Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Azee Securities (Pvt.) Limited vs Federal Board of Revenue & othersPTCL 2019 CL. 49 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-11Read full judgment →
• Azam Khan vs Kashif Ali and another2019 YLR 1734 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-14
  criminal appealacquittaldouble presumption of innocencecircumstantial evidencemurderburden of proofreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had produced sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in a case resting on circumstantial evidence. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime. Specifically, there were no eyewitnesses, the alleged motive of illicit relations remained unproven, and the recovery of mobile SIM cards and call detail records failed to conclusively connect the accused to the deceased. The Court emphasized that once an accused is acquitted, they earn a double presumption of innocence, which cannot be disturbed unless the acquittal judgment is shown to be arbitrary or contrary to the evidence. Finding no illegality or irregularity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence, the High Court affirmed the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal judgment grant the accused a double presumption of innocence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when the motive remains unproven?
  • Is an appellate court required to interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's appreciation of evidence is not arbitrary or illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Azam Khan & others vs Near Marble Mining Corporation & others2019 CLC 1424, 2019 PHC 56 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-14Read full judgment →
• Azam Ali (Late) through Legal Heirs and others vs Alam Sher and others2019 YLR 401 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-13Read full judgment →
• Azad Jammu and Kashmir Joint Admission Committee for MBBS/BDS2019 MLD 10 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-08-07Read full judgment →
• Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council through Chairman and 2 others vs Raja Gul Muhammad and 6 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 435 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-12-22
  judicial independenceservice tribunalarbitrary terminationde facto doctrinenatural justicecontractual employmentconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment concerning the termination of contract-based Members of the Service Tribunal. The core legal questions were whether the termination of these members without cause was lawful and whether the appointment and termination process for such judicial members, which lacked a consultative mechanism, violated the principle of judicial independence and the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the termination was illegal, as public functionaries cannot terminate services arbitrarily without cause, which violates principles of natural justice and public policy. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appointment process for Service Tribunal members, lacking consultation with the judiciary, undermines judicial independence. Exercising its inherent powers under the Interim Constitution Act, 1974, the Court addressed these constitutional issues despite them not being raised in the pleadings. Applying the de facto doctrine, the Court validated past acts of the tribunal but ordered that fresh appointments be made through a transparent, consultative process. The key principle laid down is that judicial independence is a fundamental constitutional requirement, and arbitrary termination of public servants is void.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the termination of a public servant's contract without assigning a reason or providing an opportunity of hearing is violative of the principles of natural justice?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the inherent power to resolve legal points not raised in the pleadings when it is in the public interest?
  • Is the appointment and termination process of Service Tribunal members without a consultative mechanism consistent with the principle of judicial independence?
  • Can the acts performed by members of a judicial tribunal be validated under the de facto doctrine even if their appointment is declared contrary to law?
  Read full judgment →
• Baboo vs The State2021 KLR Criminal Cases 185, 2019 P Cr. L J 1618 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirycircumstantial evidencepolice disclosuremotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an FIR registered under sections 302, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the applicant/accused was entitled to bail where there was no ocular witness, the case rested on circumstantial evidence of a weak nature including footprints and police disclosures, and the matter fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Balochistan High Court accepted the application and granted post-arrest bail to the applicant. The court laid down the principle that where the sole evidence against an accused in a murder case is of the weakest type and requires further inquiry, and the accused is no longer required for investigation, pre-trial or ongoing trial detention should not be used as a punishment, and bail ought to be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the case against him rests entirely on circumstantial and weak evidence requiring further inquiry?
  • Is a disclosure made by an accused before the police admissible under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when no discovery is made pursuant thereto?
  • Does the commencement of a trial operate as an absolute bar against the grant of bail by a superior court if the accused is otherwise found entitled to it?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Khan and others vs SMBR and others2019 PLD Peshawar 208, 2019 PHC 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-21Read full judgment →
• Azad Jammu and Kashmir Cable Operators Association through Chief2019 CLC 1894 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-07-09
  constitutional petitionlocus standidelegated legislationultra viresregulatory authorityexecutive authoritycable television networkfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the vires of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Adaptation and Extension of Functions to Azad Kashmir) Act, 2005, and the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) Rules, 2009. The petitioners, cable operators, contested the authority of PEMRA to regulate cable networks and collect fees within Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The core legal question was whether the AJK Council could legally delegate its executive authority to a Pakistani statutory body, PEMRA, and whether the impugned Act and Rules were consistent with the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974. The Court held that sections 2(b), 3, and 4 of the 2005 Act were ultra vires the Constitution, as the AJK Council could not delegate its executive functions to a Pakistani entity whose employees were not accountable to the AJK government. Consequently, the Court struck down these provisions and set aside the unadapted PEMRA Rules, 2009, quashing all proceedings initiated thereunder. The judgment establishes that executive authority in AJK cannot be delegated to Pakistani statutory bodies without specific constitutional compliance, though the AJK government may now exercise such powers under the amended Article 19(2) of the Interim Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council have the authority to delegate its executive functions to a statutory body of the Government of Pakistan?
  • Are the provisions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Adaptation and Extension of Functions to Azad Kashmir) Act, 2005, ultra vires the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974?
  • Can a Pakistani statutory body exercise regulatory jurisdiction within the territory of Azad Jammu and Kashmir without proper legal adaptation?
  • Does a cable operator have locus standi to challenge the regulatory authority of PEMRA in Azad Jammu and Kashmir?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Secretary2019 YLR 2111, 2019 P.S.C. 815 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-10Read full judgment →
• Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary2019 P.S.C. 1722 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-17Read full judgment →
• Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary2019 P.S.C. 71 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-07-24Read full judgment →
• Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu & Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 4 others vs Arshad Khan, Assistant Conservator B-17, Department of Forests,Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 3 others2019 P.S.C. 1196 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service matterde novo inquirywrit jurisdictionService Tribunaldepartmental inquiryterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court which accepted a writ petition and set aside a notification ordering a de novo inquiry against the respondent, a forest department employee previously acquitted of misconduct. The core legal question was whether the High Court could competently issue a writ of prohibition to quash a pending departmental inquiry concerning service matters, in light of constitutional bars and alternative remedies before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir held that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, including pending departmental inquiries where no final adverse order has been passed, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, ousting the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant must await a final departmental order before seeking redress, and the High Court cannot pre-empt departmental proceedings or interfere in service matters through constitutional petitions prematurely.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can issue a writ of prohibition against a pending departmental inquiry concerning the terms and conditions of a civil servant?
  • Does the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over service matters, excluding the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Can a civil servant challenge a de novo inquiry notification before a final order is passed by the competent departmental authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Govt of State of Jammu and Kashmir through Secretary and 32019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 15 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-10Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Secretary2019 P.S.C. 1602 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief2019 P.S.C. 1440 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief2019 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 34 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-03-28Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief2019 PLC (C.S.) 1479 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-17
  health allowancehealth personnelservice lawdiscrimination in servicestatutory interpretationAzad Jammu and Kashmir health department
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which directed the government to grant health allowance to employees of the Directorate of Malaria Control. The respondents, serving in the Health Department, claimed entitlement to the allowance based on a 2015 government notification, alleging discriminatory treatment compared to other similarly placed staff. The appellants contended that the respondents were not 'health personnel' as they were not serving in hospitals or clinics, and thus ineligible for the allowance. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir examined the definition of 'health personnel' under the Career Structure for Health Personnel Scheme Ordinance, 2011, which includes persons holding posts in any institute or organization delivering services in the health sector. The Court held that since the respondents were permanent employees of the Health Department delivering services in the health sector, they qualified as health personnel. Relying on the principle established in Federation of Pakistan v. Nusrat Tahir, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the respondents' entitlement to the health allowance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'health personnel' under the Career Structure for Health Personnel Scheme Ordinance, 2011, extend to employees serving in the health department who are not stationed in hospitals?
  • Are employees of the Directorate of Malaria Control entitled to the health allowance granted to health personnel in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Health Department?
  • Does the term 'health personnel' include support staff serving in organizations delivering services in the health sector?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir through its Chief2019 P.S.C. 1191 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir through Chief2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 29 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service matterwrit jurisdictionde novo inquirymisconductdepartmental inquiryService Tribunalterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court, which had set aside a notification initiating a de novo departmental inquiry against a civil servant. The respondent, a Forest Department employee, had previously been acquitted of misconduct charges, but the competent authority subsequently ordered a fresh inquiry. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition against a pending departmental inquiry in a service matter. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in exercising writ jurisdiction, as the matter pertained to the terms and conditions of service, which fall under the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court emphasized that where no final order has been passed, a civil servant must await the outcome of departmental proceedings rather than invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, recalled the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the respondent's writ petition, affirming that the High Court cannot preempt the jurisdiction of competent departmental authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to interfere in a pending departmental inquiry regarding the terms and conditions of service?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to challenge a departmental inquiry notification in the High Court before a final order is passed?
  • Can the High Court issue a writ of prohibition to stop a de novo departmental inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayub Raza vs Bank Al-Falah (Pakistan) Ltd. through President and another2020 P C T L R 997, 2019 CLD 602 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-06
  ex-parte decreeservice of summonsfinancial institutions recoverysetting aside decreecorrect addresscost of fundsbanking court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 challenged an order dismissing an application under section 12 of the Ordinance to set aside an ex-parte decree. The core legal question was whether a banking company, having prior knowledge of a defendant's new and correct address, is justified in intentionally omitting it from the plaint and whether proper service of summons was effected under section 9(5) of the Ordinance. The Sindh High Court held that a financial institution as a single legal entity is duty-bound to disclose a defendant's latest known address, and failure to issue summons at the correct address invalidates the service, rendering publication alone insufficient. The court laid down the principle that for applications under section 12, the merits of the case or admissions of debt are irrelevant; the strict statutory criteria regarding proper service and sufficient cause must govern, and cost of funds must be granted from the date of default rather than the date of filing the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a financial institution is legally bound to disclose a defendant's latest known address in a recovery suit when it has prior knowledge of the same?
  • Can service of summons under section 9(5) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 be deemed valid through newspaper publication alone when mandatory provisions regarding correct addresses and simultaneous modes are not strictly complied with?
  • Whether the merits of a case or admissions of liability can be looked into while deciding an application under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 for setting aside an ex-parte decree?
  • From which date should the cost of funds be granted under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayub Masih vs The State2019 MLD 30 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-26
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsprohibitory clauserecovery of contrabandSection 103 CrPCControl of Narcotic Substances Actbail rejection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications filed by accused persons charged under Sections 6, 9-C, 14, and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following the recovery of substantial quantities of Charas (20 KGs and 8 KGs) from their respective residences. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail despite the significant quantity of contraband recovered and the statutory bars against bail for such offences. The Court dismissed the applications, holding that the recovered quantity attracts the prohibitory clause of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, which restricts bail for offences punishable by death or life imprisonment. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the absence of private witnesses does not vitiate the prosecution's case, as Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 expressly excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in narcotics cases. Consequently, the accused failed to make out a case for the grant of bail, and the applications were rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics fall within the prohibitory clause of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is the requirement of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to searches and arrests conducted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Are accused persons entitled to bail when charged with an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 that is punishable by death or life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Nazir vs Abida Ghufar and 5 others2020 PLC (C. S. ) 810, 2020 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 85, 2019 P.S.C. 923 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-03
  service lawprimary teacher appointmentchange of constituencyrefugee quotadepartmental malpracticecomplete justicewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court whereby a writ petition challenging the appointment of a primary teacher was accepted. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education advertised vacancies for Primary Teachers for Union Council Noora Seri and Town Committee Pattika. The appellant initially applied for the Union Council vacancy, while respondent No. 1 applied for the Town Committee vacancy. Subsequently, after the selection process for the Town Committee was completed, the appellant applied to have her name transferred to the Town Committee list, which the District Education Officer allowed, and she was appointed. The core legal question is whether a candidate can shift their candidature from one constituency to another after the selection process is complete, and how to address administrative malpractices while ensuring complete justice. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, being a refugee of 1990, belonged to a separate 6% quota and could not be arbitrarily shifted to the Town Committee vacancy, thereby upholding respondent No. 1's appointment. However, to prevent penalizing the appellant for departmental malpractice, the Court exercised its inherent powers to direct her adjustment against the 6% refugee quota. The key principle laid down is that candidates cannot change their applied constituencies post-completion of the selection process, and administrative failures regarding reserved quotas must be rectified to ensure complete justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate can be permitted to transfer their candidature from one constituency to another after the selection process for that vacancy has already been completed?
  • Does a district education officer have the authority to shift a candidate's name from the merit list of one locality to another after the conclusion of interviews?
  • Whether a refugee candidate belonging to a specific reserved quota can be appointed against a local general vacancy of a Union Council or Town Committee?
  • Can the Supreme Court exercise inherent powers to adjust a candidate against a reserved quota to ensure complete justice when departmental malpractices occurred?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz and 2 others vs The State and another2019 YLR 1264 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-10-17
  criminal appealidentification paradeocular testimonyforensic evidencerecovery of weaponreasonable doubtacquittalrobbery and murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court for murder and robbery. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the provided evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court emphasized that when culprits are strangers, a proper identification parade is mandatory, and the witness must provide detailed descriptions and specific roles for each accused; failure to do so renders the identification unsafe. Furthermore, the court ruled that recoveries of weapons and stolen money lack evidentiary value when they are not linked to the crime via proper disclosure, when serial numbers of currency are unrecorded, and when the case property is not produced in court. Additionally, the court reiterated that sending crime weapons and empty shells to the forensic laboratory together, coupled with unexplained delays, raises strong suspicion of tampering, thereby invalidating the forensic report. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce stolen property in court during trial invalidate the recovery evidence?
  • Is an identification parade mandatory when the accused are strangers to the eyewitness?
  • Does sending crime weapons and empty shells to a forensic laboratory together, with unexplained delay, render the forensic report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on ocular testimony when the witness fails to attribute specific roles to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Awais Shah vs The State2019 MLD 1120 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-28
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clauseattempted murderfurther inquirycriminal bail applicationpermanent disfigurement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application concerns a request for pre-arrest bail by an accused charged under Sections 324, 452, 337-A(i), and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of knife attacks on the complainant's wife. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries, the prima facie evidence connecting him to the crime, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that sufficient material existed to connect the accused to the offence, noting that a Special Medical Board had classified the injuries as causing permanent disfigurement, thereby attracting the prohibitory clause. The Court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing that at the pre-arrest stage, the Court should not conduct a deep probe into the defence version but rather tentatively assess the prosecution's material to determine if reasonable grounds exist for the accused's involvement. The principle established is that where prima facie evidence connects an accused to a serious offence falling within the prohibitory clause, pre-arrest bail is not warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have to conduct a detailed probe into the defence version when considering a bail application under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is delay in lodging an FIR, by itself, a sufficient ground for the grant of bail?
  • Does an offence causing permanent disfigurement fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Malik vs Ghulam Sarwar2019 KLR Revenue Cases 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-31Read full judgment →
• Attique-U-Rehman and 6 others vs Khadim Hussain and 6 others2019 YLR 932 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-26Read full judgment →
• Attiq-ur-Rahman vs SHO etc2020 P Cr. L J 1155, 2019 PHC 374 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-05
  constitutional petitionregistration of FIRJustice of PeaceCode of Criminal Procedurewrit jurisdictionquashing of inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to set aside an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and to direct the police to register an FIR against the private respondents regarding an alleged abduction attempt and assault arising out of a land dispute. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition and an application under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are warranted when the police have already acted, an inquiry has been conducted, and the allegations are found to be baseless and unproven by CCTV footage and witness statements. The Peshawar High Court held that the impugned order of the Justice of Peace was validly passed and that section 22-A proceedings cannot be used as a shortcut to hamper ongoing legal processes when the matter is already being duly inquired into. The key principle laid down is that the provisions of section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not meant to provide a shortcut or interfere with due process where police action has already been initiated and allegations are prima facie baseless.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ petition under Article 199 be maintained to direct the registration of an FIR when the matter is already under inquiry pursuant to court cognizance?
  • Whether the provisions of section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked as a shortcut when local police have already initiated proceedings in due course of law?
  • Is an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dismissing a section 22-A application liable to be set aside where CCTV footage and witness statements falsify the petitioner's allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaullah vs The State2019 PLD Balochistan 75 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-17
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of the doubtconfessional statementdelayed FIRweapon recoveryocular testimonycontradictory evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the sole eye-witness, the evidentiary value of a delayed FIR, the admissibility and voluntariness of a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the reliability of weapon recovery and police disclosures under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Balochistan High Court held that material contradictions among prosecution witnesses, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording statements, involuntary and flawed judicial confessions induced by promises of compromise, and unverified weapon recoveries collectively created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that if a circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of an accused, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording the statements of key witnesses affects the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Is a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible when influenced by inducement or torture?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a disputed weapon recovery without corroborating forensic evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of medical evidence regarding the identity of an accused person in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Rasool art 3 others vs Haji Muhammad Rafique and 2 others2019 P Cr. L J 1023 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-05
  illegal dispossessioninterim possessionlawful possessionsale agreementcivil litigationlocus standi of attorneycriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application arises from an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South, allowing an application under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and directing the applicants to restore physical possession of the disputed shop to the complainant. The core legal questions involved whether an attorney can file a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, whether pending civil litigation bars criminal proceedings under the Act, and whether a sale agreement confers lawful possession or title to defeat interim restoration. The Sindh High Court held that a criminal complaint under the Act can be instituted by an attorney or a person aware of the offence, that the pendency of civil litigation does not bar criminal proceedings against illegal dispossession, and that a mere agreement to sell does not constitute lawful possession or title. The court laid down that interim relief for restoration of possession under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is designed to protect lawful owners against property grabbers regardless of collateral civil disputes, and dismissed the revision application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can be filed through an attorney on behalf of the owner?
  • Does the pendency of civil litigation or a suit for specific performance bar criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Whether an agreement to sell confers lawful possession or title upon a prospective purchaser to defeat an order of restoration under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a change of hands or transfer of property during the pendency of proceedings defeat an order for restoration of possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 899 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-10
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayspeedy trialfundamental rightsbail as of rightcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, citing the inordinate delay in the conclusion of his trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail as a statutory right due to the prolonged detention without trial progress. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, as the delay in the trial was not attributable to any act or omission on his part. Relying on the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court affirmed that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right protected under Articles 7 and 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. It established that where trial delay is not caused by the accused, the grant of bail is a statutory entitlement rather than a matter of judicial discretion, necessitating the petitioner's release upon furnishing appropriate bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right to a speedy trial a fundamental right of an accused person?
  • Under what circumstances does the delay in the conclusion of a trial entitle an accused to bail as a statutory right?
  • Can a court refuse bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Aurangzaib and 2 others2020 PLJ Cr.C (Quetta) 923, 2019 YLR 2488 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-01
  criminal acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencecommon intentionbenefit of doubtocular accountreappraisal of evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the appellant against the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents was perverse, contrary to the record, or the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any overt acts, injuries, or common intention on the part of the respondents, who were empty-handed, and that the ocular testimony suffered from major contradictions and discrepancies. The court reaffirmed the principle that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence which cannot be interfered with unless the judgment is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or fanciful. Finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court dismissed it in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of acquittal can be interfered with when the prosecution fails to establish common intention?
  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of the crime sufficiently connect them to the offence without proof of overt acts?
  • Whether contradictions in the testimonies of closely related ocular witnesses warrant giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
  • What threshold of proof is required to dislodge the double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Deshani vs District Police Officer, Haripur and 22019 P Cr. L J 275 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-22
  quashment of FIRcognizance of offencesectarian offencesprior sanctionCode of Criminal Procedurepolice investigationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought the quashment of an FIR registered under sections 153-A, 295-A, and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging sectarian speech. The core legal question was whether the failure to obtain prior government sanction, as required by Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendered the FIR and subsequent proceedings liable to be quashed. The Court held that while the police possess the inherent authority to investigate offences without prior sanction, the trial court is strictly barred from taking cognizance of the specified offences unless a complaint is filed under the authority of the Central or Provincial Government. The Court determined that the submission of a routine challan under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, without the requisite government-authorized complaint, was legally defective. Consequently, the proceedings before the trial court were quashed, though the authorities were granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in strict compliance with the procedural mandates of Section 196, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibit the police from investigating offences mentioned therein without prior government sanction?
  • Can a trial court take cognizance of an offence under Section 153-A, 295-A, or 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on a routine police challan?
  • What is the legal consequence of submitting a routine challan instead of a government-authorized complaint for offences covered under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad & an others vs The State2019 SHC 254 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-05Read full judgment →
• Atta Mohammad (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others vs Hassan Nawaz2019 CLC 1392 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-05Read full judgment →
• Atma Ram and others vs The State Of Rajsathan2019 P.S.C.(Crl) 697 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-04-11
  presence of accusedSection 273 CrPCde novo trialdeath referencecurable irregularityretrialexamination of witnessesnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals before the Supreme Court of India challenged a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court setting aside the conviction and death sentence of the appellants and ordering a partial de novo trial. The Trial Court had recorded the depositions of twelve prosecution witnesses without securing the physical presence of the accused, who were in judicial custody, despite objections raised by defence counsel. The core legal questions were whether the violation of Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiated the entire trial necessitating an acquittal, and whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction under Chapters XXVIII and XXIX of the Code to order a partial retrial for the de novo examination of those specific witnesses. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court's directions. It held that infraction of Section 273 is a curable irregularity under Chapter XXXV rather than an incurable defect that automatically vitiates proceedings. Ordering a partial retrial cured the prejudice to the accused while balancing the societal interest and victims' rights to justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of prosecution evidence in the absence of an accused person in violation of Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 automatically vitiate the entire criminal trial?
  • Can an appellate court exercising powers under Chapters XXVIII and XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 order a partial de novo trial to re-examine specific witnesses whose evidence was recorded in the absence of the accused?
  • Is non-compliance with the mandate of Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 a curable procedural irregularity if remediated by securing the presence of the accused during re-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Atif Shahzad alias Kalu vs The State2019 LHC 4285, 2020 PCrLJ 598 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-03
  child witnessoathcompetency of witnessattempted rapeoutraging modestydelayed FIRappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an attempted sexual assault on a minor girl. The core legal questions involved the credibility and admissibility of a child witness's testimony recorded without administering an oath, the evaluation of the delay in lodging the First Information Report, and whether the conviction under section 376/511 P.P.C. was sustainable given the circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that the omission to administer an oath to a child witness under twelve years of age does not render their testimony inadmissible or invalidate proceedings under Section 5 and Section 13 of the Oaths Act 1873, provided the child is competent under Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. However, considering that the assault did not involve penetration and occurred in a public place, the court altered the conviction from attempted rape to outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission to administer an oath to a child witness under twelve years of age render their testimony inadmissible under the Oaths Act 1873?
  • What is the distinction between the competency and the credibility of a witness under Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does a delay of eight days in lodging an FIR for an offence involving family honor and sexual assault invariably damage the prosecution's case?
  • When can an appellate court alter a conviction from attempted rape to outraging the modesty of a woman under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Atif Mehmood S/o Ali Asghar vs The State2019 SHC 584 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24
  criminal appealattempted murdersentencing reductionmitigating circumstancesAnti-Terrorism Actillegal arms possessionbenefit of the doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offences including robbery, assault on public servants, attempted murder, and illegal arms possession. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction for attempted murder and whether the sentences imposed were excessive given the appellants' personal circumstances. The High Court held that while the prosecution successfully proved the charges of robbery, assault, and illegal arms possession, the conviction under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was unsustainable. The Court found the evidence regarding attempted murder doubtful, noting the absence of injuries to police personnel and the failure to recover empty casings from the scene. Consequently, the appellants were acquitted of the attempted murder charge. Furthermore, the Court reduced the sentence for the illegal arms possession charge, considering mitigating factors such as the appellants' youth, their status as primary breadwinners, and their lack of prior criminal records. The judgment affirms that criminal convictions require concrete evidence, and appellate courts may exercise discretion to reduce sentences based on established mitigating circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of recovered empty casings or sustained injuries preclude a conviction under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence based on the appellant's status as a sole breadwinner and lack of prior criminal record?
  • Is a conviction for attempted murder sustainable when there is no evidence of an actual attempt to cause death or injury?
  Read full judgment →
• Atif Iqbal vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 59 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-01
  pre-arrest bailvicarious liabilityextraordinary reliefcriminal investigationbail confirmationvictimization
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail for the petitioners, Atif Iqbal and Amir Iqbal, in a case registered under Sections 324, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of causing injuries, which were declared bailable under Section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court observed that the complainant had implicated seven individuals, four of whom were declared innocent, and a co-accused had already been granted pre-arrest bail. Furthermore, the petitioners had joined the investigation. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief granted to protect innocent individuals from victimization and abuse of legal process, and if an accused has a strong case for post-arrest bail, denying pre-arrest bail merely to incarcerate them is considered unjustified.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail an extraordinary relief to be granted only in extraordinary situations?
  • Should a court deny pre-arrest bail solely to send an accused to jail if they have a strong case for post-arrest bail?
  • Can the question of vicarious liability be conclusively determined at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Athar Sohail vs District & Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, etc2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 104 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 2017-09-25
  compulsory retirementproportionality of punishmentmisconductcivil service disciplineunauthorized absencemajor penaltyservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the proportionality of a major penalty imposed on a civil servant for a single day of unauthorized absence. The appellant, a stenographer, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, for being absent from duty for one day without leave. Following an inquiry, the authority imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement. The appellant challenged this, arguing that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and that the penalty was imposed under duress. The Tribunal held that while the appellant was technically absent, the imposition of a major penalty of compulsory retirement for a single day's absence was excessively harsh and did not commensurate with the gravity of the charge. The Tribunal emphasized that disciplinary authorities must consider the nature and gravity of the charge when determining whether a major or minor penalty is appropriate. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of compulsory retirement, reinstated the appellant, and converted the penalty to the withholding of increments for two years, directing the appellant to refund all pensionary benefits received.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single day of unauthorized absence constitute misconduct warranting a major penalty under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999?
  • Can a civil servant who has accepted pensionary benefits challenge an order of compulsory retirement?
  • Is the proportionality of a penalty a relevant consideration for a Service Tribunal when reviewing disciplinary actions?
  • Does the receipt of pensionary benefits bar a civil servant from seeking reinstatement before a Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Athar Rahim vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2019 PHC 424 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-14
  constitutional petitionde-novo inquiryservice tribunaljudicial reviewdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawcivil serviceadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner following his reinstatement by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had reinstated the petitioner and directed the respondents to conduct a de-novo inquiry within 90 days. The core legal question was whether the respondents could initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings after the expiry of the time limit prescribed by the Tribunal. The High Court held that the respondents failed to comply with the Tribunal's order within the stipulated 90-day period, rendering the subsequent initiation of proceedings illegal and void. The Court emphasized that government departments are duty-bound to honor judicial verdicts, and non-compliance undermines the rule of law and the administration of justice. The Court affirmed that it possesses the authority under its constitutional jurisdiction to judicially review executive discretion when such actions violate tribunal orders or impede the administration of justice. Consequently, the departmental proceedings initiated beyond the prescribed period were declared null and void, protecting the petitioner from stale and unauthorized disciplinary action.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department initiate disciplinary proceedings after the expiry of the time limit set by a Service Tribunal for a de-novo inquiry?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to judicially review executive discretion in disciplinary matters when such actions violate a Service Tribunal's order?
  • What is the legal effect of a department's failure to comply with a Service Tribunal's directive to complete an inquiry within a specified period?
  Read full judgment →
• Athar Khan vs Abdul Majeed and others2019 YLR 1292 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-05
  criminal acquittal appeallimitation periodcondonation of delaydouble presumption of innocenceinterested witnessbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 504, and 337-H(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the acquittal judgment was perverse and whether the appeal, filed beyond the limitation period without a condonation application, was maintainable. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, the appeal was time-barred, and the appellant failed to explain the delay. On merits, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing material contradictions, the lack of weapon recovery, and the status of prosecution witnesses as interested parties. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the scope of interference in an acquittal appeal is extremely narrow, as the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence. Appellate courts should only interfere if the trial court’s findings are perverse, arbitrary, or suffer from grave misreading of evidence, which was not established in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment if the trial court's findings are not perverse or arbitrary?
  • Is an appeal against acquittal maintainable if it is time-barred and no application for condonation of delay is filed?
  • Does the double presumption of innocence apply in criminal appeals against acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be based on the testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration regarding motive?
  Read full judgment →
• Ata Ghous vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 372 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-24
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausemala fidecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Ata Ghouns in case FIR No. 615 dated 07.11.2018 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Rajanpur, District Rajanpur, concerning the alleged dishonest issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in the circumstances of the case. The Lahore High Court accepted the application and confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that the FIR was registered with an unexplained delay of over two months, the original cheque and return memo were missing from the record, investigation revealed the cheque was given as security, the offence fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioner had joined the investigation without any recovery made from him, and mala fide could be inferred from the facts and circumstances alongside the absence of misuse of ad-interim bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause, evidence is doubtful, and mala fide is inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when an FIR is registered with an unexplained delay?
  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is pre-arrest bail grantable when the investigating agency reveals that the cheque was handed over by way of security?
  Read full judgment →
• Aswa d Iqbal vs R.P.O., etc2020 PLD Lahore 434, 2019 LHC 2931 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
• Associated Engineering Concern (Pvt) Ltd vs Lahore Development2020 [M] C L R 244, 2019 PLD Lahore 478, 2019 LHC 2028 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-16Read full judgment →
• Assetlink Asia (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2020 CLC 410, 2019 SHC 31 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah vs The State2019 SHC 414 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-17
  post-arrest bailpre-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquirydelay in FIRright to speedy trialcorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal bail applications filed by the applicants seeking pre-arrest and post-arrest bail in a crime registered under Sections 161, 162, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 regarding alleged corruption and kickbacks in the clearance of oil seed cargo. The core legal questions involve whether the delay in lodging the FIR, the filing of an affidavit of no objection by the original complainant, and the absence of direct recovery or submission of a final challan within the statutory period make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the applicants have made out a case for bail as the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, no exceptional circumstances exist to withhold bail, and delayed investigation infringes upon the right to a speedy trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principles laid down are that bail is the rule and refusal an exception where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, and that tentative assessment of delay, lack of recovery, and compromised witness statements warrant further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of six months in lodging the FIR makes a criminal case one of further inquiry entitling the accused to bail?
  • Does the failure to submit a final charge sheet within the statutory timeframe justify the grant of bail on the grounds of a speedy trial?
  • Whether bail should be granted when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal effect of the original complainant filing an affidavit of no objection in favour of the accused in a bail matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah vs Federation of Pakistan etc2019 YLR 1983, 2019 PHC 30 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-19Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Khan vs The State etc2019 P Cr. L J 1073, 2019 PHC 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-22
  criminal appealacquittalcircumstantial evidenceconfession to policeelectronic evidencecall data recordmurderQanoon-e-Shahadat Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including alleged call data records, a USB containing a purported confession, and the recovery of the deceased's motorcycle. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to connect the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of eyewitnesses. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Article 38 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, the Court ruled that electronic evidence, such as call data records and USB recordings, must be strictly proved through authorized experts as per Articles 46-A and 78-A of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The principle laid down is that in unseen occurrences, circumstantial evidence requires strong, independent corroboration, and medical evidence alone cannot establish the identity of the accused or connect them to the commission of the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made to a police officer admissible as evidence against an accused?
  • Can electronic evidence, such as call data records or USB recordings, be admitted without proof from a legally authorized expert?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to establish the identity of an accused in an unseen murder occurrence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence in the absence of eyewitnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Jan vs M/s National Bank of Pakistan etc2020 PLC (C.S.) 217, 2019 PHC 204 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-05
  writ jurisdictioncontractual employmentretainershipvested rightcontract renewalservice arrearsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the renewal of his retainership contract with the respondent bank and the payment of alleged arrears for services rendered after the contract's expiry. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could compel a statutory body to renew a contract that had expired by its own terms and whether it could adjudicate claims for arrears arising from a disputed period of service. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, dismissing it on the grounds that the petitioner, as a contract employee, had no vested right to the renewal of his engagement, which was at the sole discretion of the bank. Furthermore, the Court ruled that contractual disputes, including claims for arrears, must be resolved by courts of ordinary jurisdiction rather than through writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere in purely contractual obligations or compel the extension of a contract where no fundamental right is violated.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to compel a statutory body to renew an expired contract?
  • Does an employee engaged on a contract or retainership basis possess a vested right to claim renewal or regularization?
  • Can claims for arrears arising from alleged contractual obligations be adjudicated by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmat Ullah vs Chief Secretary etc2020 PLD Peshawar 35, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 93, 2019 PHC 378 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
• Asmat Ullah Jan vs M/s. National Bank of Pakistan through President2019 PLJ Peshawar 187 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Asma Hassan & Another vs Askari Bank Limited2020 CLC 1068, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 361, 2021 P C T L R 774, 2019 SHC 70 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-13Read full judgment →
• Aslam Pervez vs Madarsa Anwarul Islam Ghousia Faridia (Regd.) Noor2019 YLR 313 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-27Read full judgment →
• Aslam Pervaiz and another vs Tameer Ali and 7 others2019 YLR 228 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-27
  Ex-Officio Justice of PeaceFIR registrationnon-cognizable offenceinterim reportpolice negligencecriminal procedurequashment of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from an application filed under Section 22-A(6)(iii), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the respondent sought police protection and directions for the recovery of an abductee. The Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to lodge an FIR against the applicants, alleging they failed to perform their duties and supported the accused. The applicants challenged this order before the High Court under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing that they had submitted the interim report to the District Public Prosecutor within the prescribed time, and any delay in forwarding it to the Magistrate was not their fault. The Court held that even if the applicants failed to submit the interim report within the prescribed time, such an omission constitutes an offence under Section 166 or Section 166(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which are non-cognizable offences. Consequently, the Court ruled that an FIR cannot be registered for non-cognizable offences under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The impugned order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR be registered against police officials for failing to submit an interim report within the prescribed time under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an omission to perform official duties under Section 166, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constitute a cognizable offence justifying the registration of an FIR?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace direct the registration of an FIR for a non-cognizable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Aslam Khan vs Fawad Akhtar2019 PHC 178 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited through Duly Authorized Attorney vs President of Pakistan through Director (Legal-II) and others2020 P C T L R 1050, 2019 CLD 999 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-05Read full judgment →
• Asima Shafique vs Public Service Commission, Azad Jammu & Kashmir2019 SC AJK 148 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-07-08Read full judgment →
• Asim Nawaz alias Kaleem Nawaz vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 920 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-18
  anti-terrorismhate materialfacebook profilecyber crimesentencing philosophyrehabilitationmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 9 and 11-W(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for disseminating hate material and symbols of a proscribed organization on his Facebook account. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of electronic and forensic evidence regarding social media postings and the principles governing the quantum of sentence and rehabilitation. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a shadow of doubt based on consistent witness testimonies and forensic analysis of the recovered digital devices. While maintaining the conviction, the High Court emphasized the philosophy of sentencing, particularly the role of rehabilitation, judicial discretion in indeterminate sentencing, and mitigating circumstances such as the appellant being a first-time offender and having undergone the rigours of trial without misusing bail. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on merits regarding the conviction but reduced the substantive sentences of imprisonment to the period already undergone, while maintaining the fines.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can prove dissemination of hate material through Facebook posts via forensic analysis of recovered digital devices and consistent witness testimonies?
  • What are the five philosophies of sentencing under criminal jurisprudence, and how do they apply to the rehabilitation of a first-time offender?
  • Does the use of the words 'may extend to' in penal statutes grant courts the discretion to award indeterminate sentences keeping in view the reformation of the convict?
  • Can an appellate court maintain a criminal conviction while reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone based on mitigating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim Ali vs Hira Asim and others2019 YLR 2153 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-25Read full judgment →
• Asifa Jawed vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 326, 2019 SHC 262 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-07
  service benefitsPrime Minister's Assistance Packagewidow quotaallotment of plotlump sum grantretrospective operationOffice Memorandum
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, widow of a deceased government employee who passed away in 2012, sought a direction against the respondents for the payment of a lump sum grant in lieu of a plot under the revised Prime Minister's Assistance Package of 2015. The core legal question was whether the amended assistance package providing cash in lieu of plots applied retrospectively to the families of employees who died prior to the cutoff date of the new policy. The Sindh High Court held that the revised assistance package introducing cash payments instead of plot allotments cannot be applied retrospectively to cases where the employee died before the promulgation of the new policy. The court laid down the principle that subordinate policy instruments such as Office Memoranda operate prospectively from their designated effective dates, and pending or past cases must be governed by the policy framework in force at the time of the employee's death, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for a plot under the 2006 quota policy instead.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Prime Minister's Assistance Package providing cash in lieu of a plot applies retrospectively to the widows of government employees who died before the promulgation of the revised policy?
  • Is the widow of a government employee who died prior to February 9, 2015, entitled to a cash grant under the revised Assistance Package or to a plot under the 2006 policy quota?
  • Can executive Office Memoranda regarding service assistance packages be applied prior to their explicitly notified effective dates?
  Read full judgment →
• Asifa Ayaz Toosy vs Additional District Judge and others2019 CLC 362 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-07Read full judgment →
• Asif Saleem vs Chairman Bog University of Lahore etc2020 [M] C L R 808, 2019 PLD Lahore 407, 2019 LHC 1620, 2019 PLD Lahore 407 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-13
  sexual harassmentlimine control doctrineconstitutional petitionworkplace harassmenteducational institutionsdisciplinary actionfundamental rightswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Professor and Ph.D. student, challenged his dismissal from service and expulsion from the University of Lahore following allegations of sexual harassment. The core legal questions concerned the justification of the penalties imposed under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Amendment) Act, 2012, and the maintainability of the constitutional petition. The Court held that the petitioner’s conduct, involving unwanted sexual advances toward a student, constituted a fundamental breach of trust and violated the victim's constitutional right to dignity. Emphasizing the state's duty to ensure a safe environment for women, the Court upheld the disciplinary actions taken by the University and the Higher Education Commission. Furthermore, the Court invoked the "Limine Control Doctrine," ruling that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, cannot be used to resolve disputed factual controversies or bypass alternate remedies. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, as it lacked merit and sought to re-litigate established findings of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise constitutional jurisdiction to resolve disputed questions of fact?
  • Does the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Amendment) Act, 2012 apply to the relationship between a teacher and a student?
  • Can a constitutional petition be dismissed in limine if the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy?
  • Does sexual harassment in an educational institution constitute a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Rauf Khan vs Chief Minister Punjab through Secretary (Services), Services & General Administration Department, Punjab, Lahore and another2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 131 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  disciplinary proceedingsservice appealmisconductinquiry officernatural justiceland mutationcivil court jurisdictionreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant, an Assistant Commissioner, following disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The core legal questions concern the validity of the disciplinary inquiry process and whether the appellant’s judicial order regarding land mutations constituted misconduct. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the dismissal order was unsustainable, citing significant procedural irregularities in the inquiry, including the inquiry officer’s failure to remain neutral, the denial of cross-examination, and the reliance on flawed evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that inquiry officers must act as independent adjudicators rather than prosecutors. Furthermore, the Tribunal affirmed that the appellant’s order, which declined to adjudicate disputed land titles and allegations of fraud, was legally correct. It established that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction over complex title disputes and fraud, which are exclusively within the domain of Civil Courts. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal, ordering the appellant’s reinstatement with full back benefits, noting that the departmental authorities failed to apply their minds to the legal merits of the appellant's actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inquiry officer under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 act improperly by assuming the role of a prosecutor?
  • Is a revenue officer the appropriate authority to adjudicate disputes involving land title and allegations of fraud?
  • Are disciplinary proceedings vitiated if the inquiry officer fails to provide the accused an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses?
  • Does a civil servant's judicial order, which correctly identifies that a matter falls under Civil Court jurisdiction, constitute misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Majeed Paul vs Ministry of Finance and another2020 [M] C L R 268, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 907 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-15
  writ jurisdictionmaintainabilitymaster and servantpension benefitsnon-statutory rulesconstitutional petitionprivatized bankservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by retired employees of Habib Bank Limited (HBL) seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Ministry of Finance and HBL to enhance their pensionary benefits in accordance with a 1977 Finance Division circular, aligning them with civil servants. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable for employees of a privatized bank to enforce pension claims when the governing service rules are non-statutory. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, including Muhammad Zaman v. Government of Pakistan, the Court determined that the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981, are non-statutory. Consequently, the relationship between HBL and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant, precluding the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for service-related grievances. The Court distinguished this matter from cases involving statutory entities and dismissed the petition, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redress.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable by employees of a privatized bank whose service rules are non-statutory?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of Habib Bank Limited?
  • Are the Habib Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981, considered statutory rules for the purpose of invoking Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Majeed Paul and another vs Ministry of Finance and another2019 KLR Labour & Services Cases 65, 2019 IHC 18 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-14Read full judgment →
• Asif Majeed and another vs S. P. Kotli and 2 others2019 MLD 287 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-06-28
  quashment of FIRinherent powerstampering of revenue recordcivil and criminal proceedingsinvestigation stageabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of an FIR registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to alleged tampering with the revenue record and execution of an exchange-deed. The core legal question was whether an FIR can be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court when the matter is still under investigation and cognizable offences are alleged, and whether civil and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court cannot act as an investigating agency to determine the truth or falsity of allegations at the pre-trial or investigation stage, and that civil and independent criminal proceedings can run parallel without mutually affecting each other where the alleged forgery occurred prior to the institution of the civil suit. The key principle laid down is that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be rarely invoked and ordinarily an FIR at the investigation stage will not be quashed where a cognizable offence is disclosed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while the case is still at the investigation stage?
  • Do civil and criminal proceedings regarding the same subject matter run simultaneously?
  • Does the High Court possess the power to act as an investigating agency to determine the truthfulness of allegations under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the specific ingredients required for the quashment of an FIR under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Kamal vs The Judge Accountability Court, Multan, etc2020 P Cr. L J 1, 2019 LHC 2803 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-18
  under-trial prisonertransfer of custodyAccountability Courtfundamental rightspresumption of innocencejudicial remandprison rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an under-trial prisoner facing multiple corruption references before Accountability Courts in Multan, Lahore, and Rawalpindi, challenged orders passed by the Judge Accountability Court, Multan, dismissing his applications for the transfer of his custody from District Jail, Multan, to Camp Jail, Lahore. The core legal question revolved around whether an under-trial prisoner's custody could be transferred from one prison to another without or with the concurrence of the committing court, and the extent of rights protected under prison laws. The Lahore High Court held that while the executive lacks independent statutory power under section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 to transfer under-trial prisoners without judicial orders, the courts possess inherent jurisdiction to order such transfers upon considering situational demands, hardships, and fundamental rights, provided the transfer does not prejudice the right to a fair trial. The Court laid down that an under-trial prisoner retains an inherent presumption of innocence and fundamental rights, including family visitation and access to private food, and that an order regarding the transfer of custody of an under-trial prisoner is a judicial function rather than a ministerial one.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an under-trial prisoner can be transferred from one prison to another without the concurrence of the committing court?
  • Does the executive or the Provincial Government possess the independent power under section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 to transfer an under-trial prisoner?
  • Are under-trial prisoners entitled to fundamental rights and privileges such as family visitation and private food under the prison laws?
  • Is an order for the transfer of custody of an under-trial prisoner considered a judicial order or a ministerial one?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Hussain vs Addl. District Judge, Sahiwal, etc.2019 PLJ Lahore 534 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-22Read full judgment →
• Asif Hassan and others vs Sabir Hussain and others2019 SCMR 1720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-07-25
  Quo warrantoAppointment challengeEligibility criteriaService regulationsPublic officeConstitutional jurisdictionQualificationExperienceSupreme CourtSindh High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal against a Sindh High Court judgment that declared appointments to Inspector (Security) (BPS-15) posts as null and void. The core legal questions revolved around whether the petitioners possessed the requisite qualification and experience for the posts as per the advertisement and service rules, and the crucial date for assessing eligibility in quo warranto proceedings. The Supreme Court, converting the petition into an appeal, allowed it and set aside the High Court's judgment. The Court found that the petitioners met the prescribed qualification and experience. It was held that the crucial date for determining eligibility in quo warranto is the cut-off date prescribed in the selection process, not the date of issuance of the writ or during its pendency. Acquiring qualifications during the pendency of proceedings does not cure initial ineligibility, and the Court cannot assume the role of the appointing authority to judge suitability.

  Read full judgment →
• Asif Hameed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment2019 PLJ Islamabad 184 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Asif dildar Haider vs The State2019 SHC 516 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-13Read full judgment →
• Asif alias China and another vs The State2019 YLR 1458 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-02-11
  criminal appealrobberybenefit of doubtidentification paradeSection 342 Cr.P.C.delayed FIRappreciation of evidenceHaraabah
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 20 of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for robbery. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the inordinate 46-day delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of an identification parade, and material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. The Court emphasized that the complainant’s testimony was inconsistent and improved upon the initial FIR, and the failure to conduct an identification parade significantly weakened the case. Crucially, the Court ruled that the trial court's failure to confront the accused with the alleged recovery of stolen property during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was a fatal irregularity. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, affirming the principle that any substantial doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to confront an accused with the recovery of incriminating property during a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a conviction?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when there is an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence?
  • Can a conviction for robbery be upheld in the absence of an identification parade when the accused were previously unknown to the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Zardari vs The State through Chairman, National Accountability2019 PLD Islamabad 538 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-06-10Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Zardari vs State through Chairman, National Accountability2019 PLJ Islamabad 168 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Asif Ali vs Allah Rakhio and another2019 MLD 1401 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-25
  acquittalamended chargedouble jeopardyautrefois acquitfunctus officiocriminal revisionreview of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application impugned the order of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jacobabad, whereby an application filed by the Prosecutor under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to frame an amended charge by adding new offences after a lapse of two years from the applicant's acquittal was allowed. The core legal question was whether an acquitted accused can be subjected to an amended charge or retrial on the same facts without the prior acquittal being set aside by a competent appellate or revisional forum. The Sindh High Court held that once an accused is acquitted under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the order attains finality due to lack of challenge, the trial court becomes functus officio under Section 369, and initiating a retrial or framing an amended charge on the same facts violates the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The revision application was accordingly accepted and the impugned order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who has been acquitted under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can subsequently be subjected to an amended charge on the same facts?
  • Does the framing of an amended charge against a previously acquitted person violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a trial court review or alter its own order of acquittal in view of the bar contained in Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal effect of an unchallenged order of acquittal on the trial court's jurisdiction regarding the same accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Memon vs The Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 22019 PLC (C.S.) 492 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-28
  civil servanttransfer and postingconstitutional petition maintainabilityservice tribunal jurisdictiontenure postingcaretaker setupbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, filed a constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenging notifications withdrawing his posting as Deputy Commissioner and assigning respondent No. 3 in his place, arguing violation of tenure rules established in Anita Turab's case. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability under Article 212 of the Constitution, arguing that matters of transfer and posting relate to terms and conditions of service exclusively triable by the Service Tribunal. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition by a civil servant regarding transfer and posting, and the applicability of tenure protection principles during a caretaker setup. The Court held that matters of transfer and posting constitute terms and conditions of service, making a constitutional petition barred under Article 212 of the Constitution, with the proper remedy lying before the Service Tribunal. The Court further held that tenure protections do not preclude transfers for compelling reasons, particularly under a caretaker government and election commission directives. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable and devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to a particular posting or tenure?
  • Is a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant regarding transfer and posting barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the rule against frequent transfers established in Anita Turab's case apply strictly during a caretaker government setup?
  • Do matters of transfer and posting fall within the definition of terms and conditions of service under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashraf @ Hashoo vs The State2019 SHC 225 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-11
  benefit of doubtpolice encounteranti-terrorismrecovery discrepancyindependent witnesscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Karachi, which found the appellant guilty of offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the Pakistan Penal Code, and the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, following an alleged police encounter. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given the lack of independent witnesses and inconsistencies in the evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt. The Court noted significant procedural lapses, including the failure to associate independent witnesses despite the opportunity, the non-production of the damaged police vehicle, and a material discrepancy between the recovery of a rifle and the charge of recovering a pistol. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce damaged property (police vehicle) in a police encounter case create reasonable doubt?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt if there is a material discrepancy between the weapon recovered and the weapon charged?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during an arrest and recovery process render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain vs UBL Insurers Limited through Chief Executive and another2019 CLD 467 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Elahi vs The State, etc2020 PCr. L J 271, 2019 LHC 2435 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-13
  accidental firingmens reabenefit of doubtmurderdiyatcriminal appealfirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 319 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for accidental firing resulting in death. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant possessed the requisite mens rea for murder, whether the incident was an accident exempt under criminal law, and whether a conviction under Section 319 PPC is sustainable when a weapon goes off accidentally without design. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any previous enmity, motive, or intentional act by the appellant, noting instead that the weapon was handed to him voluntarily to kill a snake and went off accidentally. The court laid down the principle that where an act lacks mens rea and occurs purely by accident without negligence, penal liability under provisions like Section 319 PPC is not attracted, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt leading to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under Section 319 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained when a firearm goes off accidentally without any design or intention to harm?
  • Does the absence of mens rea and previous enmity vitiate a conviction for intentional or culpable homicide?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution evidence regarding motive and weapon recovery remains doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaque Hussain Lahori vs Lal Bux and 7 others2019 YLR 297 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-21Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq vs The State and others2019 P Cr. LJ 1683 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-20
  murderocular evidencebenefit of doubtchance witnesscriminal appealdeath sentencerecoveryQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Ashfaq, for the murder of Mazhar Ilyas under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through the provided ocular and circumstantial evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the scene, noting their failure to intervene during the attack, the absence of a verified light source, and inconsistencies in their testimony. Furthermore, the court found the recovery of the weapon violated Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that the motive remained unproven. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, answering the murder reference in the negative. The judgment reaffirms the principle that medical evidence is only confirmatory and cannot identify a culprit, and that any reasonable doubt arising from the circumstances must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on medical evidence when the ocular account is disbelieved?
  • Does the failure of eyewitnesses to intervene during an attack cast doubt on their presence at the scene?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused?
  • Can a recovery be considered valid if conducted in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq vs The State and anothers2019 KLR Criminal Cases 382 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-20
  murdercapital punishmentbenefit of the doubtocular accountchance witnessmedical evidencedelayed post-mortemrecovery of weaponcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Ashfaq, handed down by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased, Mazhar Ilyas. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account given by related eyewitnesses, the existence of sufficient light for identification at night, the reliability of the weapon recovery, and the corroborative value of medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eyewitnesses at the crime scene, as their conduct in remaining passive spectators during multiple stab wounds ran counter to natural human behavior under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, the absence of proof regarding a light source, unexplained delays in the post-mortem examination, and flaws in the recovery of the weapon under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the passive conduct of close relatives who witness a fatal attack without attempting to intervene renders their presence at the crime scene doubtful?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on medical evidence when the ocular account and eyewitness testimonies have been disbelieved?
  • Does an unexplained delay between the registration of an FIR and the conduct of a post-mortem examination weaken the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the failure to prove the availability of an electric light source at the crime scene at night vitiates the identification of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmed, etc vs C.D.A., etc2019 PLD ISB 299, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 147 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-04Read full judgment →
• Asghar vs The State2019 P Cr.L 1239 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-03-26
  post-arrest bailmurderhonor killingcompromisefurther inquiryminor children welfare
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance for the murder of his wife, sought post-arrest bail after the trial court rejected his application. The trial court had initially refused bail on the grounds that the incident constituted an honor killing and that the compromise reached between the accused and the deceased's brother was not voluntary or legally competent. Upon review, the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the police report did not classify the offense as an honor killing, but rather as a simple murder. Furthermore, the Court found the compromise valid, noting that the deceased's parents were deceased and her brother, the complainant, had consented to the compromise. Emphasizing the welfare of the minor children who required their father's care, the Court determined that the case warranted further inquiry and that continued incarceration served no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, setting aside the trial court's refusal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can refuse bail based on an allegation of honor killing when the police report does not classify the offense as such?
  • Is a compromise between an accused and the brother of a deceased wife legally valid when the parents of the deceased are no longer alive?
  • Does the welfare of minor children constitute a relevant factor in determining whether to grant post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Shah vs The State2019 YLR 441 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-10
  criminal appealmurderrapeconfessional statementsupplementary statementbenefit of the doubtrecovery witnessesmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Thatta, convicting the appellant, Asghar Shah, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and Section 376(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rape, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the FIR naming another accused, a subsequent supplementary statement implicating the appellant, the co-accused's unproven confessional statement, and medical evidence regarding semen swabs. The Sindh High Court examined whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of ocular testimony implicating the appellant, the evidentiary value of supplementary statements and unproven confessions, and compliance with search and seizure laws. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the appellant was not named in the FIR, the supplementary statement and co-accused's confession lacked legal sanctity, and mandatory provisions regarding independent witnesses were flouted. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant on the principle of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of a supplementary statement and an unproven confessional statement of a co-accused?
  • Does the mere presence of human sperms on a medical report prove the commission of rape without semen grouping and matching?
  • Is the association of private independent witnesses mandatory during searches and recoveries under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State2019 YLR 2450, 2019 KLR Criminal Cases 292 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-13
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtmurder referencelast-seen evidencerecovery memocriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentences of the appellants for the murder of a minor. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, specifically last-seen testimony, extra-judicial confessions, and the recovery of the deceased's body. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting significant inconsistencies in the ocular accounts, an unexplained delay in reporting the crime, and the unreliability of the alleged extra-judicial confessions, which were made to persons lacking authority. Furthermore, the Court found the recovery of the body procedurally flawed, as it lacked a formal recovery memo and relied solely on pointation. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that circumstantial evidence must be of an unimpeachable character to sustain a conviction. It emphasizes that where the prosecution's case is riddled with doubts, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prepare a formal recovery memo for a dead body render the discovery of that body on the pointation of the accused legally doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of extra-judicial confessions made to persons who are not in a position of authority or influence?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt extended to an accused as a matter of right or as a matter of grace when the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent?
  • Does the delay in reporting a crime, when coupled with inconsistent ocular evidence, undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Asg Metals Ltd vs Security & Exchange Commission of Pakistan2020 CLD 377, 2019 SHC 470 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Asad Zaheer through Attorney vs Muhammad Ismail and another2019 CLC 804 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-03Read full judgment →
• Asad Rehmat vs The State, etcPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 455, 2019 SCMR 1156, 2019 SCP 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-20
  Criminal appealAcquittalReasonable doubtMurderEvidence appreciationMedical evidenceProsecution caseBenefit of doubtAnti-Terrorism Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentences of the appellant, Asad Rehmat, initially by an Anti-Terrorism Court and subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court, for multiple murders. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, given several inconsistencies in the evidence. The Supreme Court observed significant discrepancies, including the timeline for rigor mortis, the implausibility of the police narrative regarding the appellant's escape and confrontation, the absence of crucial witnesses (motorbike owner, alleged abductee), and the varying dimensions of entry wounds on the deceased, which suggested the use of multiple weapons, contradicting the single-weapon theory. The Court held that these aspects lent credence to the appellant's defense and created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt cannot be withheld merely due to the magnitude of violence and loss of life.

  Read full judgment →
• Asad Nawaz vs Zulfiqar Afzal Khan etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 348 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-21
  re-examination of witnesscriminal procedureorder of examinationcross-examinationjudicial discretionSection 540 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock, which permitted the prosecution to re-examine a medical witness (PW-6) before the defense had conducted its cross-examination. The core legal question was whether a trial court, while exercising its powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall a witness, can bypass the procedural order of examination prescribed by the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court held that while Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants the trial court broad discretion to recall and re-examine witnesses for the just decision of the case, this power does not override the mandatory procedural sequence of examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination established by Articles 132 and 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the Court upheld the permission to re-examine the witness but modified the trial court's order, directing that the defense must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the witness before any re-examination occurs, with a further right to re-cross-examine if new matters arise.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power of a court to recall a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 override the procedural order of examination prescribed by the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a trial court permit the re-examination of a prosecution witness before the defense has completed its cross-examination?
  • What is the correct procedural sequence for recalling and re-examining a witness who has already provided examination-in-chief?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Nawaz vs Zulfiqar Afzal Khan and others2019 P Cr. L J 883 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-21
  re-examination of witnessSection 540 Cr.P.C.order of examinationcross-examinationQanun-e-Shahadat Ordertrial procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan Abdal, which permitted the prosecution to re-examine a medical witness (PW-6) under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically before the witness had undergone cross-examination by the defence. The core legal question was whether a trial court can order the re-examination of a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prior to the completion of the witness's cross-examination. The Court held that while Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants broad powers to recall and re-examine witnesses for the just decision of a case, this power must be exercised in accordance with the procedural requirements of Articles 132 and 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court ruled that re-examination must follow the sequence of examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and then re-examination. Consequently, the trial court's order was modified to ensure the witness is first cross-examined by the defence before any re-examination occurs, preserving the statutory order of examination.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court order the re-examination of a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the witness has been cross-examined?
  • Does the power of a court to recall a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 override the procedural order of examination prescribed in the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • What is the correct procedural sequence for the examination, cross-examination, and re-examination of a witness under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Amin vs Noor Hussain2019 YLR 902 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-29Read full judgment →
• Asad alias Nazir and another vs The State2019 MLD 1821 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-06
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRsupplementary statementimprovements in testimonyeyewitness credibilityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder and related offenses. The core legal questions involved the credibility of delayed eyewitness testimony, the legal status of supplementary statements implicating accused persons after a lapse of twelve years, and the benefit of reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that an FIR lodged against unknown persons cannot be subsequently altered through delayed supplementary statements and improvements to introduce familiar accused persons without plausible explanation, and that material contradictions, tainted investigations, and long unexplained delays create serious doubts regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, laying down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a delayed supplementary statement naming accused persons after twelve years can be equated with an FIR or used to sustain a conviction?
  • Does a material improvement made by a witness during trial destroy their credibility on a capital charge?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Whether an eyewitness who fails to name known culprits in the prompt FIR can subsequently introduce them without explaining the delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad alias Diloo vs The State2019 YLR 2719 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-25
  criminal appealmurderidentification paradechance witnessmedical evidencerecovery of weaponbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jamshoro at Kotri, convicting the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life for murder and robbery. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the evidentiary value of an identification parade without prior physical description of the culprits, the lack of forensic ballistics reports for recovered weapons, and discrepancies in medical and ocular evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that material contradictions among eyewitnesses, the absence of initial physical descriptions, flaws in the identification parade, and the lack of a Forensic Science Laboratory report regarding the weapon rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a prior physical description of the assailant by eyewitnesses renders a subsequent identification parade inconsequential?
  • Does the failure to send a recovered crime weapon and empties for a Forensic Science Laboratory report make the recovery irrelevant as corroborative evidence?
  • Whether material contradictions among eyewitnesses regarding the manner of assault are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Is dock identification of an accused for the first time in court without a prior identification parade considered reliable incriminating evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali Khan vs Special Judge Rent etc2019 PLD Lahore 363, 2019 PLJ Lahore 335 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-08Read full judgment →
• Asad Akram and Ors vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2019 SHC 330 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-02Read full judgment →
• Arun Ravindranath Sawhney vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central2019 PCTLR 891 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Arshid Mehmood vs Yasmin Arshid2019 SC AJK 88 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-04-24Read full judgment →
• Arshad Rasool vs Mst. Saniya and another2019 YLR 700 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-27Read full judgment →