customary law, as evidenced by a 1932 mutation. The respondents, heirs of the deceased's daughter Romaan Sheda, claimed a share under Islamic law. The core legal question was whether the NWFP Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935, retrospectively applied to succession cases arising after its enactment, regardless of prior customary law practices. The Supreme Court held that Section 3(2) of the 1935 Act mandates the application of Muslim Personal Law to any succession question raised in court, irrespective of the date of death or prior customary practices. The Court affirmed that inheritance rights do not dissipate upon the death of an heir but devolve upon their successors. Consequently, the Court modified the lower court's decree, recognizing the respondents' entitlement to a share of the estate based on Islamic law, rejecting the appellants' reliance on customary law.
Questions settled- Does the NWFP Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1935 apply retrospectively to successions that opened before its enactment?
- Does the right of an heir to claim inheritance dissipate if they die without claiming their share during their lifetime?
- Can a claim for inheritance be defeated by a mutation entry made under customary law prior to the enactment of the NWFP Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1935?
- Faqeer Muhammad vs The State2019 SHC 566 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
- Famir Asghar vs Asghar Ali and 2 others2019 MLD 79, 2020 [M] CLR 625 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-06Read full judgment →
- Faizullah Azizi Shaikh through Authorized Attorney vs National Bank of Pakistan through President and 3 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 639 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order issued by the National Bank of Pakistan vacating the petitioner's appointment as AVP due to unauthorized absence from duty. The core legal question is whether the petitioner's termination of employment for unauthorized absence, following the expiration of his granted leave and refusal of extensions, violated principles of natural justice and Article 10-A of the Constitution. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity, was duly served multiple notices to resume duty, and failed to justify his prolonged unauthorized absence or verify his medical documents, thereby disentitling him to discretionary relief. The court affirmed that public functionaries acted fairly and in accordance with bank policy, while noting that the petitioner remained entitled to accrued dues for his past service.
Questions settled- Whether an employee's appointment can be vacated for unauthorized absence after the refusal of leave extension?
- Does the issuance of multiple notices to an absent employee satisfy the requirements of a fair trial and natural justice?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable when filed through an attorney while the petitioner remains abroad?
- Whether discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution can be extended to an employee who fails to justify prolonged unauthorized absence from duty?
- Faiz Muhammad Khan and others vs The State through Additional2019 PLD Federal Shariat Court 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-10-08Read full judgment →
- Faiz Muhammad Khan and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 485 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-10-02Read full judgment →
- Faiz Alam and 10 others vs Mohammad Naseer and 3 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 402, 2019 PLJ AJ&K 13, 2018 YLR 2507 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-04-12Read full judgment →
- Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Limited (FESCO) vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance, Islamabad & others2019 PCTLR 431, 2019 PTCL .CL 467, 2019 PTD 1780, 2019 LHC 1471, 2019 PCTLR · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated writ petition and connected matters challenged the repeated selection of petitioners for tax audit under Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, notwithstanding the third proviso added to subsection (2) of Section 25 by the Finance Act, 2018, which mandated that audits be conducted only once every three years. The core legal question was whether the said proviso operates retrospectively to cover pending audit proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that the amendment is procedural, beneficial, and curative in nature, aiming to curb the excessive and repetitive exercise of audit powers that erode taxpayers' constitutional safeguards. Consequently, the Court ruled that the proviso applies retrospectively to pending audit proceedings. The holding establishes that beneficial and procedural statutory amendments curtailing excessive regulatory powers apply retrospectively, protecting taxpayers from unending and arbitrary scrutiny.
Questions settled- Whether the proviso added to subsection (2) of Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 by the Finance Act, 2018 applies retrospectively to pending audit proceedings?
- Is an amendment that curtails the excessive exercise of discretionary power by tax authorities considered procedural and beneficial in nature?
- Can tax authorities subject a registered person to repeated and continuous audits without statutory protection?
- Whether beneficial and curative statutory amendments should be made applicable to pending proceedings?
- Faisal vs The State2019 SHC 234 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-19Read full judgment →
- Faisal Mushtaq vs Najma Aziz2019 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 21, 2020 P SC 1319 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-11-27Read full judgment →
- Faisal Memon vs Province of Sindh & 02 others2019 SHC 380 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged his removal from the 'look after charge' of the post of Regional Director (BPS-19) in the Sindh Katchi Abadis Authority, arguing that the assignment of this charge to a junior officer violated established legal principles regarding transfer and posting. The core legal question was whether a civil servant possesses a vested right to retain a 'look after charge' of a higher post and whether the court should interfere with such administrative transfers. The Court held that a government servant has no vested right to remain on a particular post for any stipulated period and can be transferred at any time. Furthermore, the Court observed that assigning a 'look after charge' of a higher post to a civil servant is not permitted under the law, characterizing such practices as a culture of ad-hocism that lacks legal recognition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, emphasizing that discretionary transfer powers vest in the competent authority and are not subject to judicial interference unless exercised for extraneous considerations.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right to remain on a particular post for a stipulated period?
- Does Section 10 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 permit the appointment of a civil servant to look after the work of a higher post?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against the relinquishment of a 'look after charge' of a government post?
- Faisal Mahmood vs The State and another2019 YLR 1454 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous matter involves petitions for post-arrest bail arising out of a triple murder case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail given the contentions regarding a supplementary statement, a plea of alibi, delayed trial, and the grant of bail to a co-accused. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petitions, holding that despite ordinary circumstances tending toward further inquiry, the unique background involving a prior murder case, an antecedent conspiracy, numerous applications by the deceased victim apprehending danger, and an official inquiry report supporting the prosecution's allegations provided sufficient incriminating material against the petitioners. The court laid down the principle that each criminal case must be assessed on its own peculiar features, and where exceptional circumstances and prima facie material indicate a pre-planned conspiracy leading to multiple murders, post-arrest bail will be denied, especially after the commencement of trial.
Questions settled- Whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail in a triple murder case when an antecedent conspiracy and prior enmity are prima facie established against them?
- Does a supplementary statement implicating accused persons for abetment warrant post-arrest bail when supported by prior applications and official inquiry findings?
- Is parity with a co-accused granted bail applicable when the co-accused's bail was uncontested by the complainant?
- Whether superior courts should interfere in auxiliary matters like bail when the trial has already commenced and prosecution witnesses have been examined?
- Faisal Jaffari vs The State2019 MLD 1436 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application was filed on behalf of the applicant, Faisal Jaffari, seeking post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delay in the non-conclusion of his trial within two years under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicant, an ASI, was implicated in a 2011 case involving charges under Sections 302, 365, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly abducting and murdering the complainant's son in a staged police encounter. The Sindh High Court evaluated the record, including trial court progress reports and case diaries, which revealed that the applicant had engaged in delaying tactics such as filing transfer applications, seeking numerous adjournments, and displaying unexplained abscondence prior to arrest. The court held that the statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial was occasioned by the acts and omissions of the applicant himself, thereby disentitling him to the statutory concession of bail. The court reaffirmed the principle that an accused responsible for delaying trial proceedings cannot claim the benefit of statutory hardship, and that unexplained abscondence deprives an accused of normal procedural rights. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to statutory bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the delay in the conclusion of the trial is occasioned by his own acts and omissions?
- Does unexplained noticeable abscondence of an accused deprive him of normal rights granted by procedural and substantive law?
- Whether filing transfer applications and seeking repeated adjournments can be attributed as delaying tactics on the part of the accused to disentitle him from statutory delay benefits?
- Faisal Iqbal vs Environmental Protection Authority through Director2019 CLD 208 · Punjab Environmental Tribunal · 2018-04-21Read full judgment →
- Faheemullah vs The State & Jehanzeb Khan2020 PLJ Cr.C (Peshawar) 938, 2019 PHC 336 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
- Faheem Ali vs The State2019 MLD 468 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for being in possession of an unlicensed Kalashnikov. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the recovery proceedings, joint mashirnamas, non-production of daily diary entries, the implications of a complainant acting as the investigating officer, and the legal effect of a lack of cross-examination in criminal trials versus civil trials. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to major contradictions in witness testimonies, the failure to associate independent private mashirs under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the improper conduct of the complainant acting as the investigating officer, and the absence of chemical examiner reports. The court laid down the principle that criminal cases must be decided on the totality of circumstances rather than narrow grounds like the failure to cross-examine a witness on a particular fact, and that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether the principle that a fact is deemed proved if left un-cross-examined applies to criminal trials?
- Does a complainant acting as the investigating officer vitiate the credibility of the police investigation?
- Is the association of independent public mashirs mandatory under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the effect of failing to produce daily diary movement entries in a criminal trial?
- Faheem Ahmed Attari and 70 others vs Province of Sindh and others2020 PLC (C.S) 1484, 2019 SHC 178 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses constitutional petitions filed by teaching and non-teaching staff of the Education Department of Karachi Municipal Corporation seeking directions to release their withheld monthly salaries. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners' appointments were fake or irregular, whether their salaries could be stopped without a hearing, and whether constitutional jurisdiction can resolve disputed questions of fact regarding employment credentials. The court held that the veracity of appointment documents and claims involves disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated under constitutional jurisdiction, and therefore left the matter to be determined by the competent authority. The court laid down the principle that while ill-gotten gains cannot be protected and backdoor appointments cannot claim equity, disputed factual controversies regarding employment authenticity must be scrutinized through a proper departmental inquiry providing an opportunity of hearing, guided by the precedent of the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Can disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of employment appointments be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether salaries of employees can be withheld indefinitely without completing legal and codal formalities?
- How should allegations of fraud or fake appointments in public departments be scrutinized when claims and counter-claims are raised by the parties?
- Fahad Shah Nawaz Khan Khakwani and 2 others vs Soneri Bank Limited2019 CLD 1026 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-04Read full judgment →