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.

• Shahid Amir alias Noor Kamal vs The State and another2018 YLR 1850 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali vs The State and another2018 MLD 136 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-13
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtQatl-i-Amdrecovery evidencecriminal appealsupplementary statementchain of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for Qatl-i-Amd and destruction of evidence under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances that excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The Court found the witness testimony regarding the appellant's presence unconvincing and inconsistent with medical evidence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the recovery of gold ornaments was legally flawed; because the items were recovered from a jeweler rather than directly from the accused, the requirements of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, were not met. The Court established that for evidence to be admissible under this provision, there must be a direct nexus between the accused's disclosure and the discovery of the fact, without the intervention of an intermediary. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events leaves room for a hypothesis of innocence?
  • Does the recovery of incriminating articles from a third party, rather than directly from the accused, satisfy the requirements of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can a supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 be equated with the First Information Report?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahi Syed through Attorney vs Total Parco Marketing Limited through Company Secretary and another2018 YLR 2039 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-10Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs State & anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 579 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-08
  criminal revisionquantum of sentencereduction of sentenceArshmurderous assaultconcurrent convictionperiod already undergone
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 324 and 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the appropriateness of the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner, given the duration of his incarceration and the absence of prior criminal antecedents. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical reports, to be consistent and reliable. However, regarding the sentence, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the imprisonment to the period already undergone, noting that the petitioner had faced the agony of a prolonged trial and had already served a significant portion of his sentence. The Court also permitted the payment of the imposed Arsh in installments to facilitate the petitioner's release. The key principle laid down is that while maintaining a conviction based on solid evidence, an appellate court may modify the quantum of sentence to the period already undergone when the ends of justice and the purpose of prosecution have been sufficiently served.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone if the prosecution's purpose has been served?
  • Is it permissible for a court to allow the payment of Arsh in installments?
  • Does the absence of prior criminal antecedents justify a reduction in the quantum of sentence for a conviction under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs NAB etc2019 P Cr. L J 1, 2018 LHC 1659 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-27
  preventive measurescorruption and corrupt practiceshousing societiesjurisdiction of NABpower to seek assistanceaccountability lawsLDA
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging a notice issued by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) and housing scheme developers under Section 33-C of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, regarding the monitoring of illegal housing societies. The core legal question is whether NAB possesses the jurisdiction to direct the collection of information and constitute prevention committees concerning private housing schemes through local authorities in the absence of a pending formal inquiry. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that Section 33-C must be interpreted dynamically to allow NAB to take preventive measures against corruption and seek assistance or information under Section 27. The court established that NAB's mandate under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 extends beyond mere investigation of public offices to proactive prevention, public education, and systemic monitoring to curb corruption and corrupt practices in both public and private sectors.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Accountability Bureau has the jurisdiction under Section 33-C of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to constitute committees and take preventive measures regarding unapproved housing schemes?
  • Can the National Accountability Bureau seek information and assistance from public authorities and private entities under Section 27 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 without a formal inquiry pending?
  • Do the provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 extend to preventive measures and systemic monitoring in both the public and private sectors?
  • Does the Lahore Development Authority act as an enabling statute to complement local governments in regulating development projects as settled by precedent?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Residence Welfare Association vs Athesham Haider and four2018 SHC 772 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-27Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Garment (Pvt) Ltd vs Govt of Sindh & Ors2018 SHC 712 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-22
  social security contributionminimum wageSESSIbeneficial legislationrepealed ordinancesaving of notificationsSindh Employees Social Security Act 2016
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves a batch of constitutional petitions challenging demand notices issued by the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution (SESSI) requiring employers to pay social security contributions based on a minimum wage of Rs. 14,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- per worker per month for the years 2016 and 2017 respectively, rather than the static rate of Rs. 10,000/- advocated by the petitioners. The core legal question is whether employers are liable to pay social security contributions based on officially notified minimum wages under the applicable labor laws when the Governing Body has allegedly failed to issue a specific wage limit notification under the Sindh Employees Social Security Act 2016. The Sindh High Court held that employers are under a statutory obligation to make social security contributions in accordance with the minimum wage rates notified for the respective years, and that prior notifications and wage structures remain saved under Section 86(2) of the Act of 2016 and Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act 1897. The court laid down the principle that the minimum wage for social security contributions cannot be less than the remuneration declared under the Minimum Wages Ordinance 1961, and the absence of a fresh recommendation by the Governing Body does not invalidate the legally prevailing minimum wage notifications.

  Questions settled

  • What is the applicable amount of minimum wage for calculating social security contributions in the absence of a fresh wage limit notification by the Governing Body?
  • Whether notifications and orders issued under the repealed Provincial Employees SocialSecurity Ordinance 1965 continue to remain in force under the Sindh Employees Social Security Act 2016?
  • Can social security contributions be less than the minimum rates of wages declared under the Minimum Wages Ordinance 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ahmed vs The State2018 YLR 2284, 2018 SHC 567 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-16
  extortionbhattabenefit of doubtcriminal appealanti-terrorismrecovery memoacquittalevidentiary discrepancies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence recorded by the Anti-Terrorism Court for extortion under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the evidence presented. The High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with significant lacunas, including the failure to seal recovered evidence, the absence of serial numbers for currency notes, and material contradictions in witness testimony regarding the timing and documentation of the recovery. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish the complainant's financial status, which is relevant in extortion cases. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing the principle that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution. The Court reaffirmed the golden rule that if there is any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit must be extended to them as a matter of right, not grace, ensuring that no innocent person is punished due to a flawed investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to seal recovered evidence and record serial numbers of currency notes create reasonable doubt in an extortion case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt when prosecution witnesses provide contradictory testimony regarding the time and date of recovery?
  • Must the prosecution establish the financial status of a complainant to substantiate allegations of extortion?
  • Does the existence of overwriting and alterations in official police documents like mashirnamas undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahadat Ali vs Mst. Shazia Bibi and others2018 MLD 798 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-13Read full judgment →
• Shah Zeb vs Fakhr-E-Alam and another2018 YLR 1101 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman vs The State2018 YLR 1800 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-30
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionvicarious liabilityfurther inquirypre-trial incarcerationbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Shah Zaman, who was charged under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was present at the scene but attributed no specific overt act or injury to the deceased, was entitled to bail given the allegations of common intention and vicarious liability. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, reasoning that the issue of common intention in the context of an accused with no active role constitutes a matter of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that vicarious liability requires evidence to be thrashed out at trial. Furthermore, the Court noted the lack of recovery from the applicant and the significant period of pre-trial incarceration. The key principle laid down is that at the bail stage, the question of common intention is generally a matter of further inquiry unless compelling evidence connects the accused to the crime, and the benefit of doubt regarding innocence should favor the accused to prevent unjust long-term incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without an active role, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail based on common intention?
  • Is the question of common intention considered a matter of further inquiry at the bail stage?
  • Should the benefit of doubt regarding innocence be extended to an accused at the bail stage to avoid unjust long-term incarceration?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Saud vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission2019 PLC (C.S) 808, 2018 PHC 1386 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-27
  age relaxationexclusion of bar practicecivil judgejudicial magistratepublic service commissionwrit petitioneligibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Peshawar High Court addresses four connected writ petitions concerning recruitment to the posts of Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrate (BPS-18) advertised by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission. The core legal questions involved whether candidates were entitled to multiple relaxations in the upper age limit and whether the mandatory two years of practice at the bar could be relaxed. The court held that while candidates cannot avail multiple relaxations under Rule 2(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Relaxation of Upper Age Limit Rules, 2008, the 'exclusion' of two years of practice at the bar under Rule 2(2) operates distinctly from 'relaxation' and must be granted independently. However, the court also held that in the absence of any enabling provision, the mandatory two years of practice at the bar cannot be relaxed. Consequently, the petitions seeking age adjustments through exclusion were allowed, while the petition seeking relaxation of bar experience was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate for the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate can claim both relaxation in upper age limit and exclusion of bar practice under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Relaxation of Upper Age Limit Rules, 2008?
  • Does the word 'excluded' under Rule 2(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Relaxation of Upper Age Limit Rules, 2008 carry a different connotation than 'relaxation'?
  • Is a candidate entitled to relaxation in the mandatory two years of practice at the bar in the absence of any enabling provision in law or rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Room vs Mst. Nehar Begum and another2018 YLR 2103 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
• Shah Alam vs The State2018 YLR 338 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-25
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequesprohibitory clausebusiness transactioncriminal breachbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 118 of 2017 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station North Nazimabad, Karachi, alleging the issuance of dishonoured post-dated cheques after a failed business deal regarding fish stock. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail for an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite the issuance of dishonoured cheques involving a substantial admitted amount. The Sindh High Court held that although the offence carries a maximum sentence of three years and ordinarily attracts the rule that bail is a rule and refusal an exception, the issuance of cheques with dishonest intention in monetary disputes disentitles the accused to bail as the prohibition rule is not of universal application and each case must be decided on its own facts. The court dismissed the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the issuance of dishonoured cheques in a monetary dispute disentitles an accused to post-arrest bail under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the rule that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception apply universally to offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court deny post-arrest bail when there is a prima facie indication of dishonest intention in issuing cheques for an admitted business liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Alam vs Shukoor Khan and 3 others2018 YLR 2379 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-07-10Read full judgment →
• Shah Abul Hasan vs The Federation of Pakistan and others2019 PLC (C.S) 839, 2018 SHC 433, 2018 [M] C.L.R. 634 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-26
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitystatutory rulesnon-statutory regulationsmedical facilitiesState Bank of Pakistanservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired employee of the State Bank of Pakistan, filed a constitutional petition seeking directions for the respondents to grant full medical facilities to his second wife and children, and to reimburse medical expenses incurred for his late first wife. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the State Bank of Pakistan regarding its internal regulations concerning employee medical and pension benefits. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the regulations of the State Bank of Pakistan governing terms, conditions, and medical facilities are non-statutory instructions for internal control and management rather than statutory rules. The court laid down the principle that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked against a corporate entity like the State Bank of Pakistan in respect of service matters governed by non-statutory regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the State Bank of Pakistan in respect of service and medical benefit regulations?
  • Are the regulations framed by the State Bank of Pakistan concerning employee welfare and medical facilities statutory or non-statutory in nature?
  • Does the lack of statutory backing in internal regulations preclude an employee from invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Abul Hasan vs The Federation of Pakistan & others2018 SHC 433 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-26Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Iftikhar vs The State and others2018 MLD 531 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-30
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryfemale accuseddacoitysupplementary statementextra-judicial confessioncommencement of trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by a female accused in a case registered under sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant initially reported a robbery by unknown armed persons, including a veiled female, but later named the petitioner in a supplementary statement based on an extra-judicial confession of a co-accused. The investigating officer subsequently found the co-accused innocent, leaving the prosecution's case against the petitioner without independent corroboration. The Court observed that the petitioner's identity remained questionable and no recovery was made from her during police custody. Addressing the prosecution's argument that the commencement of the trial precluded bail, the Court held that the mere start of trial does not bar bail if the case warrants further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's entitlement to relief as a female under the first and fifth provisos to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given her prolonged incarceration. The bail application was consequently accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere commencement of a trial preclude the grant of bail to an accused if the case otherwise warrants further inquiry?
  • Can a female accused be granted bail under the first and fifth provisos to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial remains unconcluded after a year of incarceration?
  • Is a supplementary statement naming an accused, based solely on an extra-judicial confession of a co-accused who was later declared innocent, sufficient to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Bibi and others vs Amanat Ali and others2018 YLR 645 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Shafqatullah Khan vs Muhammad Anwar2018 CLC 1941, 2018 CLD 870 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-14Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Hussain Shah vs Fed. of Pakistan and Ors2018 SHC 1069 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-26Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 437 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-15
  narcotics controlsafe custody of sampleschain of custodybenefit of the doubtcriminal appealpossession of charas and opiumcontradictions in evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine for allegedly possessing narcotics recovered from a car. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and unbroken chain of the recovered samples and proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of the sample parcels, pointed out glaring contradictions regarding the transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner and the unexplained involvement of the Excise and Taxation Office, and noted the failure to impound the vehicle allegedly used in the crime. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that failure to prove safe custody and link the recovered substance with the chemical examiner's report through cogent evidence entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt, leading to the acceptance of the appeal and the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the safe custody of sample parcels from the time of seizure until their receipt by the chemical examiner vitiate the conviction?
  • Whether material contradictions in the testimonies of police officials regarding the transmission of sample parcels create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the failure to take into possession the vehicle allegedly used in narcotics trafficking considered a major flaw in the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when the link between the seized contraband and the chemical examiner's report is missing?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed vs State, etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 634 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-12-09
  inherent powers of High Courtcancellation reportexecutive orderSection 561-A Cr.P.C.judicial proceedingsMagistrate's administrative functions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by an Illaqa Judicial Magistrate (FIA) that granted concurrence to a police cancellation report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought to challenge the Magistrate's decision to accept the cancellation of an FIR registered under Section 6 of the Passport Act 1974. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to interfere with an executive or administrative order passed by a Magistrate in the context of a cancellation report. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, ruling that the Magistrate’s concurrence with a cancellation report is an executive or administrative function, not a judicial proceeding. Consequently, the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be invoked to challenge such non-judicial actions, as these powers are strictly limited to judicial proceedings and orders of a court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Magistrate's order granting concurrence to a police cancellation report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a judicial or an executive order?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an executive or administrative order passed by a Magistrate?
  • Does the definition of 'Court of Justice' under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to a Magistrate discharging administrative duties under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs Additional Sessions Judge_Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Jahanian District Khanewal and 4 others2018 PLJ Lahore 210 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shafiquddin Moinee vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Islamabad and 2 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 1183, 2018 CLD 1088 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-12
  trans-provincial companiesworkers' participation18th Amendmentlegislative competenceterritorial nexusbeneficial legislationlabor welfare
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legislative competence and applicability of the Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968, and the Sindh Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 2015, specifically regarding "trans-provincial" companies following the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. The core legal question was determining which statute governs profit-sharing obligations for companies operating across provincial boundaries. The Court held that the Sindh Act applies to trans-provincial companies, but its application is territorially limited to workers physically present within Sindh. The Court rejected the argument that the 1968 Act remains the sole governing law for such entities. Instead, it established that the obligation to distribute profits under the Sindh Act must be read down to require payment only for workers in Sindh, calculated proportionately based on the company's total workforce. The Court affirmed that labor welfare legislation is beneficial in nature and must be interpreted to advance its purpose while respecting constitutional territorial constraints. Consequently, the location of a company's registered office or industrial undertaking is irrelevant to the applicability of the provincial statute.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sindh Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 2015 apply to trans-provincial companies?
  • Is the applicability of provincial labor legislation limited to workers physically located within the province?
  • Can a court interpret a statute to read in proportional obligations to ensure constitutional compliance and avoid absurd results?
  • Does the location of a company's registered office determine the applicability of provincial labor laws for trans-provincial entities?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafio and 6 others vs Mst. Zurait and 5 others2018 KLR S.C. 18 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2017-07-03
  concurrent findingsbogus mutationinheritance disputeleave to appealcivil revisionmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of three lower courts, which had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs regarding disputed immovable property. The core legal question involved whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the inheritance of the property and the alleged bogus mutations were sustainable, or whether they suffered from misreading and non-reading of evidence. The Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan held that the judgments of the lower courts were well-reasoned and based on solid grounds, revealing no infirmity or illegality. Consequently, the court converted the petition into an appeal and dismissed it, upholding the concurrent findings in favor of the plaintiffs. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by courts below, when supported by evidence and free from material irregularities like misreading or non-reading, will not be interfered with in appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by three lower courts can be interfered with when no misreading or non-reading of evidence is established?
  • Are mutations executed decades prior open to challenge as illegal and void ab initio when found to be bogus?
  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be converted into an appeal and dismissed on merits when the lower courts' judgments are well-reasoned?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Ullah vs Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PLC (C.S) 1143, 2018 PHC 1844 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-05
  review petitiondisabled persons quotaerror apparent on the face of the recordconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition filed by Shafi Ullah seeking review of an earlier order dismissing his constitutional petition. The core legal question is whether a petitioner can urge a new ground regarding appointment under a disabled persons quota in review proceedings when such a ground was neither raised during the initial hearing nor pleaded in the prayer clause of the original writ petition. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the review petition in limine, holding that a party is precluded from raising a fresh contention in review that was not argued at the time of hearing the main petition, and that the assertion did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record or the discovery of new and important evidence. The key principle laid down is that grounds not raised during the hearing of the main petition cannot be agitated in review proceedings, and review jurisdiction cannot be invoked without showing an error apparent on the face of the record or newly discovered facts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner raise a new ground in review proceedings that was not argued at the time of hearing the original petition?
  • What are the sine qua non grounds for exercising review jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does failure to plead a specific ground in the prayer clause preclude a party from urging it in review?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafee Muhammad vs The State2018 YLR 2610 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-06-22
  criminal appealmurdercapital punishmentcommutation of sentenceocular testimonyconfessional statementSection 382-B Cr.P.C.plea of alibi
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder and related offenses. The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove the charge, citing contradictions in testimony and the inadmissibility of confessions. The court reviewed the ocular evidence provided by the deceased's family, which it found credible and natural, and upheld the conviction, noting that the appellant's extra-judicial confession and subsequent recovery of the weapon corroborated the prosecution's case. However, the court found the imposition of the death penalty unwarranted. It reasoned that since multiple assailants were involved in the indiscriminate firing and it remained uncertain whose specific bullet caused the fatal injury, the capital sentence was inappropriate. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction but converted the death sentence to life imprisonment, granting the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The judgment reaffirms that while consistent ocular testimony and voluntary confessions support a conviction, the quantum of sentence must reflect the specific evidentiary certainty regarding the fatal act in cases involving multiple assailants.

  Questions settled

  • Is an extra-judicial confession followed by the recovery of a crime weapon admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the uncertainty regarding which assailant's shot caused the fatal injury in a joint attack warrant the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of natural witnesses who are family members of the deceased?
  • What are the essential requirements for accepting a judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafaqat Ali vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others2018 PLC 296 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-27
  writ petitionlimitationpleadings and evidencegrievance petitionlabour court jurisdictiondepartmental appealremoval from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the judgments of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's grievance petition and appeal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner, formerly an Assistant Lineman, was removed from service following disciplinary proceedings under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E&D) Rules, 1978. His departmental appeal and subsequent grievance petition were dismissed as time-barred. The core legal question was whether evidence could be led on a fact not pleaded in the grievance petition, specifically regarding the date of receipt of the removal order, and whether general principles of civil procedure regarding pleadings apply to labour cases. The Lahore High Court held that no evidence can be led contrary to pleadings and that general principles of civil procedure apply to proceedings before labour courts where not repugnant. The Court concluded that the departmental appeal and grievance petition were rightly found to be time-barred, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party can lead evidence on a fact not asserted in the pleadings?
  • Do the general principles of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings before a Labour Court?
  • What is the legal effect of a departmental appeal being barred by time upon subsequent legal remedies?
  • Whether the Punjab Labour Court functions as a civil court for the purposes of adjudication under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbiran Bibi vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 788 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-27
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidencebenefit of doubtgender-based bailviscera reportcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 227/2016, involving charges under sections 376, 302, 338-C, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a 65-year-old woman, sought bail after being accused of administering a poisonous substance to cause the death of the complainant's sister. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the medical evidence and her gender. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the Punjab Forensic Science Agency report found no poisonous substance in the deceased's viscera, thereby creating serious doubt in the prosecution's case. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, being a woman, fell within the protective proviso of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court established that the case constituted one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of the slightest doubt in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused at the bail stage, and the heinousness of an offense alone is insufficient to deny bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of poison in a viscera report create sufficient doubt to warrant bail in a murder case?
  • Is a woman entitled to special consideration for bail under the proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground of the heinousness of the alleged offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Kasur etc2018 LHC 1556 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-25Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Kasur and 4 others2018 LHC 1556, 2018 MLD 1733 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-25Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain Gigyani Advocate Member Peshawar High Court Bar2019 PLD Peshawar 13, 2019 PLJ Peshwar 58, 2018 PHC 1742 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-04Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain and another vs The State and 2 others2018 MLD 173 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-17Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Aslam vs Province Sindh and others2018 SHC 1105 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-07Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs The State and another2018 YLR 459 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-12Read full judgment →
• Shabana Noor Ahmed vs Director General Immigration and Passport and others2019 PLD Sindh 456, 2018 SHC 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-12Read full judgment →
• Sh. Tauseef Hussain vs Additional District Judge and others2018 YLR 759 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-20Read full judgment →
• Sh. Shahbaz Akhtar vs Factory Manager etc2018 C.L.R. 1152, 2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 192, KLR 2019 Labour & · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-13
  wrongful dismissalreinstatementcompensation in lieu of reinstatementindustrial relationsback benefitslabour court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a judgment by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had modified a Labour Court's order by awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement to a wrongly dismissed factory employee. The core legal question concerned whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal or Labour Court was justified in awarding compensation instead of reinstating the employee, given the circumstances of the dismissal. The Lahore High Court held that since the employee's dismissal was found to be unlawful and there was no evidence of misconduct, misbehaviour, or threat to the management's working environment, compensation in lieu of reinstatement was unwarranted. The Court laid down the principle that mere prolonged litigation or strained employer-employee relations do not justify denying reinstatement unless the record reflects outrageous allegations or hostility that would make reinstatement undesirable or lead to a genuine law and order situation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether reinstatement should be denied and replaced with compensation solely on the ground of prolonged litigation between the employee and the employer?
  • Can compensation in lieu of reinstatement be awarded under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 without evidence of hostility, arrogance, or a threat to the factory's working environment?
  • Does the possibility of strained employer-employee relations constitute a sufficient legal basis to refuse reinstatement to a wrongfully dismissed worker?
  Read full judgment →
• Seyar Zeb vs The State and others2018 PCRLJ 1207, 2018 PHC 1321 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-07
  cognizable offenceFIR registrationprivate loanswrit jurisdictionJustice of Peacealternate remedyquashing of FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions challenging the registration of FIRs under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition Interest on Private Loans Act 2016. The petitioners contended that the Station House Officers lacked the authority to register these FIRs independently, arguing that Section 6 of the Act of 2016 mandates a specific procedure involving the Justice of Peace. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the police retain the authority to register FIRs for offences under the Act. The Court reasoned that Section 9 of the Act of 2016 explicitly classifies these offences as cognizable, thereby empowering the police to register cases and make arrests without warrants under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court clarified that Section 6 provides an additional, not exclusive, remedy for aggrieved persons to approach the Justice of Peace. Furthermore, the Court ruled that factual allegations regarding innocence and false implication are not suitable for determination in constitutional writ jurisdiction, particularly when the petitioners have alternate, efficacious remedies available under Sections 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 6 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition Interest on Private Loans Act 2016 bar the police from registering an FIR without an order from a Justice of Peace?
  • Are offences under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition Interest on Private Loans Act 2016 cognizable?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained to challenge an FIR when the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Senator Taj Haider and others vs Government of Pakistan, through Secretary, Finance Division and others2019 [M] C.L.R. 69, 2019 PLJ Islamabad 55, 2018 CLC 1910 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-07-17Read full judgment →
• Senator Nehal Hashmi vs N/A2018 SCP 1081 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-02-01
  contempt of courtcriminal contemptunconditional apologyjudicial independencedisqualification of member of parliamentpanama papers casethreats to judges
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves contempt of court proceedings initiated against Senator Nehal Hashmi following a public speech delivered on May 28, 2017, wherein he launched a severe verbal assault and issued explicit threats against the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) constituted in the Panama Papers case. The core legal question was whether the respondent's public statements constituted contempt of court under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, and whether a belated, unconditional apology tendered after contesting the proceedings warranted acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the respondent's speech deliberately obstructed, interfered with, and prejudiced the due course of judicial proceedings, bringing the judiciary into ridicule and disrepute. The Court ruled that a belated apology offered at the fag end of trial does not merit automatic acceptance, though it may mitigate the sentence. The respondent was convicted of contempt, sentenced to simple imprisonment along with a fine, and consequently disqualified from being a member of Parliament for five years pursuant to Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does a public speech threatening judges and members of an investigative team constitute contempt of court?
  • Is an unconditional apology tendered at the belated stage of a trial automatically accepted by the court?
  • Does a conviction for contempt of court result in the disqualification of a member of Parliament under Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Seerdad and another vs The State and another2018 YLR 419 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-17Read full judgment →
• Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan vs Messrs Dadabhoy2018 CLD 993 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-31
  winding upcompulsory winding upcorporate insolvencysubstratum of the companyinsurance company regulationSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistanofficial liquidator
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan seeking the compulsory winding up of a public insurance company under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The core legal question was whether the respondent company, which had ceased operations, failed to meet minimum capital requirements, neglected statutory filings, and ignored multiple show-cause notices, should be wound up. The Court held that the company’s substratum had effectively disappeared, as it had suspended business for years, failed to hold annual general meetings, and demonstrated no prospect of revival or profitable trading. Consequently, the Court ordered the winding up of the company and appointed an Official Liquidator. The key principle laid down is that while courts generally lean toward the survival of corporate entities, compulsory winding up is appropriate when a company's substratum is gone—meaning its objects have failed, it cannot trade profitably, and it has abandoned its business operations. The court emphasized that persistent regulatory non-compliance and total inactivity render a company commercially insolvent, necessitating judicial intervention to protect stakeholders.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances does the court exercise its discretion to order the compulsory winding up of a company?
  • Does the suspension of business for over a year constitute a sufficient ground for the winding up of a company?
  • What constitutes the loss of a company's substratum justifying a winding up order?
  • Can a company be wound up for persistent failure to comply with statutory regulatory requirements and show-cause notices?
  Read full judgment →
• Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan vs M/s.Dadabhoy2018 CLD 993, 2018 SHC 746 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-31Read full judgment →
• Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan vs Adnan Faisal and Another2020 P C T L R 1340, 2018 SHC 852, 2019 CLD 242, 2019 P Cr. L J 504, PLD · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-02
  High Court Appealacquittal orderoriginal criminal jurisdictionmaintainabilityCompanies Ordinance 1984intra-court appealstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter concerns the maintainability of a High Court Appeal filed against an order of acquittal passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, who exercised original criminal jurisdiction under the Companies Ordinance 1984. The appellant sought to invoke Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance 1980 to challenge the acquittal. The core legal question was whether such an appeal is maintainable against an acquittal order rendered by a High Court Judge. The Court held that the appeal is not maintainable. It reasoned that Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance 1980 is restricted to interlocutory orders in civil jurisdiction, which does not apply here. Furthermore, the Court determined that Section 481 of the Companies Ordinance 1984, which governs appeals against acquittal, explicitly excludes orders passed by a High Court. Consequently, the Court affirmed that no statutory provision allows for an intra-court appeal against an acquittal order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in the exercise of original criminal jurisdiction under the Companies Ordinance 1984.

  Questions settled

  • Is a High Court Appeal maintainable against an order of acquittal passed by a Single Judge of the High Court exercising original criminal jurisdiction under the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • Does Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance 1980 provide a right of appeal against an acquittal order passed in criminal proceedings?
  • Does Section 481 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 permit an appeal against an acquittal order passed by a High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Local Government vs Sikandar Hameed and 10 others2018 MLD 205 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-13Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Housing and Physical Environmental Planning and Phe2018 SCMR 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-10-11
  allotment of state landpublic propertymarket pricepast and closed transactionland disposaljudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment directing the implementation of an allotment order for a plot of land in favor of the respondent, Muhammad Ramzan. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to the allotment at the price prevailing in 1991, when the initial allotment order was passed, or at the current market price. The Supreme Court held that while the allotment itself was valid and upheld by previous judicial findings, the respondent could not claim the land at the 1991 price. The Court reasoned that the transfer of state land was not a "past and closed transaction" as no payment had been made nor possession taken. Consequently, the Court affirmed the allotment but directed that the respondent must pay the current market price. The key principle laid down is that public property cannot be treated as a bounty; its disposal must adhere to prescribed procedures, and in the absence of a completed transfer, the state is not bound by historical pricing, ensuring the protection of public assets.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party claim the allotment of state land at a historical price if the transfer was not finalized?
  • Does the doctrine of 'past and closed transaction' apply to an allotment of state land where no payment has been made and possession has not been delivered?
  • Is the disposal of state land subject to the market price prevailing at the time of actual transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Housing & Physical Environmental Planning and the Department, Govt of Punjab and others vs Muhammad Ramzan and others2018 PLJ SC 307, 2018 SCMR 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-10-11
  allotment of state landmarket pricespecific performancehousing schemepublic propertyallotment cancellationstate bounty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment directing the implementation of a 1991 order for the allotment of a plot to the respondent, Muhammad Ramzan. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to the plot at the 1991 market price, given the long delay in implementation caused by the department's failure to execute the allotment. The Supreme Court held that while the respondent's right to the allotment was established and upheld by previous judicial forums, the state cannot 'dole out' land as a bounty. The Court determined that since the respondent had not yet made any payment for the land, he was not entitled to the 1991 price. The principle laid down is that where a final order of transfer has not been executed and no payment made, the allottee must pay the current market price of the land, as state property must be disposed of within the parameters of the law and not at the whims of functionaries.

  Questions settled

  • Can an allottee of state land claim the price prevailing at the time of an original allotment order if the order was not implemented for many years?
  • Is the disposal of state land considered a bounty that can be granted at the whims of state functionaries?
  • Does a change in law or policy regarding the disposal of state land have retrospective application?
  • When does a right to the transfer of property become a vested right?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Food Department, Government of Punjab through Director Food, Lahore, etc. vs Butt Flour Mills, etc2018 P.C.T.L.R. 532 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Secretary, Establishment Division Government of Pakistan vs Dr.2017 PLC (C.S.) 907 · Islamabad High Court
  civil servants promotionCentral Selection Boarddiscretionary marksintegrity and general reputationsupersession and defermentwrit jurisdictionnatural justiceobjective criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment by the Islamabad High Court disposed of a series of Intra-Court Appeals arising from a composite judgment of a learned Single Bench, which had allowed several writ petitions filed by civil servants aspiring for promotion from Basic Pay Scale-20 (BPS-20) to BPS-21. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of writ petitions against mere recommendations of the Central Selection Board (CSB) to the Prime Minister, and the vires and legality of the Office Memoranda and Objective Assessment Forms—specifically the allocation of fifteen discretionary marks by the CSB, including five overriding marks for 'Integrity/General Reputation/Perception'—under which the petitioners were deferred or superseded. The Court held that writ petitions challenging the recommendations simpliciter of the CSB to the Prime Minister are not justiciable under Article 199 of the Constitution as such recommendations are advisory and inchoate until approved by the competent authority. However, the Court upheld the challenge against the Office Memorandum and Objective Assessment Form, ruling that granting the CSB unguided and unfettered discretion with overriding effect for integrity marks without objective criteria, tangible material, or prior confrontation violates the principles of natural justice, statutory mandates, and dictum laid down by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against recommendations simpliciter made by the Central Selection Board to the Prime Minister?
  • Does the allocation of discretionary marks by the Central Selection Board with an overriding effect for integrity and general reputation violate established legal principles and judgments of the superior courts?
  • Is it mandatory to confront a civil servant with tangible adverse material regarding their integrity before denying them promotion or deferring their case?
  • Whether Office Memoranda issued by the Establishment Division prescribing minimum qualifications and promotion policies constitute statutory rules under Section 25 of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Agriculture Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others2018 SCMR 349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-04-13
  service lawpensionary benefitsrectification of mistakedoctrine of legitimate expectancyperson-specific postsuperannuationdepartmental promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition assailed the High Court order which had declared a departmental order void ab initio. The respondent, initially a Senior Clerk, was adjusted as an Accountant in 1996 through a specially created post, later moved over to BS-12, and eventually retired as an Accountant in 2014 after serving in that capacity for over eighteen years. Subsequently, the authorities withdrew the promotion/move-over and retirement orders, seeking to treat him as a Senior Clerk and recover alleged excess payments. The Supreme Court held that although the initial creation of the person-specific post and adjustment without formal promotion was irregular, the respondent was not at fault and had diligently discharged his duties for over eighteen years. The Court ruled that it would be unjust to penalize the employee for the follies of his superiors after such a long lapse of time, and protected his entitlements under the doctrine of legitimate expectancy. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee can be denied retirement and pensionary benefits as an accountant after serving in that capacity for over eighteen years due to an initial irregularity by the authorities?
  • Can an employment benefit received bona fide over a long period be recovered from an employee who was not at fault in his appointment or posting?
  • Does the doctrine of legitimate expectancy protect an employee from retrospective withdrawal of benefits after a lapse of many years?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad vs Aftab Ahmed Manika and others Rao Manzar Hayat and others2018 SCP 1155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-03-21
  civil servantspromotioncentral selection boardcompetent authorityjurisdiction of high courtservice tribunalterms and conditions of servicefitness for promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This case arises from petitions filed by the Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, challenging judgments of the Islamabad High Court and the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the Prime Minister's decision to return recommendations of the Central Selection Board (CSB) regarding the promotion of certain civil servants from BPS-20 to BPS-21. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 212 of the Constitution in view of the ouster of jurisdiction regarding terms and conditions of civil servants, and the extent of the Prime Minister's powers as the competent authority to disagree with or return the recommendations of the CSB. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the determination of fitness for promotion is expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal, the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is not ousted. However, on merits, the Court held that the CSB's recommendations are merely advisory or recommendatory in nature, and the appointing authority is not bound by them and possesses the discretion to return them for reconsideration in exceptional circumstances. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the High Court judgments were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution bar the High Court from examining matters relating to the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
  • Are the recommendations of the Central Selection Board binding upon the appointing authority under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can the Prime Minister as the competent authority return recommendations for promotion to the Central Selection Board for reconsideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Azad Jammu and Kashmir vs Muhammad Qadeer (Retired)2018 PLC (C.S.) 359, 2018 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 37 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-01
  writ petitionservice matterscivil servantdepartmental rulespublic functionarymaintainabilityseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court, which had accepted a writ petition filed by civil servants challenging an appointment to the post of Director General Audit (B-20) in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Audit and Accounts Department. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the writ petition regarding service matters and the validity of the High Court's direction to appoint the senior-most eligible officer in the absence of departmental rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition was academic as the original petitioners had since retired. The Court emphasized that public functionaries are duty-bound to perform their assigned functions and frame necessary rules for appointments, and failure to do so constitutes negligence. Furthermore, the Court observed that the appeal could not proceed as there were no longer any contesting respondents, applying the principle that an appeal requires a respondent to be heard. The judgment reinforces the duty of public institutions to perform their assigned functions and uphold administrative regularity.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be heard by the Supreme Court if there are no contesting respondents?
  • Does the failure of a public authority to frame rules for appointments constitute negligence?
  • Is a writ petition challenging service matters maintainable if the petitioners have retired during the pendency of the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council vs Muhammad Qadeer2018 PLC (C.S.) 359 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-01
  civil servicewrit jurisdictiondepartmental rulespublic functionaryterms and conditions of servicemootnessappointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment concerning the appointment of a Director General Audit within the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Audit and Accounts Department. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly entertained a writ petition regarding civil service matters and whether the absence of departmental rules justified judicial intervention. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition was moot because the original petitioners had retired. The Court affirmed that public functionaries are legally obligated to perform their assigned duties, including the framing of necessary rules, and that failure to do so constitutes negligence. Furthermore, the Court held that the appeal could not proceed as there were no contesting respondents left to defend the judgment. The key principle laid down is that public institutions are duty-bound to perform their statutory functions, and an appeal cannot be effectively adjudicated in the absence of a contesting respondent to represent the opposing interest.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ petition regarding civil service matters be maintained if the petitioners have retired during the pendency of the proceedings?
  • Does the failure of a public institution to frame rules for appointments constitute negligence?
  • Can an appeal be adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in the absence of a contesting respondent?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Abbas and another vs The State2018 MLD 887 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-04
  criminal appealocular evidencenight occurrencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtacquittalmurder referencepostmortem delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions of the appellants for the murder of four individuals and injuries to two others. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony, alleging a motive stemming from a marriage dispute. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of eyewitness accounts in a night-time occurrence and the consistency of medical evidence with the alleged weapon usage. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution’s case was fraught with improbabilities and doubts. The court noted significant delays in the postmortem examinations, suggesting the FIR was recorded after deliberation. Furthermore, the medical evidence, which showed pellet wounds, contradicted the prosecution's claim of 222-caliber weapon usage. The court established that injuries to a witness do not automatically guarantee the truthfulness of their testimony if the narrative is otherwise implausible. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, emphasizing that suspicion cannot substitute for evidentiary certainty in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a prosecution witness automatically render their testimony reliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries contradicts the prosecution's theory of the weapon used?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting postmortem examinations raise a presumption that the FIR was recorded after deliberation?
  • Is it safe to convict based on ocular testimony in a night-time occurrence where the source of light is not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Sebastiani Lakra & Ors vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr2018 SCInd 127 · Supreme Court of India · 2018-10-12Read full judgment →
• Searle IV Solution (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 SCMR 1444 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-06-27
  ouster of jurisdictioncustoms dutyoriginal civil jurisdictionmaintainability of suittax assessmentHigh Court jurisdictionconstitutional court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of civil suits filed against tax authorities challenging adverse assessment orders, specifically regarding the ouster clause in Section 217(2) of the Customs Act 1969. The core legal questions were whether such suits are barred by the ouster clause, whether the Single Bench of the Sindh High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction qualifies as a "civil court" subject to that bar, and whether this jurisdiction violates Article 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that while the tax authorities' actions were within their jurisdiction and not subject to civil suit on the merits, the Single Bench of the Sindh High Court is a constitutional court, not a "civil court" (district court), and thus the ouster clause does not apply to its original civil jurisdiction. Consequently, the suits are maintainable. However, to prevent abuse and protect the public exchequer, the Court directed that such jurisdiction be exercised sparingly, with a mandatory condition that 50% of the disputed tax be deposited. The principle established is that a High Court's original civil jurisdiction remains distinct from that of ordinary civil courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the ouster clause in Section 217(2) of the Customs Act 1969 bar the original civil jurisdiction of the Single Bench of the Sindh High Court?
  • Is the Single Bench of the Sindh High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction considered a 'civil court' for the purposes of the ouster clause in the Customs Act 1969?
  • Does the exercise of original civil jurisdiction by the Single Bench of the Sindh High Court violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can civil courts assume jurisdiction over tax assessment orders if the authority acted within its statutory powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Scherazade Jamali vs Hisham Gillani and others2018 PLD Sindh 377 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-27
  guardian and wardchild custodywelfare of the minorterritorial jurisdictionvisitation rightsrestriction of movementfamily courtsdual nationality
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a guardianship dispute between estranged parents who were Canadian nationals previously settled in Kuwait, concerning the custody and movement of their minor child. The mother challenged orders passed by the lower courts that dismissed her appeal and restricted the minor's movement within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court to protect the father's visitation rights, despite having dismissed the father's application for permanent custody. The core legal questions involved the territorial jurisdiction of family courts under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and whether restricting a child's movement to preserve visitation rights constitutes the child's paramount welfare. The Sindh High Court held that the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, regulates jurisdiction in guardianship matters with overriding effect, and that the mother had acquiesced to the jurisdiction. The Court further held that restricting a minor's movement solely to accommodate a parent's visitation rights does not equate to the welfare of the minor, which encompasses broader material, intellectual, and moral well-being. The Court set aside the restriction on movement, ordered the return of the passport, and laid down principles regulating the child's education and the father's visitation rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, have overriding effect over the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in determining territorial jurisdiction for guardianship matters?
  • Can a party who has acquiesced and surrendered to the territorial jurisdiction of a trial court subsequently challenge its jurisdiction?
  • Does restricting a minor's movement exclusively to facilitate a parent's visitation rights constitute the welfare of the minor?
  • What constitutes the comprehensive welfare of a minor in custody and guardianship adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Mohammad Areeb Abdul Khafid Shah Bukhari vs Government2018 PLJ Lahore 69, 2018 PLD Lahore 390 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-09
  Rent RegistrarPunjab Rented Premises Act 2009tenancy agreementlandlord-tenant relationshipjurisdiction of Rent Tribunalproof of ownershipadministrative entrustment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order by a Rent Tribunal, acting as an ex-officio Rent Registrar, which refused to register a rent agreement pending production of property ownership documents. The core legal questions concerned the jurisdiction of Rent Tribunals to act as Rent Registrars, the authority of a Rent Registrar to demand title documents, and the power of a Senior Civil Judge to entrust rent cases to other judges. The Court held that following the government’s 2012 notification appointing specific Rent Registrars, Rent Tribunals no longer possess the jurisdiction to perform registration functions. However, the Court affirmed that a Rent Registrar is empowered to require prima facie proof of ownership or authorization from a landlord to verify the tenancy relationship, as the Act defines a landlord to include authorized persons. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Administrative Special Judges (Rent) possess the statutory authority to entrust cases to other Special Judges (Rent). The principle established is that while registration is a ministerial act, the Registrar must conduct a preliminary probe into the status of parties, and judicial functions must remain distinct from administrative registration duties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Rent Tribunal established under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 have the jurisdiction to function as a Rent Registrar?
  • Is a Rent Registrar empowered to require proof of title or ownership from a landlord before registering a rent agreement?
  • Does an Administrative Special Judge (Rent) have the authority to entrust rent cases to other Special Judges (Rent) for adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2018 [M] C.L.R. 1670 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-07-03Read full judgment →
• Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others2018 IHC 146 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-12-04Read full judgment →
• Saud Majeed vs Returning Officer etc2019 CLC 520, 2018 LHC 2507, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 101 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-07
  election appealnomination paperstatement of assets and liabilitiesmaterial particulardefect of substantial naturescrutiny of nomination papers
  Summary & questions settled

  This election appeal under Section 113 of the Elections Act, 2017 challenged an order of the Returning Officer dismissing objections and accepting the nomination paper of the respondent for Senate Bye-Elections-2018. The core legal questions involved whether minor discrepancies, formatting adjustments, or omissions such as writing 'Not Applicable' regarding asset costs in nomination forms (Form-B) constitute a defect of substantial nature or render the statement false in a material particular under the Elections Act, 2017, and whether such omissions amount to suppression of material facts. The court held that minor adjustments in spacing, altering column headings to list domestic rather than foreign business capital where no foreign assets existed, and writing 'Not Applicable' for asset costs while attaching detailed tax returns disclosing the trust assets did not amount to material concealment or a defect of substantial nature. The court laid down the principle that the scrutiny of nomination papers is a summary inquiry, and minor formal discrepancies or non-misleading omissions that do not result in disqualification or substantial suppression of facts do not warrant the rejection of a nomination paper.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor formatting adjustments and use of available space in Form-B of a nomination paper constitute a defect of substantial nature under the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Does writing 'Not Applicable' in the cost of asset column render a nomination paper's statement false or incorrect in a material particular when underlying asset details are disclosed in attached tax documents?
  • What is the legal scope and nature of the inquiry conducted by a Returning Officer during the scrutiny of nomination papers?
  Read full judgment →
• Sattar Shah vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 615 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-21
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical examinationabductionSection 497 CrPCDar-ul-Aman
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail petition was filed by Sattar Shah in case FIR No. 305, dated 23.08.2017, registered under Sections 496-A, 376, 380, 381-A, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Sahoka, District Vehari. The allegations involved the abduction of the complainant's wife, administering intoxicants, and theft. The Lahore High Court observed that co-accused persons had already been granted pre-arrest bail. The alleged victim lady had voluntarily appeared before a Judicial Magistrate seeking admission to and release from Dar-ul-Aman without making any allegations against the petitioner or other accused during those appearances. Furthermore, the alleged victim of intoxication was not medically examined, and the investigation by the District Investigation Branch (DIB) found no role attributable to the petitioner. The High Court held that these circumstances rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail, the Court established that uncorroborated allegations lacking medical evidence and contradictory statements by the victim justify bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to medically examine a victim of alleged intoxication creates grounds of further inquiry for bail?
  • Whether silence of an alleged abductee regarding accused persons during proceedings before a magistrate makes the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) CrPC?
  • Does an investigative finding exonerating the accused entitle him to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam vs Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (Dead) through LRS. & Ors2018 SCInd 95 · Supreme Court of India · 2018-09-24Read full judgment →
• Sarzamin Khan and 4 others vs Wali Muhammad2018 PLJ Peshawar 71 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Sarzamin Khan & others vs Dilawar Khan & others2018 PHC 1412 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-02Read full judgment →
• Sarzamin and 4 others vs Wali Muhammad2018 PLJ Peshawar 71, 2018 YLR 1428 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Sarwar alias Ghulam Sarwar vs The State2018 MLD 193 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-15
  narcoticscriminal appealbenefit of the doubtcontradictions in evidencechemical examiner reportdaily diary entryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge (Narcotics), Dadu, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of police testimony, the failure to produce crucial documentary evidence such as the daily diary entry, unexplained delay in sending the narcotics sample for chemical analysis, and material contradictions between prosecution witnesses regarding the association of private witnesses and the movement of police officials. The Sindh High Court held that the cumulative effect of these serious infirmities and discrepancies created reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that the failure to produce vital corroborative documents, coupled with delayed sample transmission and material contradictions among witnesses, entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the daily diary entry showing police departure shatter the prosecution case?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in sending a narcotics sample to the chemical examiner creates doubt about safe custody?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt when material contradictions exist between police witnesses in a narcotics case?
  • Does the absence of independent private witnesses in a thickly populated area weaken the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwan Laghari vs Vice-Chancellor, LUMS and others2018 CLC 296 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-05Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz and 2 others vs The State and another2018 YLR 1282 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-06
  post-arrest bailvicarious liabilityfurther inquiryprohibitory clausestatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail for three petitioners in a case involving murder and other offences. The core legal questions relate to whether the petitioners are entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry, particularly considering the attribution of specific injuries and the applicability of vicarious liability. The Lahore High Court held that two petitioners, to whom no fatal injuries were attributed and whose vicarious liability required trial evaluation, were entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the statutory delay in trial and lack of necessity for further incarceration. However, the court dismissed the bail petition of the third petitioner, who was specifically named in the First Information Report with a fatal injury corroborated by medical evidence and whose alleged offence fell within the prohibitory clause. The key principle laid down is that tentative assessment governs bail stages where vicarious liability requires evidence and prolonged incarceration without trial progress warrants relief under the rule of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused to whom no fatal injury is attributed and whose vicarious liability is to be determined at trial is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without fruitful progress in the conclusion of a trial justify the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an accused named in the First Information Report with a specific incriminating role falling within the prohibitory clause is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ali vs Province Sindh and others2018 SHC 989 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-26Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed vs National Testing Services & others2018 SHC 553 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-12Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Khan vs Ilyas Masjid etc2018 PHC 1861 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-21Read full judgment →
• Sareer Ahmad and others vs The Secretary, Govt. of KPK Health2019 PLC (C.S.) 170, 2018 PHC 1728 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-03
  public appointmentsnepotism and favouritismCivil Servants RulesDistrict Employment Exchangeillegal appointmentswrit petitionNational Accountability Bureau
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court challenging the appointment of candidates to newly created posts (BPS-3 to BPS-7) at Mian Rashid Hussain Shaheed Memorial Hospital Pabbi, District Nowshera, alleging political interference, nepotism, and non-compliance with prescribed recruitment rules. The core legal question was whether appointments made without public advertisement or proper requisition through the District Employment Exchange, and allegedly at the instance of political entities, violated the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989. The Court held that appointments made without advertising vacant posts or following the mandatory statutory mechanism of the Departmental Selection Committee through the District Employment Exchange constitute nepotism and favouritism. The Court set aside all the impugned appointments, declared the posts vacant for re-initiation of the selection process in the prescribed manner, and referred the matter to the National Accountability Bureau for investigation. The key principle laid down is that public appointments in basic pay scales 3 to 5 must strictly adhere to the statutory rules requiring either advertisement in leading newspapers or transparent requisition through the District Employment Exchange based on candidates' seniority of registration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether initial appointments to posts in basic pay scales 3 to 5 can be made without public advertisement or proper requisition through the District Employment Exchange?
  • Does the failure to advertise vacant government posts and directly selecting candidates based on private applications violate the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989?
  • Can appointments made through nepotism and political interference be set aside by the High Court under writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar vs The State and another2018 MLD 973 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-25
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtover-implicationacquittalre-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Hangu, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, considering his old age, infirmity, exaggerated role attribution, and lack of corroborative physical evidence such as weapon recoveries or unhindered visibility from the complainant's vantage point. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the prosecution must prove its case through reliable and confidence-inspiring evidence, and that an exaggerated charge meant to rope in family members due to their relation, combined with physical improbabilities such as the septuagenarian appellant fleeing into the mountains, creates reasonable doubt warranting acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can secure a conviction without proving its case through reliable and confidence-inspiring evidence?
  • Does the advanced age and infirmity of an accused render police allegations of fleeing the crime scene unbelievable?
  • Whether an exaggerated charge aimed at roping in family members warrants setting aside a conviction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when physical hindrances make it impossible for an eyewitness to observe the accused at the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Sher Bahadur and 5 others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Islamabad and another2018 CLC 1202 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-06
  anti-defection lawfloor-crossinglocal governmentconstitutional petitiondisqualificationpolitical stabilitylegislative competenceKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act 2013
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the validity of Section 78-A of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013, introduced via the 2015 Amendment, which provides for the disqualification of local government members on grounds of defection. The petitioners contended that the provision was ultra vires the Constitution, violated fundamental rights, and could not be applied retrospectively to elections held before its enactment. The Court held that the impugned legislation is intra vires and constitutionally valid, noting its similarity to Article 63-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court reasoned that the legislature has the competence to enact laws to curb the cancerous vice of floor-crossing to ensure political stability and party discipline. Regarding applicability, the Court determined that the law was not being applied retrospectively because the specific elections for Nazim and Naib Nazim, during which the defection occurred, took place after the law's promulgation. The Court affirmed that anti-defection laws are essential for maintaining democratic integrity and do not infringe upon fundamental rights when reasonable restrictions are applied.

  Questions settled

  • Is Section 78-A of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act 2013, regarding disqualification on grounds of defection, ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the provincial legislature have the competence under Article 140-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to enact anti-defection laws for local government members?
  • Can anti-defection legislation be applied to local government members who were elected before the law's enactment but cast votes after its promulgation?
  • Does an anti-defection provision violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Sher Bahadar Khan etc. vs Election Commission of Pakistan2018 PLJ SC 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  defectionlocal government electionsparty disciplineElection Commission of Pakistan quorumprospective application of statuteparty directionNazim electionhorse-trading
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated civil appeals and petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from local government elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, focusing on the interpretation and application of Section 78-A of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act 2013, which penalizes defection for voting or abstaining contrary to party directions in local council elections. The core legal questions involved the retrospective or prospective application of Section 78-A, the proper constitution and quorum of the Election Commission of Pakistan when deciding defection references, and whether specific party directions and violations were established in each respective case. The Supreme Court held that Section 78-A operates prospectively to cover elections held immediately after its enactment, and that decisions rendered by a three-member bench of the Election Commission are legally valid under Section 8(2) of the Election Commission Order 2002 despite vacancies or absences. The Court laid down that while party heads or their nominees have the statutory authority to issue binding directions and declare defection, such defection must be proven by clear evidence of a validly issued direction which remains operative, resulting in the dismissal of appeals and petitions where violations were proven and the allowance of those where party candidates had boycotted the election without clear surviving directions.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 78-A of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act 2013 apply retrospectively or prospectively to local government elections?
  • Whether an order passed by a three-member bench of the Election Commission of Pakistan is valid despite the absence or non-participation of the Chairman or other members?
  • Who possesses the authority within a political party to issue show-cause notices and declare defection under Section 78-A of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act 2013?
  • Does the boycott of an election by party-nominated candidates render prior party voting directions redundant for the purpose of establishing defection?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Sher Bahadar Khan and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary, Election Commission, Islamabad and others2018 PLJ SC 131, 2018 PLJ SC 221, 2018 PLD Supreme Court 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-20
  defectiondisqualificationlocal government electionsparty disciplinehorse-tradingElection Commission of Pakistanretrospective applicationNazim and Naib Nazim
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated civil appeals and a petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the interpretation and application of Section 78A of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013, concerning disqualification on grounds of defection. The core legal questions involved whether the 2015 amendment introducing Section 78A applied retrospectively to ongoing election cycles, the validity of defection declarations made by party heads or their nominees, and the legality of orders passed by a three-member bench of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The Court held that Section 78A operates prospectively but applied to the subject elections as the voting occurred after the amendment's enactment. It further ruled that ECP decisions are not invalid merely due to the absence of some members, provided a majority opinion is reached. On the merits, the Court upheld defection declarations where clear party directions were violated but set aside a declaration where the party candidates had boycotted the election and no specific, proven direction to abstain from voting was established. The key principle laid down is that defection requires proof of a specific party direction and its subsequent violation.

  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Sher Bahadar Khan & others vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary, Election Commission,.Islamabad etc2018 PLJ SC 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  defectionlocal government electionspolitical party disciplineElection Commission of Pakistanhorse-tradingparty ticketretroactive legislationquorum of election commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses civil appeals and a petition arising from disputes over local government elections for Nazim and Naib Nazim in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, focusing on the interpretation and retrospective or prospective application of Section 78-A of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act 2013 regarding defection. The core legal questions involve whether Section 78-A applies prospectively to elections held shortly after its enactment, whether the Election Commission of Pakistan was properly constituted when functioning with three members, and whether the appellants violated party directions amounting to defection. The Supreme Court held that Section 78-A applies prospectively to elections conducted after its enactment to curb horse-trading, that the Election Commission can validly function with a quorum of three members under the Election Commission Order 2002, and that defection provisions require clear proof of party directions. The key principles laid down include the prospective operation of anti-defection laws to imminent elections, the validity of a reduced-member bench of the Election Commission during vacancies or absences, and the necessity of establishing explicit party voting directions before penalizing members for defection.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 78-A of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act 2013 applies retrospectively or prospectively to local government elections?
  • Can the Election Commission of Pakistan validly decide matters through a three-member bench when certain members are absent or have recused themselves?
  • Does the mere issuance of a party ticket constitute a binding party direction under Section 78-A of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act 2013 in the absence of explicit voting instructions?
  • What are the legal consequences when party-nominated candidates boycott an election regarding the applicability of anti-defection provisions against party members?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Qasim Hassan vs Federation of Pakistan Khan and Others.PTCL 2018 CL. 9 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Azad Khan and another vs The State2018 YLR 417 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-10
  post-arrest bailheroin recoverycontrol of narcotic substancesprevious convicttentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal misc. application seeks post-arrest bail for applicants Sardar Muhammad Azad Khan and Tariq Hussain, who were charged under sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after a huge quantity of heroin weighing 261 Kgs and 292 grams was recovered from a container shipped from Pakistan to Sri Lanka. The core legal question revolved around whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the massive recovery of narcotics and the previous conviction of applicant No. 1. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that sufficient material connected the applicants to the offense, that applicant No. 1 was a previous convict, and that narcotic trafficking activities tarnished the country's international reputation. The court laid down the principle that deep appreciation of evidence is not warranted at the bail stage where prima facie sufficient incriminating material exists, and prior convictions further disentitle an accused from the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused involved in the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does a previous conviction of an accused disentitle him from the concession of bail in subsequent narcotics cases?
  • Can deep appreciation of evidence and facts be undertaken by the court at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Liaquat Ali Dogar and another vs Sardar Ahmad Din Dogar and others2018 CLC 1087 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-23Read full judgment →
• Sardar Hussain and others vs Zafar Hussain2018 CLC 1354 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-29Read full judgment →
• Sardar Bibi vs Munir Ahmed, etc.2018 P.S.C. (Crl.) 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-12-14
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of the doubtocular accountindependent corroborationimprovementschance witnessmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a double murder case. The core legal questions involve the credibility of chance witnesses who made material improvements to align with medical evidence, the reliability of uncorroborated ocular testimony where co-accused have been acquitted, the proof of motive, and the validity of recoveries made from joint custody. The Supreme Court held that the eyewitnesses were unreliable due to dishonest improvements, delayed FIR registration indicating consultation, unproved motive, and doubtful recoveries. Reaffirming the principle that an eyewitness disbelieved regarding some accused cannot be relied upon against others without independent corroboration, the Court dismissed the appeal against acquittal and allowed the appeal of the remaining convicts, setting aside their convictions and sentences by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principles laid down include that material and dishonest improvements by witnesses destroy their credibility, and that an accused is entitled to acquittal when ocular testimony is rejected for co-accused and no independent corroboration exists.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses who made dishonest and material improvements to align with medical evidence can be relied upon for conviction?
  • Is independent corroboration mandatory to sustain a conviction when eyewitnesses have already been disbelieved regarding several co-accused who faced similar allegations?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon from a joint house collectively inhabited by multiple persons constitute safe corroborative evidence against a single accused?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR at the spot during odd hours raises a legitimate inference of consultation and deliberation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Arsalan Haider Leghari vs Mr. Sajid Mehmood, Civil Judge etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 1445, 2018 LHC 1238 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-21Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs Hameedullah & 2 othrs and The State2019 P Cr. L J 186, 2018 PHC 1677 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-06
  appeal against acquittalsole eyewitnessbenefit of doubtmurdercredibility of witnessre-appraisement of evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was preferred by the complainant against the judgment of the Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondents committed the murder of the complainant's father by firearm shots following a motive related to a dispute over womenfolk. The core legal questions involved the credibility of a sole eyewitness who was closely related to the deceased, the evidentiary value of corroborative evidence including medical and recovery evidence, and the grounds for interfering with an acquittal judgment. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, improvements in the ocular account, unnatural conduct of the sole eyewitness, absence of crime empties, and inconsistencies with medical evidence. The court laid down the principle that in appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is doubled, and appellate courts will not interfere unless the trial court's judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a gross misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a sole eyewitness who is a close relative of the deceased can be relied upon without independent corroboration when it suffers from material contradictions and unnatural conduct?
  • Does the absence of crime empties from the spot of a firearm incident cast serious doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
  • What are the strict legal parameters and conditions under which an appellate court may interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  • Can medical evidence contradicting the time of occurrence as stated in the First Information Report weaken the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Alam vs The State2018 MLD 482 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-30
  post-arrest bailfirearm injuryattempt to commit qatl-i-amdfurther inquiryabsconding co-accusedprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Sardar Alam, in relation to a criminal case registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of firearm injuries inflicted upon the complainant and others. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the incident. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, observing that the applicant and his accomplices had engaged in repeated firing with the intention to cause harm, resulting in injuries to the complainant party. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant's own pleadings admitted to the firing incident, and that other accomplices remained absconders. The Court affirmed that the case did not fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prima facie evidence suggested the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a prohibition against bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the admission of a firing incident in a bail application preclude a claim that the case requires further inquiry?
  • Can bail be granted under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the alleged offence prima facie attracts the prohibition contained in Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the presence of absconding co-accused affect the court's discretion in granting post-arrest bail to the applicant?
  Read full judgment →
• Sangeen Khan and another vs The State and another2018 YLR 1867 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-20Read full judgment →
• Sandbar and 2 others vs The State and others2018 PHC 1597, 2018 PLD Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-09
  cross casescounter versionsremandaggressor and aggressed uponmurderside-by-side trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition challenge the convictions and sentences of the appellants recorded by the trial court under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question centered on whether the trial court erred in failing to conduct side-by-side trials of two counter-cases arising from the same incident involving the same parties, date, and place. The Peshawar High Court held that when two criminal cases relate to opposing versions of the same incident, they constitute cross-cases and must be tried side-by-side by the same court to determine the aggressor and avoid conflicting judgments. The court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision after concluding the trial in the cross-case. The key principle laid down is that counter-cases arising from the same transaction must be tried simultaneously to ensure a fair determination of liability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether two criminal cases arising from the same incident with conflicting versions must be tried side-by-side as cross-cases?
  • Does a slight variation in the time of occurrence prevent two FIRs relating to the same date, place, and parties from being treated as cross-cases?
  • What is the proper procedure for a trial court when dealing with a case and counter-case arising out of the same transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State2019 P.S.C (Crl.) 298, 2018 P Cr. L J 984 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2018-01-26
  criminal appealmurder convictionabsconsioninterested witnessescorroborationappreciation of evidencelife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged an order of the Chief Court, which had upheld the petitioner's conviction for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction was sustainable despite the petitioner's arguments regarding inconsistent witness testimony, lack of independent corroboration, and procedural defects in the investigation. The Supreme Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The court held that the petitioner's unexplained period of absconsion constituted a significant corroborative piece of evidence against him. Furthermore, the court established that the mere familial relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased does not constitute sufficient grounds to discard their testimony, provided the witnesses remain consistent and credible. Finding that the evidence was sufficient and inspiring confidence, the court refused to interfere with the lower courts' concurrent findings. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were maintained, confirming that the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained period of absconsion serve as a corroborative piece of evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Can the testimony of prosecution witnesses be discarded solely on the ground that they are related to the deceased?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when concurrent findings of lower courts are based on evidence that inspires confidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanam Yaqoob vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through its Chief Secretary and 2 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 809 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-04-13
  writ petitionpublic appointmentad hoc appointmentcompetent authoritydiscretionary reliefinadmissibility of photostat copies
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 sought the issuance of permanent appointment orders, payment of emoluments, and protection of the place of posting for the petitioner as a Research and Planning Officer (B-17). The core legal question was whether an appointment made by the Chairman of the Neelum Valley Development Board upon the directive of the Prime Minister, without statutory compliance, lack of proper board approval, and without advertising the post or following merit, could be enforced through the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an unlawful order or an appointment made in violation of statutory rules (specifically Section 10 of the Neelum Valley Development Board Act, 1999) cannot be enforced through a writ, and that unverified photostat copies of documents are inadmissible in evidence. The court laid down the principle that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised to perpetuate or enforce illegal administrative appointments made in disregard of prescribed legal procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appointment order issued by the Chairman of a Board upon the Prime Minister's directive, without statutory approval by the Board, can be enforced through writ jurisdiction?
  • Is an illegal public appointment protected under the law merely because it was implemented or acted upon?
  • Are photostat copies of documents admissible in writ proceedings under the High Court Procedure Rules?
  • Whether the High Court can issue a writ to enforce an administrative order that violates the governing service statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah vs Govt. of Punjab etc2018 CLC 1987, 2018 KLR Revenue Cases 124, 2018 LHC 1763 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-01Read full judgment →
• Sana Noor vs Govt of KPK2019 MLD 853, 2018 PHC 1852 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-04Read full judgment →
• Samson alias Mithoo and 9 others vs Nasim Qazi2018 YLR 657 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-19Read full judgment →
• Samiullah and 7 others vs Mistri Umara Khan2018 CLC 1731 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-19Read full judgment →
• Samiullah & others vs Mistri Umara Khan2018 CLC 1731, 2018 PHC 1368 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-19Read full judgment →
• Samina Munir vs ASJ/Justice of Peace, etc2019 KLR Criminal Cases 83, 2019 PLJ Lahore 206, 2018 LHC 2289 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-28Read full judgment →
• Samin Textile Limited through authorized Representative vs Muhammad2018 CLC 328 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-03Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah vs The State etc2018 PHC 1856 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-14Read full judgment →