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.

• Zulfiqar Ali Bakhtiari and others vs Mst. Khalida Bakhtiari and another2018 KLR Civil Cases 6, 2018 YLR 942 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-16Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Bakhtiari and 3 others vs Mst. Khalida Bakhtiari and another2018 KLR Civil Cases 6 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-16Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali and others vs B.B.C. Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Editor2018 PLC 90 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2015-07-10
  workman statusgrievance petitionindustrial relationscontractual employmentmanagerial capacitynewspaper employeetermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two grievance petitions filed by former 'Reporters' of the BBC Urdu Service challenging their termination from service. The core legal question was whether the petitioners qualified as 'workmen' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, thereby granting them the standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission. The Commission held that the petitioners were not 'workmen' and dismissed the petitions as not maintainable. The ratio established is that the status of an employee is determined by the nature of their actual duties rather than their designation or salary. The Commission found that the petitioners' job descriptions involved intellectual analysis, editorial judgment, and managerial functions, which do not constitute manual or clerical work. Furthermore, it was held that the BBC Urdu Service does not qualify as a 'newspaper establishment' under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973. Consequently, the petitioners failed to satisfy the legal criteria required to invoke the Commission's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the designation of 'Reporter' automatically confer the status of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Is the BBC Urdu Service considered a 'newspaper establishment' under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
  • Does the performance of managerial or administrative duties exclude an employee from the definition of 'workman'?
  • What is the primary criterion for determining whether an employee qualifies as a 'workman' for the purposes of labor laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta., Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed., All Pakistan Aam Admi2018 P.S.C. 687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  party headdisqualificationhonest and ameenpolitical partiesfundamental rightsharmonious interpretationelection act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging the validity of Sections 203 and 232 of the Election Act, 2017, which omitted the explicit bar preventing disqualified persons from serving as office-bearers or heads of political parties, a restriction previously contained in the Political Parties Order, 2002. The core legal questions concern whether a person disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution can legally become or remain the head of a political party and exercise powers under Article 63A. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that sub-constitutional legislation cannot bypass or override constitutional provisions and that the Election Act, 2017 must be read harmoniously with the Constitution. Consequently, the court ruled that any person suffering from a disqualification under Articles 62 or 63 is legally debarred from holding the office of a party head. The key principle laid down is that qualifications and probity standards mandated for parliamentarians under Articles 62 and 63 equally apply to the leadership of political parties to preserve the foundational integrity of democratic and legislative institutions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person disqualified under Article 62 or 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan can hold the office of a Party Head under the Election Act, 2017?
  • Does the right to form and be a member of a political party under Article 17 of the Constitution include the unfettered right to choose a disqualified person as party head?
  • Can sub-constitutional legislation override or circumvent the qualifications and disqualifications prescribed for parliamentarians under the Constitution?
  • What is the effect of the repeal of the Political Parties Order, 2002, on a disqualification already incurred under its provisions prior to the enactment of the Election Act, 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others2018 PLJ SC 328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-02-21
  constitutional disqualificationparty headpolitical partyparliamentary democracyelection actfundamental rightsprobity and integrity
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the legality of a disqualified person holding the office of Party Head of a political party under the Election Act, 2017. The core legal question was whether the statutory provisions allowing such a person to lead a political party could override the constitutional requirements of probity and integrity mandated for parliamentary representatives. The Supreme Court held that the Election Act, 2017 must be construed in harmony with the Constitution. The Court declared that any person lacking the qualifications or suffering from disqualifications under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is legally barred from holding the position of Party Head or exercising powers under Article 63-A. Consequently, the Court ruled that all actions, orders, and documents issued by such a disqualified individual in the capacity of Party Head after their disqualification are void ab initio. The Election Commission of Pakistan was directed to remove the name of the disqualified individual from all records as Party Head, establishing the principle that constitutional disqualification extends to the leadership of political parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 hold the position of Party Head of a political party?
  • Are the provisions of the Election Act, 2017 subject to the constitutional requirements of Articles 62, 63, and 63-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • What is the legal status of actions taken by a Party Head after their disqualification under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta and 15 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others2018 PLD Supreme Court 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-02-21
  Constitutional interpretationPolitical party headDisqualificationParliamentary membershipElection Act 2017Fundamental rightsDemocratic process
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the validity of certain provisions of the Election Act, 2017, specifically concerning the eligibility of a political party head. The core legal question was whether a person disqualified from parliamentary membership under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, could legally hold the position of a political party head. The Supreme Court held that the Election Act, 2017 must be construed subject to the constitutional framework. The Court declared that any individual suffering from a lack of qualification under Article 62 or disqualification under Article 63 is debarred from holding the position of 'Party Head' and prohibited from exercising powers under Article 63-A. Consequently, all actions taken by a disqualified person in the capacity of Party Head were declared void, and the Election Commission was directed to remove the disqualified individual from party records. The judgment establishes the principle that the qualifications for parliamentary membership are essential prerequisites for holding the central role of a political party head, ensuring the integrity of the democratic process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, hold the position of a political party head?
  • Are the provisions of the Election Act, 2017 subject to the qualifications and disqualifications prescribed by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • What is the legal status of actions taken by a political party head after their disqualification from parliamentary membership?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ahmed and another vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 1159 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-21
  capital punishmentanti-terrorismeye-witness testimonySection 161 CrPCdisclosure statementcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder, arson, and terrorism. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the impact of delayed recording of statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the admissibility of the appellant's disclosure memo. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt through consistent eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and the recovery of spent cartridges. Regarding the delay in recording witness statements, the Court established that such delay does not automatically invalidate testimony if it is reasonably explained by circumstances like trauma, injury, or bereavement. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a disclosure statement leading to the discovery of new facts, such as the identity of accomplices, is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Finding no mitigating circumstances and noting the heinous nature of the crime, the Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically render the testimony of prosecution witnesses unreliable?
  • Is a disclosure statement made by an accused in police custody admissible if it leads to the discovery of new facts?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of natural witnesses who were present at the scene of the crime despite minor discrepancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Yaqoob Chaudhry vs Military Estates Officer and others2018 PLD Lahore 295, 2018 PLJ Lahore 168 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Yaqoob Chaudhry through Special Attorney vs Military Estates2018 PLD Lahore 295 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• Zonal Manager Canteen Store, Department CSD Quetta Cantt. vs Abdul Rehman2018 PLJ Quetta 105 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zohra Bibi and another vs Haji Sultan Mahmood and others2018 P.S.C. 748, 2018 SCMR 762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-06
  Succession certificateRevocation of succession certificateFraudLimitationMuhammadan law of inheritanceTechnicalitiesLegal heirsConcealment of factsUndertakingCivil Procedure Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a Balochistan High Court judgment that set aside the revocation of a succession certificate, deeming the revocation application incompetently filed. The original succession certificate was obtained by Respondent No. 1, who fraudulently claimed to be the sole legal heir, concealing the existence of other heirs, including the appellants. The Supreme Court examined whether the application for revocation was time-barred and if procedural technicalities should obstruct justice. The Court held that no statutory period of limitation is provided for the revocation of a succession certificate under the Succession Act, 1925, and in cases of fraud, time runs from the date of knowledge. It further ruled that technicalities should not hamper the administration of justice, especially when the status and relationship of legal heirs are undisputed. The appeal was allowed, restoring the trial court's order of revocation, and the trial court was directed to initiate proceedings against Respondent No. 1 under Section 198 PPC for verifying a false statement and concealing facts.

  Read full judgment →
• Ziaullah Afridi vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary and 4 others2018 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-03Read full judgment →
• Zia-Ur-Rehman vs The State2018 YLR 1810 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilityroad accidentpersonal libertytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from a criminal case registered under sections 322, 337-G, 279, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a fatal road accident involving a coach. The applicant, who is the owner of the vehicle, sought post-arrest bail after the trial court rejected his initial application. The core legal question was whether the owner of a vehicle, who was not driving at the time of a fatal accident, is entitled to bail when the primary accused (the driver) is absconding and the applicant's involvement requires further inquiry. The Court held that since the applicant was not the driver and had verified the driver's license, his involvement was not established with certainty at the pre-trial stage. Consequently, the Court granted bail, holding that where an accused demonstrates reasonable grounds to believe they are not guilty, or where the case requires further inquiry, bail is a right rather than a concession. The Court emphasized that the right to liberty, guaranteed under the Constitution, prevails over considerations regarding the commencement of trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is the owner of a vehicle vicariously liable for a fatal accident caused by the driver for the purpose of denying bail?
  • Does the right to bail prevail over the consideration of the commencement of a trial when a case requires further inquiry?
  • Is bail a matter of right or a concession when a case requires further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia vs State, etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 734 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-17
  suspension of sentencelife imprisonmentfatal injurydeeper appreciation of evidencemurdercriminal miscellaneous
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner Zia seeking the suspension of his sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal on 26.05.2016 in a private complaint under Sections 302 and 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the suspension of his sentence pending appeal given the specific fatal injury attributed to him. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was attributed a specific injury on the head of the deceased which the medical evidence termed as contributing to the cause of death, and as deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the stage of suspension of sentence, the petitioner was not entitled to relief. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that suspension of sentence will be refused where a convict is attributed a specific fatal injury supported by medical evidence and trial court evaluation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convict entitled to suspension of sentence when attributed a specific fatal injury supported by medical evidence?
  • Can a deeper appreciation of evidence be undertaken at the stage of deciding an application for suspension of sentence?
  • Does the attribution of a fatal injury disentitle a petitioner from seeking suspension of life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia Ullah vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 1104 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-07
  criminal appealjudicial confessionextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtocular evidencerecovery of weaponQatl-i-amdretracted confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt through ocular evidence, judicial and extra-judicial confessions, and the recovery of the weapon, despite the appellant's claims of innocence and coercion. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the ocular account was unreliable due to the absence of proven light sources and significant distance, the judicial confession was inadmissible as it was recorded on oath in the presence of police, and the extra-judicial confession lacked credibility. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was invalidated by the failure to associate independent witnesses. The Court reaffirmed that a judicial confession recorded on oath is inadmissible, and that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused where the prosecution's case is riddled with material contradictions and procedural lapses.

  Questions settled

  • Is a judicial confession recorded on oath in the presence of police officials admissible in evidence?
  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted judicial confession without material corroboration?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during the recovery of a crime weapon render the recovery evidence inadmissible under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can medical evidence be used to identify the culprits in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia uddin Sabir vs Province of Sindh and others2018 SHC 1155 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-30Read full judgment →
• Zia alias Mithu vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 919 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconflicting versionsjuvenile offenderqatl-i-khatabenefit of doubtcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged with murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the existence of conflicting versions of the incident presented by the complainant and the investigating agency, and the petitioner's status as a juvenile at the time of the occurrence. The Court held that the discrepancy between the FIR, which alleged intentional murder, and the investigation, which suggested qatl-i-khata under Section 319, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that when the prosecution itself presents conflicting versions, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's status as a previous non-convict and the lack of progress in the trial. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that the existence of two conflicting versions of an incident necessitates further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to bail as a matter of right rather than concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of two conflicting versions of an incident between the FIR and the investigation report constitute a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the heinousness of an offence a sufficient ground to refuse bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it under the law?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the post-arrest bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• ZHV Securities (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 CLD 1338 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-01Read full judgment →
• Zhang Run Zi vs Ascentisia Law Corp2018 [M] C.L.R. 1515 · Singapore · 2018-08-17Read full judgment →
• Zeest Shah vs Gomal Medical College, D.I.Khan & 4 others2019 YLR 174, 2018 PHC 1504 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan-Ul-Haq vs Searle Company (Ltd.) and others2018 PLJ Tr.C. (NIRC) 34 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2017-02-14
  unfair labour practicedisciplinary proceedingscharge sheetabsenteeismtrade union activitiesNational Industrial Relations Commissionstay application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition filed under Section 54(e) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 read with the NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 by an employee seeking to restrain the employer from taking adverse action amounting to an alleged unfair labour practice. The core legal question is whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of a charge-sheet for unauthorized absence against a trade union member constitutes an unfair labour practice warranting injunctive relief from the National Industrial Relations Commission. The Commission held that the employer has the legal right to conduct disciplinary proceedings against an employee for absenteeism, and since the petitioner failed to substantiate claims of victimization due to trade union activities or show any actionable wrong while still remaining in service, no case of unfair labour practice was made out. The petition and stay application were accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the initiation of a domestic inquiry for misconduct by an employer does not, without concrete proof of mala fides or victimization, constitute an unfair labour practice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of a charge-sheet for absenteeism constitute an unfair labour practice?
  • Whether an employee can seek restraint against a domestic inquiry without proving victimization for trade union activities?
  • Is an employer entitled to conduct disciplinary action against an employee for unauthorized absence without interference from the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Majeed vs Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), Rto, Faisalabad2018 PTD (Trib.) 1289 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Butt, Asstt. Director 0/0 Chief Engineer (P&D), Lahore vs Chief2018 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 246 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  proforma promotionservice appealseniority fixationconsequential benefitscivil servantofficiating promotionimplementation of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Executive Engineer, challenged the department's failure to implement court-ordered relief regarding his service status. Initially promoted on an officiating basis in 1996, the appellant was later reverted, a decision set aside by the Service Tribunal and upheld by the Supreme Court, which declared his promotion regular from 1996. Despite these rulings, the department failed to grant consequential benefits, including seniority and promotion to higher ranks, while his juniors were promoted. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, wrongly denied regular status and subsequent promotion due to departmental error, is entitled to proforma promotion and seniority even after retirement. The Tribunal held that the department’s failure to rectify the appellant's service record constituted an actionable wrong. It ruled that the appellant was entitled to seniority and proforma promotion to the ranks of Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer, effective from the dates his juniors were promoted. The Tribunal affirmed that retirement does not preclude a civil servant from receiving benefits arising from wrongful denial of promotion, mandating the department to complete the rectification process within ninety days.

  Questions settled

  • Is a retired civil servant entitled to claim proforma promotion and consequential benefits for a period during which they were wrongfully denied promotion?
  • Does the failure of a department to implement a final judgment regarding a civil servant's service status entitle the employee to seek relief through a fresh service appeal?
  • Can a department deny proforma promotion to a senior official when their junior has already been promoted to a higher rank?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan alias Sham vs The State2018 MLD 563 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-24
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaystatutory grounddelay in conclusion of trialmurderright to fair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a police constable. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail on the statutory ground of inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial, where the delay was not attributable to the accused. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant had made out a case for statutory bail, noting that he had been incarcerated for over four years without the trial nearing conclusion, despite no delaying tactics on his part, and that the prosecution had failed to produce its witnesses. The court laid down the principle that timely and fair trial is a fundamental statutory right of an accused person, and prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial due to prosecution failures constitutes hardship and grounds for statutory bail under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail on statutory grounds when the trial is unduly prolonged without any fault on the part of the accused?
  • Does inordinate delay in the examination of prosecution witnesses amount to a hardship warranting the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused be kept in indefinite incarceration when the conclusion of the trial is not in sight?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Ali vs The State2018 MLD 317 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-21Read full judgment →
• Zawar Hussain vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 453 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-20
  post-arrest bailzina-bil-jabrvalid marriagebenefit of doubtfurther inquirydelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest given the existence of a disputed marriage contract, an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and conflicting statements by the alleged victim. The court held that the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, granting bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where a valid nikah-nama and statements indicating free-will marriage exist alongside an unexplained delay in the FIR, reasonable doubt is created at the bail stage, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt, particularly when disputes of this nature are primarily within the domain of Family Courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when a valid nikah-nama exists between the accused and the alleged victim despite subsequent allegations of zina-bil-jabr?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR create reasonable doubt warranting the grant of bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Whether disputes concerning the validity of a marriage and matrimonial matters are best adjudicated by Family Courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Zawar Hussain vs Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 5 others2018 PLJ Lahore 1137 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zaver Petroleum Corporation Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and others2018 CLC 1542, 2018 IHC 18 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-15Read full judgment →
• Zaver Petroleum Corporation Limited through Company Secretary vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and others2018 CLC 1542 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-15Read full judgment →
• Zarshad and one other vs Mst. Bibi Sultana and 40 others2018 PHC 1685 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-09Read full judgment →
• Zarghoon Shah vs Dilawar Khan2018 CLC 511, 2018 [M] C.L.R. 619 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-20Read full judgment →
• Zarghoon Shah and others vs Dilawar Khan and others2018 CLC 511 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-20Read full judgment →
• Zareen Muhammad and another vs Muhammad Shoaib and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 71, 2018 PHC 1722 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-24Read full judgment →
• Zardullah Khan vs The State2018 SHC 607 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-07
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaynarcotics controlheroins smugglingprohibitory clausecontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Zardullah Khan seeking bail on the statutory ground of delayed trial in a case involving the alleged recovery of 375 kilograms of heroin from a container intended for export, registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether an accused charged with a heinous narcotics offense carrying a penalty of death or life imprisonment is entitled to bail solely on the ground of statutory delay when the trial is near its conclusion and progress has been made. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the statutory ground of delay can be refused in cases of a serious nature involving huge quantities of narcotics where the trial is at an advanced and concluding stage. The key principle laid down is that the plea of statutory delay for grant of bail is not absolute in heinous narcotics cases, especially when the trial is progressing satisfactorily and drawing to a close.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused on statutory grounds in heinous narcotics cases where the trial is near its conclusion?
  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 exclude the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a delay of over four years in concluding a trial sufficient by itself to grant post-arrest bail in a case involving a huge quantity of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarai Taraqiat Bank Ltd. vs Faiz Bakhsh2018 PLJ Lahore 554 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• Zarai Tarakiyati Bank Limited through Authorized Officer vs Haji Audho2018 CLD 1327 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-08Read full judgment →
• Zar Nasib Khan and another vs The State through Advocate-General and another2018 YLR 443 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-12Read full judgment →
• Zameer Khan vs The State2018 YLR 1916 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-11-04
  post-arrest baildouble murdertentative assessmentprima facie caserecovery of weaponcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged with double murder under FIR No. 01/2016. The petitioner, along with absconding co-accused, was alleged to have opened fire, resulting in the deaths of two individuals. The petitioner argued that the one-hour delay in lodging the FIR indicated fabrication and that no specific injury was attributed to him, thereby warranting further inquiry. The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioner was directly charged in the FIR, eye-witnesses implicated him, and the weapon of offence was recovered from his possession, leading to a separate case under the Arms Ordinance. The Court held that at the bail stage, it is restricted to a tentative assessment of evidence. Finding that the petitioner was directly charged, placed at the scene by the site plan, and linked to the recovery of the weapon, the Court concluded that a prima facie case existed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when directly charged in the FIR and linked to the recovery of the weapon of offence?
  • To what extent can a court assess evidence during the bail stage?
  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zameer Abbas vs The State through Prosecutor General NAB and 2 others2018 YLR 2317 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-06-07Read full judgment →
• Zakia Shaukat Rizvi vs Controller Military Accounts, etc2020 [M] C L R 139, 2018 LHC 1493 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-21Read full judgment →
• Zaka-Ud-Din vs Messrs S. Ashrafi Abbasi Associates through Sole2018 MLD 1408 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-18Read full judgment →
• Zaka Ullah vs Member Board of Revenue, etc2018 PLJ Lahore 284 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-01Read full judgment →
• Zaiwar Khan vs State2018 YLR 2025, 2018 PHC 1402 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-14Read full judgment →
• Zaiwar Khan vs Sahib Zada and another2018 YLR 2025 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-14
  bail cancellationdischarge of accusedDistrict Public ProsecutorInvestigating Officerchallanmurderfederal and provincial legislative conflict
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent accused by the trial court in a murder case registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around the competency of the District Public Prosecutor under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2005 to apply for the discharge of an accused charged with an offense punishable with death or life imprisonment, and the conflict between provincial and federal statutes regarding the powers of an Investigating Officer versus a Public Prosecutor. The Peshawar High Court held that the District Public Prosecutor has no statutory backing or authority under the 2005 Act to apply for the discharge of an accused in a murder case, and that the exclusive prerogative to seek discharge or submit a final report vests in the Investigating Officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which prevails as a federal statute. The court laid down the principle that the opinion of a Public Prosecutor regarding the guilt or discharge of an accused in major offenses lacks legal sanctity, and bail orders based on unauthorized prosecutor applications are illegal and liable to be set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a District Public Prosecutor apply for the discharge of an accused charged with an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2005?
  • Does the District Public Prosecutor possess the legal authority to direct the Investigating Officer regarding the placement of an accused's name in columns of the challan?
  • Whose exclusive prerogative is it under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to ask for the discharge of an accused or cancellation of a case?
  • Which statute prevails in the event of an inconsistency between the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and a provincial prosecution service act?
  Read full judgment →
• Zain Khan vs Adnan and 2 others2018 MLD 1969 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-20Read full judgment →
• Zahoor alias Bholi vs The State2018 MLD 246 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-21
  death sentence commutationmitigating circumstancesmurder convictionSection 342 CrPCcompensation to legal heirscriminal appealjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for an offence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the death sentence should be maintained or commuted to life imprisonment given the specific circumstances of the case. The High Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The court held that mitigating circumstances—including the appellant's prolonged incarceration exceeding 15 years, the prosecution's failure to establish the motive, and procedural lapses in recording the accused's statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—warranted the reduction of the sentence. The court affirmed the principle that where reasonable doubt exists regarding the appropriateness of the death penalty, or where mitigating factors are present, judicial caution mandates the imposition of life imprisonment to avoid the risk of irreversible error. Furthermore, the court ordered the appellant to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment based on the duration of the accused's incarceration?
  • Is a trial court required to award compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased when convicting an accused for murder?
  • Does the failure to put incriminating evidence to an accused during a statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, constitute a ground for mitigating a sentence?
  • Is a single mitigating circumstance sufficient to warrant the imposition of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed alias Abdul Karim and another vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 586 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-21
  Anti-Terrorism Courtjurisdictionserious violence against policetransfer of casescheduled offencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khairpur, directing the transfer of a case to the Anti-Terrorism Court after eight years of proceedings. The applicants contended that the delay was unjust and the case should remain with the ordinary court. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly transferred the case to the Anti-Terrorism Court given the nature of the offense—the killing of a police officer during an encounter—and whether such a transfer was permissible despite the passage of time. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that acts of serious violence against police officers in the discharge of their duties constitute terrorism under Section 6(2)(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court affirmed that jurisdiction is a fundamental legal issue that can be raised at any stage, and a court lacking jurisdiction cannot assume it. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the Anti-Terrorism Court itself holds the primary authority to determine if a case falls within its jurisdiction or should be transferred to a regular court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an act of serious violence against a police officer in the discharge of their duties constitute an act of terrorism triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Can a trial court transfer a case to an Anti-Terrorism Court after a significant delay in proceedings?
  • Which court has the authority to determine whether a case falls within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Can a court assume jurisdiction over a case if it lacks the legal authority to do so?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad Shah alias Phool Shah and another vs Election2018 CLC 1032 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-09Read full judgment →
• Zahir Rehman vs Saeed Ali Raza Shah and another2018 YLR 1900 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-09
  private defenceocular evidencecross-versionbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencesudden fightcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions for murder and attempted murder arising from a cross-version incident at a tobacco barn. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence and whether the appellant acted in self-defence. The Peshawar High Court found the prosecution's ocular evidence unreliable, noting that the eye-witnesses claimed to be in close proximity to the firing yet remained unhurt, which contradicted the site plan. Consequently, the court discarded this testimony. Regarding the cross-case, the court observed that the appellant sustained serious firearm injuries, indicating a sudden fight where both parties suppressed facts. The court held that the appellant acted in the exercise of his right of private defence. It established the principle that the right of private defence need not be weighed in golden scales and may be considered by the court even if not explicitly pleaded by the accused, provided the surrounding circumstances warrant it. Accordingly, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court consider the plea of private defence if the accused did not explicitly raise it during trial?
  • Does the right of private defence require the accused to prove their actions were measured in golden scales?
  • Should ocular testimony be discarded when the site plan indicates the witnesses were in close proximity to the firing but remained unhurt?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt even in cross-version criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Saeed and 9 others vs Director General Technical Education2018 PLC (C.S.) 387 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-06
  constitutional petitionregularization of servicecontract employeesstudent fundjunior lecturersdiscriminatory legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by ten Junior Lecturers of the Government College of Technology, Timergara Dir Lower, seeking to declare the NWFP Regularization of Service Act, 2009 violative of Article 26(1) and void under Article 8(1) and (2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and challenging the rejection of their regularization applications. The petitioners, appointed on contract/fixed pay from the student fund during academic sessions, sought regular status akin to other government servants. The respondents contested the petition, stating the petitioners were paid from the student fund rather than the government budget, making regularization rules inapplicable. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners were hired purely on contract from the student fund due to teacher shortages in 2013 and 2014, and the relevant regularization acts did not apply to them given their dates of appointment and funding source. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employees paid from student funds are entitled to regularization under the NWFP Regularization of Service Act, 2009?
  • Does section 3 of the NWFP Regularization of Service Act, 2009 violate Article 26(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can employees engaged on fixed pay for academic sessions out of student funds claim the status of regular government servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Rasheed vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 306 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-07
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequefinancial liabilitybail confirmationconditional bailSection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Zahid Rasheed, in relation to FIR No. 296/16 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dishonour of a cheque issued for Rs. 2,00,000/-. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in light of partial payments made and an undertaking to settle the remaining outstanding liability. During the proceedings, it was established that the petitioner had already paid a portion of the amount, and both parties reached a consensus regarding the payment of the remaining balance within a specified timeframe. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and confirmed the interim bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing fresh bail bonds. The Court further held that the confirmation of bail was conditional upon the petitioner's compliance with the payment schedule, explicitly noting that failure to adhere to this undertaking would entitle the complainant to seek the cancellation of the bail granted.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed based on a compromise or settlement regarding the outstanding cheque amount?
  • Does a failure to fulfill a payment undertaking given to the court during bail proceedings provide grounds for the complainant to seek bail cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs United Bank Limited & another2018 SHC 507, 2018 MLD 1369 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-16Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs (1) Saleem Yousuf & another (2) Muhammad Iqbal2019 YLR 2846, 2018 SHC 770 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-20Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain Makhdoom vs The Secretary/Chairman, Railway Board,2019 PLC (C.S.) 263, 2018 SCMR 2077 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-20
  service appealdismissal from serviceunauthorized absenceproportionality of punishmentcompulsory retirementFederal Service Tribunalmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal against his dismissal from service for unauthorized absence from duty for about 16 months. The core legal question is whether the penalty of dismissal from service for prolonged absence was disproportionate to the misconduct, given the mitigating circumstances including long unblemished service and security threats. The Supreme Court held that the penalty of dismissal was indeed disproportionate to the proved misconduct under the specific facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering 35 years of past service and undisputed reasons for absence. The Court laid down the principle that while unauthorized absence constitutes misconduct, the quantum of punishment must remain proportionate to the gravity of the infraction, and mitigating factors such as a clean long-term service record and lack of dispute regarding threat circumstances warrant leniency by converting major penalties like dismissal into compulsory retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the penalty of dismissal from service for unauthorized absence is disproportionate when the employee has a long unblemished service record?
  • Can the Supreme Court convert a major penalty of dismissal into compulsory retirement in service matters?
  • Whether mitigating circumstances such as security threats affecting an employee's absence should be considered in determining the quantum of punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain Awan vs United Bank Limited through President, Karachi2018 MLD 1369 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-16Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali vs The State2018 YLR 212 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-28Read full judgment →
• Zaheeruddin Mujahid vs Province of Sindh & others2018 SHC 1141 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-26Read full judgment →
• Zaheer-Ud-Din vs The State2018 MLD 1604 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-12-05
  post-arrest bailillegal detentionjudicial remandanti-terrorism courtcompromise in criminal casecontempt of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous matter arises from a bail petition filed by the accused, who was booked under sections 377 and 337-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had previously acquitted the accused based on a compromise, acting under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. Upon appeal by the State, the High Court set aside the acquittal, ruling that the offence did not constitute terrorism and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The case was remanded to the Court of Sessions, and the accused was taken into judicial custody. However, the accused was subsequently detained in the judicial lockup without obtaining mandatory judicial remands under section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question addressed is whether continued detention without judicial remand warrants the grant of bail. The court held that the accused's detention without remand was entirely illegal and could not be regularized. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that prolonged illegal confinement in jail without obtaining lawful remand under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitles the accused to be released on bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Anti-Terrorism Court can assume jurisdiction and record an acquittal based on a compromise in a non-terrorist offence?
  • Does the failure of jail authorities to obtain judicial remand under section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the detention illegal?
  • Can illegal detention in jail without remand be converted into a legal confinement retrospectively?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when continuously confined in judicial custody without a valid remand order?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer vs The State through D.P.G. and 4 others2018 YLR 1307 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-09Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed vs The State2018 MLD 1418 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-12
  trial in absentiadue processanti-terrorismextortionbenefit of doubtacquittal of co-accusedcriminal appealconstitutional rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by the appellant challenging his conviction in absentia by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offences including extortion and illegal possession of arms. The core legal question was whether the trial in absentia, conducted without proper service of notice or opportunity for the appellant to defend himself, violated constitutional guarantees and whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court held that the trial in absentia was violative of Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as the appellant was condemned unheard. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution's case doubtful, noting significant evidentiary gaps, including the absence of medical evidence for alleged injuries, unexplained delays in FIR registration, and material contradictions regarding the recovery of the weapon. Crucially, the Court observed that co-accused, charged under the same evidence and mashirnama, had already been acquitted. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that an accused cannot be convicted on evidence that has already resulted in the acquittal of co-accused, and that trials in absentia must strictly adhere to due process requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial in absentia conducted without proper service of notice violate the constitutional right to a fair trial under Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can an appellate court acquit an appellant on merits if the evidence against them is identical to that which led to the acquittal of co-accused by the trial court?
  • Is a conviction in absentia under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 sustainable if the prosecution fails to prove the specific ingredients of the charged offences?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the basis of the same mashirnama and evidence entitle the remaining accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed vs The State and another2018 YLR 982 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-10Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance and 2 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 817 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-12
  contempt of courtconstitutional petitioncivil contemptupgradation of postpublic appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This case arises from a contempt application filed under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, alleging willful disobedience of a Sindh High Court order dated 09.03.2011, which directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Auditor (BS-14) on a two-year contract basis if eligible. The core legal question was whether the respondents committed contempt of court by failing to appoint the petitioner as an Auditor (BS-14), having instead offered him the post of Assistant (BS-14) after the Auditor post was upgraded to BS-16, which fell under the purview of the Federal Public Service Commission. The court held that substantial compliance with the original order had been made, noting that the respondents offered the petitioner an equivalent BS-14 post which he refused, and that contempt proceedings cannot be used to enlarge the scope of the original adjudication on merits. The petition for contempt was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contempt proceedings can be used to enlarge the scope of an original judgment and reargue a matter on merits?
  • Does offering an equivalent post of Assistant (BS-14) amount to substantial compliance with a court direction to consider a petitioner for the post of Auditor (BS-14)?
  • Can a court initiate contempt proceedings when the respondents offer a plausible explanation showing substantial compliance with the judgment in question?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed Chaudhary vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu2018 PLC (C.S.) 237 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-01-03
  writ petitiondeputationcivil servantservice tribunaljurisdiction barterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 challenged a notification whereby the petitioner, a permanent employee of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Education Department serving on deputation as Chairman of the AJK Intermediate and Secondary Education Board, was repatriated to his parent department and attached to the Directorate of Colleges. The core legal question was whether a local civil servant serving on deputation within the same jurisdiction falls within the definition of a civil servant under the relevant law, thus ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court in favor of the Service Tribunal under Section 47(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that local civil servants serving on deputation within the State do not fall under the statutory exclusion for deputationists borrowed from outside the jurisdiction, and therefore disputes regarding their terms and conditions of service fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that a permanent civil servant of Azad Jammu and Kashmir remains a civil servant even while serving on deputation within the State, and matters relating to their terms and conditions must be agitated before the Service Tribunal rather than through a writ petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a permanent civil servant of Azad Jammu and Kashmir serving on deputation within the State lose their status as a civil servant?
  • Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Section 47(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Can a deputationist borrowed from within the jurisdiction of Azad Jammu and Kashmir invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court against a repatriation or transfer order?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaffar Iqbal Khan Ecg Technician CMH, Rawalakot and Others vs Azad2018 SC AJK 15 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-11
  service rulesvires of rulespromotion rightsservice tribunal jurisdictionmala fidedying cadrecivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Service Tribunal judgment that upheld the validity of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Health Department (Paramedics and Medical Assistants Dying Cadre (4 tiers formula) Service Rules, 2015. The appellants, Health Department employees, contended that the new Rules were enacted with mala fide intent to block their promotion opportunities in favor of less qualified diploma holders, thereby violating their fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether the Government’s exercise of its rule-making power was ultra vires the Constitution or the parent Act. The Supreme Court held that the framing and amendment of service rules is the exclusive prerogative of the Government, provided they do not conflict with the Constitution or the parent Act. The Court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate any such conflict or mala fide intent, noting that civil servants possess no vested right to have rules framed to suit their personal promotion prospects. The Court clarified that the Service Tribunal possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate the vires of service rules, correcting the Tribunal's erroneous finding to the contrary, while ultimately dismissing the appeal on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to claim that service rules be framed to facilitate their promotion?
  • Can the Service Tribunal adjudicate upon the vires of service rules?
  • Under what circumstances can service rules framed by the Government be declared illegal or ultra vires?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal Zahid and others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2019 PLC (C.S) 882, 2018 SHC 528 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-05
  Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act 2010Constitutional jurisdictionDoctrine of lachesVoluntary Retirement SchemeReinstatement in serviceStatutory interpretationDiscriminatory treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought the reinstatement of former employees of the Cotton Export Corporation under the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were retired under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in 1998, qualified as 'sacked employees' under the Act and were entitled to reinstatement based on the principle of consistency. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to meet the strict statutory eligibility criteria. The Court established that the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 is a special beneficial legislation requiring the concurrent satisfaction of two conditions: appointment between November 1, 1993, and November 30, 1996, and removal between November 1, 1996, and December 31, 1998. Because the petitioners did not meet these specific temporal requirements, they were ineligible for relief. Additionally, the Court ruled that the petition was barred by the doctrine of laches, as the cause of action arose in 1998, yet the petition was filed only in 2013, rendering the exercise of discretionary constitutional jurisdiction inappropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 apply to employees who do not meet the specific temporal criteria for appointment and removal?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a limited company that is funded and controlled by the Federal Government?
  • Does the doctrine of laches bar a claim for reinstatement where the cause of action arose fifteen years prior to the filing of the petition?
  • Must the conditions for appointment and removal under the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 be satisfied concurrently to qualify as a 'sacked employee'?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The President, United Bank Limited and 4 others2018 PLC 176 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-07-31
  Industrial Relations Acttrade union referendumunfair labour practicedismissal from servicecollective bargaining agentwrit of certiorarisuspension of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged orders passed by the Registrar/Joint Registrar Trade Unions and the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which effectively denied the petitioner relief against his dismissal from service by the management of United Bank Limited. The core legal question was whether the statutory protection against the dismissal of trade union officers during referendum proceedings, as provided under Section 19(13) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, remains operative when those referendum proceedings have been suspended. The court held that the protection under Section 19(13) does not apply when referendum proceedings are suspended, as the embargo on termination is tied to the active pendency of the referendum process. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner had already initiated a grievance petition before the NIRC regarding his dismissal, rendering it inappropriate for the High Court to interfere or adjudicate on the validity of the dismissal order. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the suspension of referendum proceedings lifts the statutory prohibition on the termination of trade union officers.

  Questions settled

  • Does the protection against dismissal under Section 19(13) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, apply when referendum proceedings are suspended?
  • Can a High Court interfere with a dismissal order when a grievance petition regarding the same dismissal is already pending before the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  • Does the suspension of referendum proceedings lift the statutory embargo on the termination of trade union officers?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs Raja Asim Rizwan and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 648, 2018 MLD 1374 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-02
  bail cancellationpre-arrest bailunnatural deathsupplementary challanmisuse of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, in a case registered under sections 302, 342, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in respect of an unnatural death. The core legal question was whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent should be cancelled based on his alleged involvement and the testimonies of subsequent witnesses, given that considerations for bail cancellation differ from those for grant of bail. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that bail once granted by a competent court will not be cancelled unless the bail-granting order is perverse or there is an allegation that the accused has misused the concession of bail, neither of which was established. The key principle laid down is that the considerations for granting bail and cancelling bail are entirely different, and bail ought not to be cancelled merely to wreak vengeance or when no useful purpose would be served by sending the accused behind bars, especially after the submission of the challan.

  Questions settled

  • What are the distinct considerations for the grant of bail versus the cancellation of bail?
  • Under what circumstances can pre-arrest bail granted by a competent court be cancelled?
  • Does the submission of a challan affect the court's inclination to cancel bail?
  • Can bail be cancelled merely to satisfy the vengeance of the complainant party?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and another vs Additional District Judge Rawalpindi and 22018 MLD 1850 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-14Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and another vs Additional District Judge Rawalpindi (Camp at2018 MLD 1850, 2018 LHC 1342 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-14Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and 3 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 423 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-09
  murdersupplementary statementbenefit of the doubtcapital punishmentocular accountcriminal appealidentification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Sections 302(b), 460, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murders of three persons in a house invasion, resulting in death sentences and life imprisonments, alongside a murder reference and a revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal question was whether a belated supplementary statement naming previously unknown masked assailants and weak circumstantial evidence could sustain a capital conviction. The Lahore High Court held that supplementary statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be equated with an FIR or used to extend it, and that uncorroborated improvements, doubtful eyewitness accounts, and inadmissible police-custody disclosures cannot prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that a criminal charge must rest on evidentiary certainty, and suspicions—no matter how strong—cannot substitute for legal evidence, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be equated with or read in extension of the First Information Report?
  • Whether pointing out the place of occurrence while in police custody constitutes a valid disclosure under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a criminal charge be sustained on the basis of strong suspicion and massive improvements in the prosecution case without legal evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal alias Iqbal and 3 others vs The State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 423, 2018 YLR 1105 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-09
  supplementary statementbenefit of doubtmasked assailantscapital punishmentmurder referenceocular accountcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the conviction and death sentences awarded to the appellants for the triple murder of a man and his two sons inside their home by masked assailants. The initial crime report was lodged against five unknown masked culprits. Subsequently, through supplementary statements, the complainant named the appellants and introduced a motive relating to a land dispute. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of belated supplementary statements, the credibility of ocular testimony built upon post-incident identification, and the admissibility of pointing out the place of occurrence while in police custody. The Court held that supplementary statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 cannot be equated with an FIR or read in extension thereof, that pointing out a place of occurrence in custody is not a valid disclosure under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that suspicion cannot take the place of legal certainty. The court acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether supplementary statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 can be equated with the First Information Report or read in extension thereof?
  • Can the pointing out of a place of occurrence by an accused person while in police custody be admitted in evidence under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does suspicion or moral certainty suffice to sustain a criminal charge in the absence of legal evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali and another vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and others2018 CLD 774, 2018 SCMR 987 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-09
  auction salebona fide purchaserbanking courtcourt auctiondecreeproperty rightsremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that nullified an auction sale of property solely because the underlying decree passed by the Banking Court was subsequently set aside. The appellants, who purchased the property for valuable consideration following a court-conducted auction, argued that their rights, having attained finality through the issuance of a sale certificate and delivery of possession, should be protected. The core legal question is whether a court-sanctioned auction sale can be automatically invalidated upon the reversal of the original decree, especially when third-party interests have intervened. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the auction in a routine manner without considering the bona fide nature of the purchasers' claims. The Court established that the rights of a bona fide auction purchaser for valuable consideration, once the sale process is complete and final, require distinct legal protection. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the High Court to determine the bona fide status of the appellants and whether their rights remain protected under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court-conducted auction sale be automatically nullified solely because the underlying decree was subsequently set aside?
  • Are the rights of a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration in a court-conducted auction protected even if the original decree is later reversed?
  • Does the finality of a court-conducted auction, including the issuance of a sale certificate and delivery of possession, create protected rights for a subsequent purchaser?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar & another vs State & anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 586 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-19
  Qatl-e-Amdocular testimonymedical evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder referenceappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence of Qatl-e-Amd under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical evidence, and the complainant's shifting narrative between the initial FIR and a subsequent private complaint. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt. The court observed that the medical evidence, which showed no firearm injuries, directly contradicted the ocular testimony alleging multiple gunshots. Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecution witnesses had been disbelieved regarding identically placed co-accused who were acquitted. The court laid down the principle that where witnesses have significantly deviated from their initial stance to align with medical findings, their testimony cannot be safely relied upon without independent corroboration, especially in cases of deep-seated enmity. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of witnesses be relied upon against appellants when the same witnesses were disbelieved regarding identically placed co-accused who were acquitted?
  • Does a significant contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is it safe to rely on the testimony of a witness who has materially shifted their stance from the initial FIR to a private complaint to align with medical findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Z.A. Constructors vs Province of Punjab, J2018 KLR Civil Cases 194, 2018 C.L.R. 1168 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Z.A. Constructors vs Province of Punjab, etc2018 KLR Civil Cases 194 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Z. M. Capital (Private) Limited vs Asif Jalal Bhatti, Executive Director, (PRPD) and another2018 CLD 1223 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2018-05-15Read full judgment →
• Yousuf Ali Khan Ghouri vs The State through IX J.M. and 2 others2018 SHC 565, 2018 YLR 1976 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-16Read full judgment →
• Yousuf Ali Khan Ghouri vs The State & 2 others2018 SHC 565 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-16Read full judgment →
• Young's (Private) limited and others vs Province of Sindh and others.2019 PTD 389, PTCL 2018 CL. 881 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-18Read full judgment →
• Youdester Chohan vs Provincial Election Commission Punjab and 22018 CLC 1657 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-29Read full judgment →
• Youdester Chohan vs Provincial Election Commission etc2018 CLC 1657, 2018 LHC 2692 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-29Read full judgment →
• Yasmeen Rehmat vs Secretary Balochistan Public Service Commission2020 [M] C L R 996, 2020 PLJ Quetta 26, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 835 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-18
  constitutional petitionpublic service commissionservice mattermaintainabilityvague petitionfailure to array necessary partydismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution Petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the selection process for the post of Lecturer Botany (Female) (B-17) by the Balochistan Public Service Commission, alleging that a less qualified candidate was selected and the petitioner was wrongfully deprived despite higher qualifications. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition challenging a public service commission's selection is maintainable when the petitioner fails to properly identify and array the successful candidate as a respondent, rendering the petition vague and lacking a cause of action. The Balochistan High Court held that the petition was vague, lacked a cause of action, and was not maintainable due to the failure to identify the necessary party, and accordingly dismissed the petition in limine with the observation that the petitioner could approach the court anew upon ascertaining the successful candidate's identity. The key principle laid down is that a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of a candidate must properly name and array the affected party, failing which the petition is liable to be dismissed as vague and non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition challenging the selection of a candidate by a public service commission is maintainable when the petitioner fails to identify and array the successful candidate?
  • Does a constitutional petition that does not disclose a specific cause of action against the named respondents warrant dismissal in limine?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir vs The State and another2018 YLR 379 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-30
  bail on medical groundsunsound mindschizoaffective disorderincapable of making defencefundamental rightsmental illnesscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns an accused charged with murder who sought release on medical grounds due to chronic schizoaffective disorder. The core legal question was whether an accused, found by a medical board to be of unsound mind and incapable of making a defense, should be denied bail and subjected to indefinite detention. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court erred in refusing bail. The Court ruled that under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an accused found incapable of defense due to mental illness should be released on sufficient security, provided arrangements are made for their care and the safety of others. The Court emphasized that denying such relief violates the fundamental rights to life and liberty guaranteed by Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. It affirmed that the administration of justice must remain firm, ensuring that legal protections are not bypassed by external pressures, and that the accused's indefinite detention without trial is contrary to the universal principles of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person suffering from a chronic mental illness, who is incapable of making a defense, be released on bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the denial of bail to an accused who is medically unfit to stand trial violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What is the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for an accused found to be of unsound mind during trial proceedings?
  • Is a trial court justified in keeping an accused in indefinite detention when they are incapable of making a defense due to mental illness?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 415 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-21
  qatl-e-amddeath sentencemurder referencebenefit of doubtocular accountcriminal appealappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge at Faisalabad convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-e-Amd of three persons and sentencing him to death on three counts, alongside a conviction under Section 324 of the Code ibid. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular account given by injured and natural witnesses, the impact of material improvements in the prosecution's narrative, the sustainability of conviction after the acquittal of similarly placed co-accused, and the evidentiary value of a negative forensic report in a capital case. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from major improvements, discrepancies regarding the source of light, and suspect identification, rendering the appellant's culpability doubtful. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction, accepted the appeal, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction of an accused can be sustained when the prosecution witnesses make substantial improvements regarding the identity and number of culprits?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused placed in an identical position affect the case against the remaining appellant?
  • What is the evidentiary significance of a negative forensic report in a capital murder case resting on ocular testimony?
  • Whether discrepancies in the source of light and the duration of the incident render the identification of the assailant doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir Khan and others vs The State and another2018 MLD 176 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-08-31
  post-arrest bailgang rapeidentification paradeprohibitory clausedelay in FIRcriminal investigationZina-bil-Jabr
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioners accused of offences under sections 394, 376(2), 377, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving gang rape, unnatural offences, and dacoity. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite being identified during an identification parade and implicated by the victims' statements recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court declined the bail application, holding that the victims' statements, supported by medical evidence and the identification parade, provided reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offences. The court emphasized that in cases of sexual assault, victims are unlikely to falsely implicate others at the cost of their own honor. Furthermore, the court held that a delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal when adequately explained by the fear of blackmail or social stigma. The court also criticized the investigation's negligence, directing the Inspector-General of Police to review the conduct of the investigating officer. The principle established is that bail is not to be granted when reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused to heinous offences falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case in sexual assault matters?
  • Does the identification of accused persons by victims in an identification parade constitute reasonable grounds to deny bail?
  • Can bail be granted for offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is prima facie evidence connecting the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir Bashir vs Saba Yasir2018 SC AJK 49 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-12-04Read full judgment →
• Yasir and 2 others vs The State2018 MLD 1014 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-20
  sodomyunnatural offencecriminal revisionappreciation of evidencedelay in FIRrelated witnessessolitary statement of victimmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioners under Section 377 and Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing unnatural sexual intercourse. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's case given the delay in FIR registration, the reliance on related witnesses, and the significant delay in submitting evidence to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution’s ocular evidence, particularly the victim's testimony, was consistent, direct, and confidence-inspiring. The court affirmed that in cases of sodomy or zina, the solitary statement of the victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction if it is credible. Furthermore, the court ruled that a delay in lodging an FIR is natural in cases involving social stigma and family honor, and that a defective Forensic Science Laboratory report does not necessitate acquittal when other sufficient incriminating evidence exists. The conviction and sentences were maintained, and the petitioners were ordered to be taken into custody.

  Questions settled

  • Is the solitary statement of a victim sufficient to sustain a conviction in cases of sodomy or zina?
  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case in matters involving social stigma?
  • Can a conviction be sustained if the Forensic Science Laboratory report is considered defective due to delay?
  • Are related witnesses considered competent to testify in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir Ali Baloch and another vs Province of Sindh2018 SHC 622 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-16Read full judgment →
• Yaseen Ali vs The State through Junaid Khan S.H.O2018 MLD 1740 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-18Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob vs Political Agent Khyber Agency Peshawar Cantt. and 62018 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Yahya Jan and others vs Muhammad Younas and others2018 PHC 1470 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-30Read full judgment →
• Yahya Jan and 3 others vs Muhammad Younas and 3 others2018 PHC 1470, 2018 CLC 1479 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-30Read full judgment →
• World Call Telecom Limited vs Assistant Director (PRPD), Securities2018 CLD 20 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2017-10-17Read full judgment →
• Wockhardt Limited vs Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Anr2018 SCInd 52 · Supreme Court of India · 2018-09-12Read full judgment →
• Wisal vs The State and another2018 MLD 1108 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-02Read full judgment →
• Wing Wha Wong vs Her Majesty the Queen., Attorney General of Ontario_2b6a26172018 SCMR 1551 · Supreme Court of CanadaRead full judgment →
• William Masih and another vs Bacha Khan University Charsadda2018 PLJ Peshawar 11 · Peshawar High Court
  termination of serviceaudi alteram partemnatural justicewrit petitionservice mattersback benefitsdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the termination of the petitioners' services as regular sweepers by the respondent university, which was effected without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The core legal question was whether the summary termination of service, despite allegations of habitual absenteeism, violated the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the termination order was illegal and unsustainable because the petitioners were condemned unheard. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that the principle of audi alteram partem is an inalienable component of natural justice that must be read into all statutory and administrative proceedings, regardless of whether the governing statute explicitly mandates it. Consequently, the Court set aside the termination, ordering the reinstatement of the petitioners. However, acknowledging the petitioners' habitual absenteeism, the Court imposed a penalty of fifty percent of their back wages, directing the employer to follow proper legal procedures if future disciplinary action becomes necessary. This judgment reinforces the mandatory requirement of due process in service matters, emphasizing that administrative actions must adhere to fundamental fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide a show-cause notice or personal hearing vitiate an order of termination from service?
  • Is the principle of audi alteram partem applicable to service matters even if the governing statute is silent on the requirement of a hearing?
  • Can an employer terminate an employee for habitual absenteeism without following formal disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Wi-Tribe Pakistan Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others2020 PCTLR 134, 2018 PTD 654 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-30Read full judgment →
• Wazir Muhammad alias Lal Muhammad vs The State2018 PLJ FSC 82, 2018 YLR 1071 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-02-07
  fugitive from justiceright of audiencemurder referenceidentification paradebenefit of doubtcriminal appealdeath sentence confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a conviction and death sentence under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a Murder Reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The appellant, having escaped from jail, was a fugitive from justice. The core legal questions addressed were whether an appeal and a Murder Reference could be adjudicated in the absence of the convict. The Court held that while a fugitive from law forfeits the right of audience, necessitating the dismissal of the appeal, the Court retains the authority and duty to decide the Murder Reference on its merits. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court found the prosecution’s case, particularly the identification parade and ocular testimony, riddled with contradictions and improvements. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, establishing that while abscondence warrants the dismissal of an appeal, it does not preclude the Court from examining the merits of a Murder Reference.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court decide a murder reference on merits in the absence of a fugitive convict?
  • Does a fugitive from justice forfeit the right of audience in a criminal appeal?
  • Is an identification parade reliable if witnesses had access to the accused prior to the parade?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the number of culprits is less than five?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ali vs Province of Sindh through Home Secretary Home2018 YLR 1374 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →