Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Sami Ullah Khan vs WAPDA through its Chairman and others2018 PLJ Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the appellate court's dismissal of the petitioner's appeal against the return of his plaint. The petitioner, an employee of TESCO, sought to challenge his service termination. The core legal question was whether the Civil Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the service dispute of a TESCO employee who is neither a civil servant nor a workman, despite the petitioner's previous withdrawal of the suit based on erroneous legal advice. The Court held that the Civil Court possesses plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as TESCO lacks statutory service rules and the petitioner does not fall under the definition of a workman. The Court set aside the impugned orders, ruling that the petitioner should not be prejudiced by his counsel's misconception of law or the trial court's failure to exercise its duty. The key principle established is the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy), confirming that Civil Courts are the courts of ultimate jurisdiction for enforcing civil rights when no specific statutory forum exists.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a service dispute for an employee of a company that lacks statutory service rules?
- Can a litigant be denied access to justice due to the erroneous legal advice of their counsel regarding the jurisdiction of the court?
- Is a TESCO employee who is not a workman entitled to seek redress in a Civil Court for wrongful termination?
- Does the principle of 'ubi jus ibi remedium' empower a Civil Court to assume jurisdiction when no other specific forum is available?
- Sami Ullah Baloch and others vs Abdul Karim Nousherwani and others2018 PLD Supreme Court 405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves a series of petitions seeking an authoritative interpretation of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan regarding the duration of disqualification for election to Parliament. The central issue is whether the incapacity imposed by Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution—resulting from a judicial declaration that a candidate lacks sagacity, righteousness, honesty, or is untrustworthy—is of perpetual effect or limited to a specific duration. The Supreme Court held that the incapacity created by Article 62(1)(f) is permanent and remains in effect as long as the declaratory judgment supporting the finding of delinquent conduct remains in the field. The Court established that qualifications under Article 62 and disqualifications under Article 63 are distinct, and the former cannot be read down using the latter. It emphasized that because the Constitution does not specify a time limit for the incapacity under Article 62(1)(f), the disability is co-extensive with the existence of the adverse judicial declaration. The Court rejected the application of the principle of proportionality to limit this constitutional bar, affirming that such disqualification is not an arbitrary restriction on fundamental rights.
Questions settled- Is the incapacity to contest elections under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 perpetual?
- Does the disqualification under Article 63(1)(h) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 limit the duration of incapacity imposed under Article 62(1)(f)?
- Can the principle of proportionality be applied to reduce the duration of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is the lack of qualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 co-extensive with the existence of the adverse judicial declaration?
- Sameea Hafeez vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Cooperatives, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, etc2018 KLR Civil Cases 380 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Salman Ghazanfar vs The State2018 MLD 1446 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-12Read full judgment →
- Salman Aziz vs Federal Urdu University & others2019 PLD Sindh 500, 2018 SHC 624 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-16Read full judgment →
- Salman alias Lamba and another vs The State2018 YLR 1092 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under various provisions relating to illegal arms, explosives, extortion, and anti-terrorism laws. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the recovery of illicit weapons and SIM cards, and whether the alleged offence of extortion (bhatta) constituted an act of terrorism attracting the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges due to major evidentiary infirmities, lack of private witnesses, unverified recovery of SIM cards, and failure to prove that the demand for extortion created a generalized sense of fear, panic, or terror among the public as required under anti-terrorism legislation. The court ruled that mere allegations of extortion do not automatically fall within the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Consequently, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted on the basis of the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Does a mere allegation of demanding extortion money (bhatta) attract the provisions of section 6(2)(k) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 without proof of widespread fear and panic?
- Whether an Anti-Terrorism Court has jurisdiction to try a case of extortion where the offence lacks elements of terrorism as contemplated under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about their guilt?
- Salman Akhtar alias Salmani vs The State and another2018 MLD 720 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner accused of murder under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that he was not named in the initial FIR and was only implicated via a supplementary statement. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. It observed significant contradictions between the complainant’s version in the FIR and the subsequent statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Investigating Officer had declared other nominated accused innocent and that the delayed dispatch of crime empties for forensic analysis cast doubt on the recovery. Relying on established principles, the Court affirmed that the benefit of doubt can be extended at the bail stage and that relying on witness testimony that varies from the initial FIR is dangerous. Consequently, the Court found the case one of further inquiry and granted bail.
Questions settled- Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
- Is it legally safe to rely on witness statements that contradict the initial First Information Report?
- Does the delayed dispatch of crime empties for forensic analysis constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Salim Khan and Azam Khan vs State2018 MLD 1585, 2018 PHC 1522 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-13Read full judgment →
- Saleh Muhammad vs Mst. Rahima Bai and others2018 CLC 443 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-15Read full judgment →
- Saleemullah vs Asmatullah and another2018 MLD 528 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-10Read full judgment →
- Saleemullah Khan vs Jehanzeb Khan and 01 other2018 PHC 1485 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-08Read full judgment →
- Saleem Khan Asad vs D & SJ, Chiniot, etc.2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 59 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 2017-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal arises from the communication of adverse remarks in the Performance Evaluation Report of the appellant for the period between 1.1.2012 and 25.4.2012. The core legal question involves the legality and rationality of recording and communicating adverse ACR remarks with an inordinate delay, and whether contradictions within the evaluation report vitiate such remarks. The Punjab Service Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and ordered the expunction of the adverse remarks. The Tribunal laid down that strict adherence to the prescribed time schedule for writing and communicating ACRs is necessary to avoid subsequent events subconsciously influencing past assessments, and that adverse grading is unsustainable when it contradicts other positive remarks—such as being rated honest, useful, and fit for promotion—within the same report.
Questions settled- Whether adverse remarks recorded in an annual confidential report can be sustained when communicated with an inordinate delay exceeding the prescribed time schedule?
- Does an adverse grading in an ACR become legally unsustainable if it contradicts positive assessments and remarks recorded in other parts of the same report?
- Is it mandatory for the reporting officer to justify below average grading through a proper pen-picture and prior counseling?
- Saleem Enterprises vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2018 [M] C.L.R. 1744 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-18Read full judgment →
- Salamat vs The State and another2018 MLD 127 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail concerns an accused charged under sections 302, 342, 379, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the medical evidence regarding the cause of death and the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the medical report attributed the complainant's death to heart disease rather than the injuries sustained during the occurrence. Furthermore, the Court observed an unexplained one-day delay in the FIR registration, the lack of a specific role attributed to the petitioner, and the fact that the petitioner had been incarcerated for six months without the conclusion of the trial. The Court established that where the prosecution's case is rendered doubtful by medical evidence and the accused is a previous non-convict, the case falls under the category of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does a medical opinion attributing death to natural causes rather than injuries create a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted where the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the heinousness of an offence a sufficient ground to refuse bail if the prosecution case is otherwise doubtful?
- Salamat Ullah vs The State etc2019 PCRLJ 1119, 2018 PHC 1860 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a life-convict for narcotics offences, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking two reliefs: the extension of various remissions in his sentence and his release on parole under the Good Conduct Prisoners' Probational Release Act, 1926. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to further remissions and whether the Court could direct his release on parole. Regarding remissions, the Court found that the respondents had already granted substantial remissions, which the petitioner failed to rebut. Regarding parole, the Court held that the power to grant conditional release is vested exclusively in the Provincial Government under the Act of 1926 and the Good Conduct Prisoner's Probational Release Rules, 1927. Furthermore, the petitioner had not served the requisite ten years of substantive imprisonment required for eligibility under the Rules. The Court affirmed the principle that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an alternative, efficacious remedy exists, and dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioner to approach the appropriate executive forum.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to grant parole to a prisoner under the Good Conduct Prisoners' Probational Release Act, 1926?
- Can a writ petition be maintained when the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available under the law?
- Is a prisoner eligible for release on parole under the Good Conduct Prisoner's Probational Release Rules, 1927, before serving ten years of their substantive sentence?
- Salahuddin and another vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1297 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased, and a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence, whether the delay in lodging the FIR was fatal to the prosecution's case, and whether the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate given the circumstances. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular testimony, which was corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the crime weapon. The Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the delay in lodging the FIR was naturally explained by the distance of the village and the immediate need to attend to the deceased, and that the relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them interested or unreliable if their testimony is otherwise trustworthy. The Court maintained the sentence of life imprisonment, citing previous enmity as a mitigating factor.
Questions settled- Does the mere relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
- Is a delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case if the delay is reasonably explained?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular evidence alone without corroboration?
- Does the existence of previous enmity between the parties constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing in a murder case?
- Salahuddin and 10 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa etc2018 PLJ Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
- Sakarwala Capital Securities (Pvt.) Limited vs Executive Director, Securities Market Division (SMD), SECP2018 CLD 1405 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2018-07-03Read full judgment →
- Sajjid Ahmed and others vs National Accountability Bureau through Director General and others2018 PLJ Quetta 139 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-29Read full judgment →
- Sajjad vs The State and other2019 PCRLJ 1205, 2018 PHC 1845 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashment of FIR No. 951 dated 24.11.2018, registered under sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City, Mansehra. The petitioner alleged that the FIR was registered with mala fide intent to counter a previously registered case against the complainant party. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, should interfere with an ongoing police investigation to quash an FIR based on factual disputes. The Court held that it possesses limited jurisdiction in such matters and must refrain from interfering with police investigations. It emphasized that criminal cases are decided based on evidence collected during investigation and appraised by the trial court. The Court established the principle that factual controversies cannot be resolved through constitutional jurisdiction, especially when alternative legal remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are available. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine as the petitioner failed to exhaust available legal remedies.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to quash an FIR while a police investigation is ongoing?
- Is the High Court the appropriate forum to resolve factual controversies in a criminal case during the investigation stage?
- Does the availability of alternative remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction for the quashment of an FIR?
- Sajjad Khan vs Momana Urooj2018 CLC 1052 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Khan alias Shahzad Khan vs State, etcPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Islamabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased, alongside an attempt to commit murder. The core legal question revolves around whether the testimony of an injured eyewitness, whose specific attribution of the fatal and injury-causing shots to the appellant remained unchallenged in cross-examination, can form the sole basis of conviction notwithstanding the acquittal of co-accused. The Islamabad High Court held that the un-rebutted testimony of the injured witness, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to establish guilt, and that the principle of separating the grain from the chaff allows for the conviction of one accused while acquitting others where distinct roles are proven. The court laid down the principle that failure to cross-examine a witness on a material and substantive part of their testimony amounts to an admission of that fact, and that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no universal application in Pakistan's criminal jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Does the failure to cross-examine a witness on a material part of their statement amount to an admission of that fact?
- Whether the conviction of an accused can be sustained when co-accused in the same trial have been acquitted by giving them the benefit of the doubt?
- Does the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus have universal application in the criminal administration of justice in Pakistan?
- What is the evidentiary value of an injured eyewitness testimony when corroborated by medical evidence?
- Sajjad Hussain and others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 53 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-14Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Hussain and others vs Deputy Commissioner and others2018 MLD 75 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-15Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Hussain and 4 others vs Muhammad Yousaf and another2019 CLC 309, 2018 LHC 1251 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-26Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Hussain & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 53, 2019 PLC (C.S) 1324, 2018 SHC 462 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an office order issued by the Port Qasim Authority (PQA) that imposed a "person-specific" condition on the up-gradation of the petitioners' posts from BPS-15 to BPS-17. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the petition regarding service matters and the legal distinction between "up-gradation" and "promotion," specifically whether up-gradation can be restricted to an individual rather than the post. The Court held that the petition was maintainable because the PQA Employees Service Regulations constitute statutory rules. On the merits, the Court ruled that up-gradation is distinct from promotion and must be restricted to the post, not the person occupying it. It emphasized that up-gradation requires departmental restructuring or exigencies of service and cannot be used to benefit specific individuals. Consequently, the Court declared the condition imposed by the office order dated 11.02.2009, which made the up-gradation person-specific and subject to reversion upon retirement, to be without lawful justification. The petition was partly allowed, setting aside the restrictive condition.
Questions settled- Is the Port Qasim Authority Employees Service Regulations, 2011 considered statutory rules?
- Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction to hear service matters involving the Port Qasim Authority?
- Is up-gradation of a post legally distinct from promotion?
- Can an authority legally impose a person-specific condition on the up-gradation of a post?
- Sajjad and others vs State etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 301 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three post-arrest bail petitions filed by Sajjad, Mumtaz, and Munir alias Ameen, arising from FIR No. 264/2016 registered at Police Station Alpa, District Multan, for offences under Sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given conflicting versions between the FIR and the police investigation. The court observed that the prosecution's initial narrative was contradicted by the investigating agency's findings, which exonerated some co-accused and attributed the fatal injury to a different accused than originally alleged. The court held that where the prosecution's case suffers from significant contradictions and the investigating agency has reached conclusions contrary to the FIR, the case against the accused warrants further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioners, invoking the principle that when the major part of a prosecution story is found to be unreliable or inconsistent during investigation, the accused's guilt becomes a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does a conflict between the prosecution's version in the FIR and the findings of the investigating agency constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the major part of the prosecution story has been found to be false during the investigation?
- Can bail be granted when the investigation has concluded and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
- Sajjad alias Sajju and others vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1064 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question concerned whether the identification of unknown accused persons, conducted solely in court without a prior test identification parade, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, particularly given the incident occurred at night. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that identification of unknown culprits in court, without a prior test identification parade, is legally unsafe and lacks evidentiary value. Furthermore, the court reiterated that while an injured witness is a significant piece of evidence, their testimony is not ipso facto reliable and must be scrutinized for trustworthiness. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that weak identification evidence and lack of corroboration necessitate acquittal in criminal proceedings.
Questions settled- Is identification of an accused in court sufficient for conviction when no test identification parade was conducted?
- Does the status of an injured witness automatically render their testimony credible?
- What is the evidentiary value of identification of unknown culprits made during night-time incidents under artificial light?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
- Sajjad Ali vs The State2018 MLD 991 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Sindh High Court challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro, convicting the appellant under Sections 324, 337-F(vi), and 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant confessed to a police officer at the police station that he had fired at his stepmother under the pretext of honour ('Kari'). The core legal questions pertained to the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession made to a police officer under Articles 38 and 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and whether an injured person's statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could be treated as a dying declaration when death occurred weeks later from unrelated causes. The High Court held that the confession to the police officer was inadmissible under Article 38 and not saved by Article 40, as the appellant was not in custody nor was any fact discovered. The Section 161 statement could not operate as a dying declaration, no weapon was recovered, and medical evidence established the victim died of cardio-respiratory failure rather than firearm injuries. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Can an extra-judicial confession made by an accused to a police officer prior to being taken into custody be admitted under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Does leading a police officer to a public gathering at the victim's house constitute a 'discovery of a fact' within the meaning of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Can a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as a dying declaration when the maker dies weeks later from causes unrelated to the inflicted injuries?
- Sajjad Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others2018 YLR 2668 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under the jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court seeking the quashing of FIR No. 273/2016, registered under Section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, at FIA Police Station, Gujranwala. The petitioner alleged that the FIR was fabricated and that the raid conducted on his business premises by FIA officials was illegal due to the absence of a search warrant as required by law. The core legal question was whether the search and seizure conducted by the FIA without complying with the mandatory warrant requirements of Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, rendered the subsequent criminal proceedings void. The Court held that the FIA authorities acted in clear violation of the statutory mandate, as they failed to obtain a warrant based on a written, sworn complaint before conducting the raid. Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, affirming the principle that when the law prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be executed strictly in that manner, otherwise, the proceedings are a nullity.
Questions settled- Is a search warrant required under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, before the FIA can conduct a search of premises?
- What are the mandatory legal requirements for obtaining a search warrant under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947?
- Does the failure to comply with mandatory statutory procedures for a search render the subsequent criminal proceedings a nullity?
- Sajjad Ahmad vs The State2018 YLR 1370 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-09Read full judgment →
- Sajida Bibi and others vs Additional District Judge & others2018 PLJ Lahore 606 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-09Read full judgment →
- Sajida Anwar vs Additional District Judge and others2018 YLR 1713 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-28Read full judgment →
- Sajid Parvaiz vs The State and 4 others2018 MLD 380 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged the orders of the Sessions Judge and Judicial Magistrate, which had held that an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not constituted against the private respondents regarding the death of the petitioner's father. The core legal question was whether a prima facie case of homicide or Qatl was made out based on the medical evidence showing death resulting from surgical intervention necessitated by abdominal trauma inflicted by the accused. The Lahore High Court held that where the medical and ocular evidence prima facie establishes a causal link between the trauma caused by the accused and the subsequent death, the Magistrate should not usurp the role of the trial court but should transmit the case file under Section 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the Court of Session for trial. The High Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the transmission of the case to the Sessions Court.
Questions settled- Whether a Magistrate can refuse to transmit a case to the Court of Session when prima facie evidence discloses a higher offence beyond the Magistrate's trial jurisdiction?
- Does death resulting from a disease process aggravated by surgery necessitated by physical trauma constitute homicide under the Pakistan Penal Code?
- When does Section 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 come into play regarding the transfer of a case to a court of higher jurisdiction during trial?
- Sajid Hussain vs The State and another2018 YLR 196 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeks post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 2379/2016 dated 06.10.2016 registered under sections 496-A and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Factory Area, Lahore. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where the alleged victim has contracted a valid Nikah with the accused subsequent to the alleged incident. The Lahore High Court held that since the alleged victim contracted a Nikah with the petitioner, verified by the investigating officer, and has not challenged the marriage before any forum, the matter falls within the domain of the family courts, making the petitioner's case one of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that where a love marriage is prima facie established through a verified Nikahnama and affidavit without challenge from the alleged victim, further incarceration of the accused serves no useful purpose, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the alleged victim has contracted a Nikah with the accused?
- Is a family court the proper forum to resolve marital validity questions arising in criminal proceedings involving an alleged love marriage?
- Does the absence of any recovery and completion of investigation entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Saima Sajid vs Returning Officer, PP-259, Rahim Yar Khan2018 LHC 1246 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-26Read full judgment →
- Saima Fareed and 4 others vs Divisional Director Schools2018 PLC (C.S.) 338 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the selection process for Junior Teacher posts. The appellants, having participated in the selection process and failed to secure merit positions, challenged the merit list and subsequent appointments. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine for failing to implead the Selection Committee as a necessary party and for the application of the principle of acquiescence. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, holding that the Selection Committee, as a legal person, was a necessary party because its specific actions were under challenge. The Court further affirmed that the appellants, having voluntarily participated in the selection process, could not turn around and challenge the process as illegal after failing to succeed. The judgment establishes that a writ petition is not maintainable if the legal entity responsible for the challenged action is not impleaded, and reaffirms that unsuccessful candidates are barred by the principle of acquiescence from challenging a selection process they previously accepted.
Questions settled- Is a Selection Committee a necessary party in a writ petition challenging a selection process?
- Can a candidate who participated in a selection process and failed subsequently challenge the legality of that process?
- Does the principle of acquiescence bar unsuccessful candidates from challenging a selection process?
- Is a writ petition maintainable if the legal entity whose action is challenged is not impleaded as a party?
- Saifullah vs The State2018 MLD 751 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner under Section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of a disclosure statement made to police, and the validity of a delayed identification parade. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. It ruled that a confession made to police is inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that a delayed identification parade, conducted without satisfactory explanation, lacks evidentiary value. Furthermore, the court held that the prosecution’s failure to produce the Magistrate who supervised the identification parade warranted an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the petitioner, emphasizing the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to the benefit of that doubt.
Questions settled- Is a disclosure statement made by an accused while in police custody admissible as evidence?
- What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to produce the Magistrate who supervised an identification parade?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on a delayed identification parade conducted without a satisfactory explanation?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a single link in the chain of circumstantial evidence entitle the accused to acquittal?
- Saifullah vs Niamatullah and 2 others2018 YLR 1240 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-02-16Read full judgment →
- Saifullah Muhib Kakakhel vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2018 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
- Saifullah Khan vs Viith Additional District and Sessions Judge (East), Karachi and 7 others2018 P Cr. L J 145 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under section 561-A read with section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the order of the Additional District Judge upholding the Judicial Magistrate's order, which had dismissed the applicant's request to stay criminal proceedings in a case involving fraud and forgery pending the outcome of related civil litigation. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should be stayed on the ground that civil litigation between the parties is pending. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that civil suits and criminal cases must be decided on their own individual merits, evidence from one cannot be used in the other, and criminal proceedings cannot be stayed merely due to pending civil litigation. The Court laid down the principle that civil and criminal proceedings operate independently under different laws, and there is no legal provision requiring the stay of criminal proceedings pending the decision of a civil suit.
Questions settled- Whether criminal proceedings can be stayed solely on the ground that civil litigation between the parties is pending?
- Are judgments in civil suits binding on criminal cases arising out of the same transaction?
- Can a court dealing with a civil suit stay proceedings in a criminal matter?
- Saifco Group through Chief Executive and another vs Privatisation2018 PLJ Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Saif-Ur-Rehman vs Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh and 22019 PLJ SC 115, 2018 SCMR 1885 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute regarding the return of dowry articles. The Family Court initially decreed a sum of Rs. 25,000 in favor of the wife (Respondent No. 3). On the wife's appeal, the First Appellate Court enhanced the amount to Rs. 4,00,000, which the High Court subsequently reduced to Rs. 3,00,000 in its constitutional jurisdiction. The appellant (husband) contended that under Section 14(2)(b) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, no appeal was maintainable against a decree for dowry articles where the amount was less than the statutory threshold, rendering the appellate judgment coram non judice. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the bar on appeals under Section 14(2) is intended to prevent judgment-debtors (husbands) from delaying the execution of beneficial decrees. The Court clarified that this restriction does not apply to a wife seeking enhancement or challenging the denial of her claim. The Court emphasized a purposive and beneficial interpretation of the Act to protect the rights of women and ensure the expeditious settlement of family disputes.
- Saif Ur Rahman vs The State through Additional Advocate-General and another2018 P Cr. L J 306 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a criminal miscellaneous bail application and cross-petitions for bail cancellation arising from a murder case where an advocate was killed by unknown assailants. The core legal questions involved whether the post-arrest bail of an accused implicated through a belated statement should be granted, and whether the bail granted to a co-accused should be cancelled. The Peshawar High Court held that since neither petitioner was named in the First Information Report, and statements implicating them were recorded more than a year later, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail. Furthermore, the court held that bail once granted cannot be recalled unless the order is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or in utter disregard of the evidence. The key principle laid down is that belated ocular or circumstantial substitution without initial naming in the FIR, coupled with the absence of specific overt acts involving firearms, makes a strong ground for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence, and distinct, stricter criteria apply to the cancellation of bail already granted.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when not named in the First Information Report and implicated through statements recorded after a considerable delay?
- What are the distinct legal principles governing the cancellation of bail compared to the grant of bail?
- Whether bail granted by a competent court can be recalled in the absence of perversity or disregard of evidence in the bail-granting order?
- Saif Ullah vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1013 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of FIR No. 46/2017 registered under sections 417, 468, and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City, Gilgit, on the allegation that the petitioner fraudulently drew a substantial compensation award. The core legal question was whether the High Court ought to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR when alternate remedies before the trial court are available. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is neither additional nor alternate and cannot be invoked when alternate remedies such as acquittal or discharge provisions under Sections 249-A and 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are available before the ordinary court of criminal jurisdiction. The court laid down the principle that summary proceedings under Section 561-A cannot be used to bypass the normal trial procedure or assume the role of an investigating agency where alternative statutory remedies exist.
Questions settled- Whether the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked when alternate remedies under Sections 249-A and 265-K are available?
- Can the Chief Court assume the role of an investigating agency in summary proceedings for quashment of an FIR?
- Whether an FIR registered on allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in drawing a compensation award is liable to be quashed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Said Rehman vs Govt of KPK etc2018 PHC 1340 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-22Read full judgment →
- Said Raiiman, Constable vs Ikiitar Badshah and others2019 YLR 449, 2018 PLJ FSC 104 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, filed under Section 417(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karak, regarding charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s judgment suffered from such gross misreading of evidence or legal infirmity as to justify appellate interference. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court’s judgment was well-reasoned, based on a correct appreciation of evidence, and free from jurisdictional defects. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The Court affirmed the principle that an order of acquittal creates a "double presumption of innocence," meaning the accused is presumed innocent both initially and further confirmed by the acquittal. Appellate courts should not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse, artificial, or based on a complete misreading of evidence. Where two reasonable views of the evidence exist, the view taken by the trial court must be maintained, as the appellate court’s jurisdiction is limited to preventing miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
- What is the legal significance of the 'double presumption of innocence' in an appeal against acquittal?
- Is an appellate court required to interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's judgment is based on a plausible view of the evidence?
- Said Akbar and another vs The State2018 YLR 486 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-20Read full judgment →
- Said Afzal vs The State & others2018 PHC 1517 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
- Said Afzal and another vs The State and another2018 YLR 1256 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 4 and 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, following the recovery of foreign currency from their vehicle. The core legal question was whether the mere physical possession of foreign currency without proof of unauthorized buying, borrowing, selling, lending, or exchanging constitutes an offense under Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and whether the Act applies to foreigners within Pakistan's territory. The Peshawar High Court held that mere possession of foreign currency, absent specific evidence of prohibited commercial transactions with unauthorized persons, does not attract penal liability under Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, though the Act applies territorially to foreigners within Pakistan. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants of the charges, but maintained the confiscation of the foreign currency under Section 23 of the Act.
Questions settled- Does mere possession of foreign currency constitute an offense under Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 without proof of buying, selling, or exchanging with an unauthorized person?
- Does the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 apply to foreign nationals present within the territorial limits of Pakistan?
- Can foreign currency be confiscated under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 when the claimant fails to provide a justifiable explanation for possessing it?
- Whether the provisions of Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 are attracted where the prosecution fails to establish prohibited commercial transactions?
- Sahibzada Sanaullah, Member Provincial Assembly vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Minister, Peshawar and others2018 PLJ Peshawar 4 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sahibzada Muhammad Hussain Raza vs Provincial Election Commission, etc2018 [M] C.L.R. 1470 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-08Read full judgment →
- Sahibzada Muhammad Hussain Raza vs Provincial Election Commission2018 LHC 1085, 2018 [M] C.L.R. 1470, 2018 PLJ Lahore 1008 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-08Read full judgment →
- Sahib Shah vs Member Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others2018 YLR 856 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-14Read full judgment →
- Sahara for Life Trust vs University of Health Sciences, Lahore, etc.2018 KLR Civil Cases 215 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
- Safeer Ullah @ Sagheer @ Jugnu vs State and another2018 PLJ SC 450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined the suspension of the petitioner's sentence pending his criminal appeal. The petitioner, convicted under Section 324 and Section 337F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, had been sentenced to ten years and seven years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively, to run concurrently. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail given that he had already served a substantial portion of his sentence and the appeal had been pending for nearly two years. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had served a significant period of his sentence and that the underlying dispute arose from a right-of-way issue, not honour-related violence. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and suspended the petitioner's sentence, granting him bail. The key principle laid down is that where a convict has served a substantial portion of their sentence, the court may exercise discretion to suspend the sentence and grant bail, particularly when the appeal has been pending for a significant duration.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court suspend a sentence and grant bail to a convict who has served a substantial portion of their imprisonment pending the disposal of their appeal?
- Does the service of a substantial portion of a sentence constitute a valid ground for the suspension of a sentence pending appeal?
- Is the suspension of a sentence an appropriate remedy when an appeal has been pending for a significant duration and the remaining sentence is minimal?
- Saeid and another- vs The State and another2018 MLD 601 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioners, Saeid and Jaffer, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under FIR No. 304/2017 for offences including murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case and the evidentiary material available. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a three-day delay, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant concealed injuries sustained by the petitioners' side, and that co-accused had already been granted pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the petitioners' case warranted further inquiry into their guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly regarding their vicarious liability or common intention for the alleged murder. Emphasizing that investigation was complete and continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where there is a significant delay in FIR registration, concealment of injuries on the accused side, and co-accused have been granted relief, a case for further inquiry is established.
Questions settled- Does a significant, unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the concealment of injuries sustained by the accused's side in an FIR justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the completion of the police investigation and the lack of necessity for further custody support the grant of bail?
- Saeedullah Khan vs The StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. 638, 2018 PHC 1442 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-21Read full judgment →
- Saeedullah Khan vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Mardan &2019 PLC (C.S.) 255, 2018 PHC 1439 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Constable in the Special Police Force, challenged his dismissal from service following his implication in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether a civil servant can be summarily dismissed from service solely due to the registration of a criminal case and subsequent arrest, without a formal inquiry or conviction. The Court held that the dismissal order was unlawful, as the mere registration of a criminal case does not establish guilt or justify immediate termination. Relying on Article 194 of the Civil Service Regulations, the Court held that a civil servant charged with a criminal offence should be placed under suspension from the date of arrest rather than dismissed. The Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence applies until a competent court convicts the individual. Consequently, the dismissal order was set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with all back benefits, affirming that disciplinary action requires adherence to due process, including the issuance of a show-cause notice and the conduct of a formal inquiry.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant be dismissed from service solely on the basis of the registration of a criminal case?
- Is a government servant charged with a criminal offence and arrested subject to automatic dismissal or suspension?
- Does the registration of a criminal case against a civil servant dispense with the requirement of a show-cause notice and formal inquiry before dismissal?
- Saeedullah Khan vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. 638 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, handed down by the trial court following the alleged recovery of opium and heroin from a bag found near him in a passenger vehicle. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of evidentiary gaps, including the failure to produce the case property in court, contradictions regarding the date of recovery and the separation of samples, and whether such lapses vitiate a narcotics conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that the non-production of the case property during trial, coupled with material contradictions in witness testimonies and a failure to establish the safe custody and proper separation of chemical samples, destroyed the foundation of the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate acquittal of the appellant.
Questions settled- Is the non-production of case property during a narcotics trial fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Does a failure by recovery witnesses to depose about the separation of chemical samples render the chemical examiner report doubtful?
- Whether material contradictions regarding the date of recovery and the manner of search are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
- Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act be sustained when the chain of custody and sample separation are not proved?
- Saeedul Haque alias Abdullah and another vs The State2018 YLR 242 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction and a revision application seeking sentence enhancement arising from a murder trial under Sections 302, 392, 397, 216, and 34, PPC. The trial court had sentenced the appellants to 15 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 302(c), PPC. The High Court considered whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in light of unexplained delays in recording witness statements, contradictions between ocular and medical testimony, failure to conduct an identification parade, and the lack of reliable recovery evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious infirmities, including belated introduction of alleged eyewitnesses, dishonest improvements, contradiction by medical evidence regarding the time and nature of death, failure to hold an identification parade, and acquittal of the main accused in the off-shoot weapon recovery case. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of doubt, and dismissed the complainant's revision application.
Questions settled- Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of dock identification made for the first time during trial without a prior test identification parade?
- What is the evidentiary value of eyewitness testimony when it is contradicted by medical evidence and marked by unexplained delays in recording police statements?
- Whether dishonest and deliberate improvements made by prosecution witnesses during trial render their testimony unreliable?
- Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
- Saeedan Bibi vs The State2018 YLR 1674 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Saeedan Bibi under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, seeking bail in a narcotics case involving the alleged recovery of two kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery, non-inclusion of the informant in the witness list, and completion of the investigation. The Balochistan High Court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, noting that the informant bus munshi was not cited as a witness, the bus registration number was absent from the FIR, and the bus ticket was not seized. The court laid down the principle that the quantity of contraband and the expected quantum of punishment must be considered at the bail stage, and where investigation is complete and physical custody is no longer required, further inquiry warrants the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether the non-inclusion of the informant bus munshi as a witness and failure to mention the bus registration number in the FIR makes a narcotics case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the quantity of contraband and expected quantum of punishment affect the grant of bail in offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when the investigation has been finalized and the physical custody of the accused is no longer required by the police?
- Saeeda Begum and 4 others vs Mst. Habib-U-Nisa and others2018 CLC 1943 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-05-21Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ullah and another vs Niaz Muhammad and others2018 P Cr. L J 456 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition arises from an order of the Additional Sessions Judge acting as Justice of the Peace, who directed the registration of a counter FIR under section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the application of the respondent, who sustained firearm injuries in the same incident. The core legal question was whether a separate counter FIR must be registered when the accused's version and injury are already part of the police record and investigation under section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court set aside the order of the Justice of the Peace, holding that since the version of the injured accused and his medical report were already brought on record during the police investigation and could be established through cross-examination or a private complaint, the registration of a second or counter FIR was not justified under the circumstances. The court laid down the principle that while there is no absolute legal bar against registering multiple FIRs, a separate FIR is unwarranted where the accused's version is already adequately accounted for in the existing police record, leaving the aggrieved party at liberty to file a private complaint.
Questions settled- Whether a counter FIR must be registered when the accused's version and injury are already part of the police record?
- Can a Justice of the Peace order the registration of a second FIR under section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without establishing justification?
- Is a private complaint an available remedy for an accused whose version of the occurrence is already brought on record during police investigation?
- Saeed alias Saido and 6 others vs Abdullah2018 PLJ Peshawar 219 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmed vs State through P.G. Punjab and another2018 PLJ SC 812 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition seeking bail for an accused charged under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after failing to secure bail from lower forums. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, primarily considering that the recovered substance (1350 grams of charas) only marginally exceeded 1 kg, suggesting he might not face the maximum sentence, and the prolonged duration of his pre-trial detention. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and directed the petitioner's release on bail upon furnishing bail bonds. The Court held that where the recovered narcotic substance marginally exceeds the quantity typically warranting a maximum sentence, and the accused has been incarcerated for over seven months with no immediate prospect of trial conclusion, these factors collectively tilt the balance in favor of granting bail.
- Saeed Ahmed vs Prime Minister of Pakistan & others2018 SHC 1170 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-10Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmed Khan vs The State2018 MLD 371 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the alleged offence of rape. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given that the conviction rested solely on the testimony of the complainant. The court found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent, lacked independent corroboration, and was contradicted by medical evidence and the testimony of her mother, who was declared hostile. The trial court's reliance on the assumption that a daughter would not falsely accuse her father was deemed legally unsustainable and based on conjecture rather than evidence. The court held that where prosecution evidence is inconsistent and fails to inspire confidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reaffirming the principle that conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence and that any substantial doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a complainant when that testimony is contradicted by medical evidence and other prosecution witnesses?
- Does the rule of benefit of doubt apply when prosecution evidence is inconsistent and fails to inspire confidence?
- Is a trial court permitted to base a conviction on conjectures regarding the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the accused rather than on evidence?
- Saeed Ahmed etc vs Members Judicial Selection Board Hon'ble High2018 PLC (C.S.) 263, 2018 PLJ Quetta 91 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenged the recruitment process for the posts of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate and Qazi (BPS-18). The petitioners contended that the appointments should have been made under the Government of Balochistan Recruitment Policy of 1991 observing zonal allocation rather than on an open merit basis, and alleged violations of the merit list regarding viva voce performance.
The High Court of Balochistan dismissed the petitions, holding that Article 27(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 prohibits discrimination in public appointments, while its first proviso is merely an enabling and permissive provision allowing authorities to reserve posts, but does not impose a mandatory duty to enforce a quota system or zonal allocation. Consequently, citizens have no vested legal right to compel an employer to provide reserved seats. Furthermore, the court held that the Judicial Selection Board is the best judge of a candidate's suitability during viva voce, and courts will not interfere with its evaluation absent mala fides or extraneous considerations.
Questions settled- Is the first proviso to Article 27(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 mandatory or merely permissive regarding the reservation of posts for specific areas or classes?
- Does a citizen have a vested legal right to compel the government or an employing authority to enforce a quota system or zonal allocation for public appointments?
- Under what circumstances may a court interfere with the evaluation and findings of a Judicial Selection Board regarding a candidate's performance in a viva voce examination?
- Saeed Ahmed and another vs Members Judicial Selection Board and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 263 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Balochistan High Court addresses constitutional petitions filed against the recruitment process for the posts of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate and Qazi (BPS-18), wherein petitioners contended that appointments were made on merit rather than in accordance with the Government of Balochistan Recruitment Policy of 1991 and zonal allocations. The core legal questions involved whether the government is under a mandatory constitutional obligation to observe zonal quotas in public appointments and whether the court can interfere with the evaluation and assessment of candidates by a selection board comprising High Court judges. The court held that Article 27(1) of the Constitution prohibits discrimination but its proviso concerning the reservation of posts for specific areas is merely enabling and permissive, creating no vested right for citizens to demand a quota system. Furthermore, the court held that the assessment of candidates through viva voce by an expert selection board is not open to judicial interference absent mala fides. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether Article 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan imposes a mandatory duty on governments and authorities to reserve posts for persons belonging to specific areas or classes?
- Does a citizen have a vested right to seek a court direction compelling the government or an authority to apply a quota system or zonal allocation for public employment?
- Under what circumstances can a court interfere with the evaluation, assessment, and selection of candidates made by an expert selection board?
- Whether the proviso to Article 27(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan is mandatory or merely enabling and permissive in nature?
- Saeed Ahmad vs A.S.J. etc2018 LHC 1815 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-03Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad and another vs Mst. Anwar Sultana and others2018 PLJ Quetta 30 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-30Read full judgment →
- Saeed Abdi Mahmud vs National Database Registration Authority2018 CLC 1588 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-07Read full judgment →
- Saeed Abdi Mahmood vs NADRA2018 CLC 1588, 2018 IHC 52 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, born in Pakistan to foreign parents, sought a writ of mandamus to compel NADRA to issue him a Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC), arguing that under Section 4 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, he is a citizen by birth. NADRA had refused issuance based on the petitioner's parents' foreign nationality. The core legal question was whether a person born in Pakistan to non-Pakistani parents (excluding refugees) qualifies for citizenship by birth under Section 4 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. The Court held that Section 4 establishes the principle of jus soli, granting citizenship by birth to all persons born in Pakistan, subject only to specific exceptions for children of foreign envoys or enemy aliens. The Court clarified that while refugees are governed by separate legal frameworks, other individuals born in Pakistan are entitled to apply for citizenship under the prescribed rules. The holding establishes that the Ministry of Interior must process such applications in accordance with the law, and upon the grant of citizenship, NADRA is legally obligated to issue a CNIC to the applicant.
Questions settled- Does a person born in Pakistan to foreign parents qualify for citizenship by birth under Section 4 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951?
- Are refugees entitled to claim citizenship by birth under Section 4 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951?
- Is NADRA legally bound to issue a CNIC to an individual who has obtained a certificate of citizenship by birth?
- Does the principle of jus soli apply to persons born in Pakistan under the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951?
- Sadullah vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 999 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence for murder, alongside a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of that sentence. The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his role in the murder of the deceased, where he acted in concert with absconding co-accused. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who was attributed the role of aerial firing while a co-accused fired the fatal shot, could be held vicariously liable for murder under the doctrine of common intention. The Court held that the appellant’s presence, participation, and shared conduct with the co-accused established a common intention to commit the crime. The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, ruling that the trial court correctly applied the principle of vicarious liability and that the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate given the specific role attributed to the appellant. The judgment reaffirms that common intention can be inferred from the conduct and circumstances of the occurrence.
Questions settled- Can an accused be convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if they only performed aerial firing while a co-accused fired the fatal shot?
- Does the relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased automatically render them 'interested witnesses' whose testimony must be discarded?
- Is the testimony of related witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction if it is otherwise consistent and corroborated by medical evidence?
- Can common intention be inferred from the conduct of the accused and the circumstances of the occurrence even in the absence of direct evidence of a pre-arranged plan?
- Sadullah and another vs The State2018 PLD Balochistan 39 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal revision and quashment petitions challenging trial court orders that placed criminal cases in 'dormant' or 'abeyance' status due to the non-availability of prosecution witnesses. The core legal question is whether a Court of Session possesses the jurisdiction to stop proceedings under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or to adjourn cases sine die for an indefinite period. The Court held that Sessions Courts lack the authority to keep cases in abeyance or stop proceedings indefinitely, as Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies specifically to Magisterial trials under Chapter XX, not Sessions trials under Chapter XXII-A. Furthermore, the Court ruled that indefinite adjournment under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is impermissible. The key principles laid down are that courts cannot supply omissions in a statute unless legislative intent is clear; that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973; and that Sessions Courts must strictly adhere to statutory procedures.
Questions settled- Does a Court of Session have the power to stop proceedings under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a Sessions Court adjourn a criminal trial sine die for an indefinite period due to the non-availability of witnesses?
- Is the right to a speedy trial considered a fundamental right under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a court supply omissions in a statute to fill gaps in the law?
- Sadia Jabbar vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 PTD 1746 · Sindh High Court · 2011-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Sindh High Court, in a common judgment disposing of connected constitutional petitions, addressed the proper interpretation, application, and interaction of sections 25 and 25A of the Customs Act, 1969, concerning the determination of customs value for imported goods. The petitioners, importers, challenged various "valuation rulings" issued under section 25A. The Court held that section 25A permits a predetermination of customs value for goods yet to be imported, thereby overriding the primary transaction value method mandated by section 25 and the WTO Valuation Agreement. While the methods laid down in section 25 must be followed, the strict sequential application (stopping at the first applicable method) is no longer mandatory for section 25A determinations post-2007 amendment. However, the concerned officer must consider all applicable methods, provide reasons for choosing a later method over preceding ones, and ensure the ruling is a speaking order. The Court further ruled that valuation rulings under section 25A cannot have retrospective effect, must relate to specific PCT headings, and are ordinarily valid for 90 days. Section 25A is an enabling provision, not a substitute for section 25, and cannot be used for wholesale value fixation. All impugned valuation rulings were quashed as ultra vires section 25A for various non-compliances.
- Saddar-Ud-Din vs The State2018 YLR 507 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the provided ocular and medical evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. The court observed that the four eyewitnesses, all close relatives of the deceased, provided testimony that lacked credibility; they failed to mention each other's presence, did not attempt to rescue the deceased, and escaped unhurt despite the alleged indiscriminate firing. Furthermore, the medical evidence was insufficient to conclusively link the death to the specific injuries sustained. The court emphasized that the testimony of interested witnesses requires independent corroboration, which was absent here. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace, whenever a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's narrative.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when the testimony of alleged eyewitnesses is inconsistent and fails to account for their own safety during the incident?
- Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to produce a death certificate or link the death to the alleged injuries create a reasonable doubt?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution's case contains significant inconsistencies?
- Saddar Khan and another vs Jan Said and another2018 P Cr. L J 757 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a criminal appeal filed by appellants Saddar Khan and Nasveel Khan against their conviction under sections 302(b) and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a criminal revision petition by complainant Jan Said seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a solitary and related eyewitness testimony, corroboration by circumstantial evidence, and the benefit of doubt in criminal jurisprudence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the testimony of the solitary eyewitness lacked corroboration, his presence at the crime scene was doubtful due to natural conduct and physical circumstances, the alleged motive was unproved, and the weapon recovery was tainted. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the criminal revision as infructuous. The key principle laid down is that a conviction based on a solitary eyewitness must be sufficiently corroborated by reliable circumstantial evidence, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be recorded on the testimony of a solitary and related eyewitness without corroboration?
- Does the non-establishment of an alleged motive in the FIR become fatal to the prosecution case?
- Is the identification of an accused person from a distance of 73 paces at dusk in January considered reliable?
- What is the legal effect of keeping recovered weapons unsealed until examination on the following day?
- Sadaqatullah vs Federation of Pakistan2019 PLC (C.S.) 695, 2018 PLJ Peshawar 216, 2018 PHC 1731 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Administrative Assistant in the Pakistan Air Force, challenged his conviction and dismissal from service by a District Court Martial. Following his acquittal in a criminal case under the Pakistan Penal Code, the petitioner was charged and convicted by a military court under the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, for desertion and acts prejudicial to good order and discipline. The petitioner argued that his military trial constituted double jeopardy under the Constitution, and sought reinstatement based on a 1992 circular regarding personnel involved in criminal cases. The Court held that the military trial was for the distinct offence of desertion, not the criminal charges for which he was previously acquitted, thereby rejecting the double jeopardy claim. Furthermore, the Court determined that the 1992 circular was inapplicable to military disciplinary proceedings. Crucially, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as the petitioner was a member of the Armed Forces and the matter concerned his terms and conditions of service. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a trial by a District Court Martial for desertion constitute double jeopardy when the accused has previously been acquitted of criminal charges by a civil court?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199(3) of the Constitution to entertain a petition filed by a member of the Armed Forces regarding their terms and conditions of service?
- Is a circular governing personnel involved in criminal cases tried by civil courts applicable to disciplinary proceedings conducted by a military court?
- Sadaqat Ali and another vs Director General FIA, Peshawar and others2018 CLD 835 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-07Read full judgment →
- Sadam Hussain vs The State2018 YLR 86 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court upon the appellant for the double murder of his parents-in-law. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eye-witness testimony from close relatives, the validity of the motive, and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The High Court upheld the conviction, affirming that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular evidence corroborated by medical reports, ballistic expert findings, and the recovery of the murder weapon. The Court held that mere relationship does not render witnesses "interested" absent established enmity, and a promptly lodged FIR negates the theory of chance witnesses. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that death is the normal penalty for murder, and in the absence of mitigating circumstances, the sentence must be maintained. The Court modified the conviction from Section 302(a) to Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, confirming the death sentence as Tazir, while adjusting the default imprisonment for non-payment of compensation.
Questions settled- Does the relationship between prosecution witnesses and the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable or interested?
- Does the prompt registration of an FIR negate the defense of chance witnesses?
- Is the death sentence the normal penalty for murder in the absence of mitigating circumstances?
- Can a conviction under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be legally modified to Section 302(b) on appeal?
- Sabir Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2018 CLC 519 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-09Read full judgment →
- Sabir Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 SHC 705 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto against private respondents holding the public office of Inspector Security (BS-15) in the Port Qasim Authority, alleging they were appointed without meeting the requisite qualifications, experience, and legal formalities, and in violation of Supreme Court orders. The core legal questions involved whether the private respondents held public offices amenable to quo warranto, whether their appointments complied with the Port Qasim Authority Employees Service Regulations 2011, and whether they possessed the mandatory four years of relevant security experience. The Sindh High Court held that employees of the Port Qasim Authority governed by statutory service regulations hold a public office amenable to its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, and found that the private respondents lacked the mandatory relevant security experience required by the rules and were appointed irregularly. The court declared the initial appointments of the private respondents null and void and directed the Port Qasim Authority to fill the posts anew in accordance with the applicable service regulations.
Questions settled- Whether employees of the Port Qasim Authority governed by statutory service regulations hold a public office amenable to a writ of quo warranto under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Do candidates appointed as Inspector Security (BS-15) in the Port Qasim Authority fulfill the mandatory qualification and experience requirements under the Port Qasim Authority Employees Service Regulations 2011 if they lack the prescribed four years of relevant security experience?
- Can a constitutional petition seeking a writ of quo warranto be maintained against appointees whose selection process bypassed mandatory legal criteria and statutory rules?
- Saba Yasir and another vs Senior Civil Judge, Muzaffarabad and others2018 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 25 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-07-05Read full judgment →
- Saadullah vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Quetta) 130 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a remand by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to determine the validity of a compromise deed under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the deceased’s alleged husband, Muhammad Fayyaz, qualified as a legal heir, thereby rendering his participation essential for a valid compromise. The Court examined evidence regarding the deceased's previous elopement and subsequent marriage to Fayyaz, concluding that despite the absence of a formal Nikkah Nama, oral marriage is recognized in the prevailing social context. Consequently, the Court held that Fayyaz was the legal heir and, absent his participation, the compromise deed was ineffective. The Court further affirmed the conviction based on the testimony of natural witnesses, the recovery of the crime weapon, and the appellant's judicial confession. The principle laid down is that in the absence of a complete compromise involving all legal heirs, a compromise deed cannot be given effect in a case of Ta'zir. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a compromise deed be considered valid under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if a legal heir has not participated?
- Is an oral marriage recognized as valid for the purpose of establishing legal heirship in criminal proceedings?
- Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely on the ground that they are police officials in a murder case?
- Does a partial compromise have any bearing on the conviction of an accused in a case of Ta'zir?
- Saadat Ali Khan and others vs The State and others2018 SC MR 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals against a High Court judgment that enhanced the fines imposed on appellants convicted of tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The appellants, having confessed to tax fraud, were initially sentenced by the trial court to time served plus a nominal fine of Rs. 3,000. The High Court, in revision, enhanced the fine to match the tax loss, relying on provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred by applying provisions retrospectively to offences committed in 2002. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court erroneously relied on provisions lacking retrospective effect, the enhancement was nonetheless sustainable under Section 37-A(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which was in force at the time of the offence. The Court established that judicial discretion regarding fines must be exercised in a fair, transparent, and structured manner, commensurate with the loss caused to the exchequer, and that an appellate court may uphold a correct decision even if the lower court cited an incorrect legal provision.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court uphold a sentence enhancement if the trial court's discretion was exercised mechanically?
- Does the power to impose a fine under Section 37-A(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 allow for a fine equivalent to the tax loss?
- Can a court's decision be upheld if the correct result was reached despite reliance on an inapplicable statutory provision?
- Is the discretion to impose fines under 'may extend' provisions in criminal statutes unbridled?
- Saadat Ali Khan and 2 others vs The State, etc.2018 P.C.T.L.R. 182, 2018 PTD 483, 2018 SCMR 387, 2018 P.S.C. (Crl.) 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the enhancement of sentences for tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court, which imposed a sentence of time served and a nominal fine of Rs. 3,000. The High Court, in revision, enhanced the fine to equal the tax loss. The appellants challenged this, arguing the High Court applied Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 retrospectively, as that provision was introduced in 2005 for an offense committed in 2002. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court erred in citing Section 33, the power to impose a fine equivalent to the tax loss was already available under Section 37-A(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which was in force at the time of the offense. The Court emphasized that judicial discretion in sentencing must be exercised in a fair, transparent, and structured manner rather than mechanically. Since the appellants confessed to the fraud, the enhancement of the fine to match the actual loss caused to the exchequer was legally justified, and no prejudice resulted from the High Court's erroneous citation.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court uphold a sentence enhancement if the lower court relied on an inapplicable statutory provision but the power existed under another valid law?
- Does the provision of Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 have retrospective effect for offenses committed prior to its enactment?
- Is the discretion of a trial court to impose a fine under Section 37-A(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, an unbridled power?
- Can a trial court impose a nominal fine for tax fraud without providing reasons for exercising its discretion in such a manner?
- Saadabad Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd through Secretary vs Ghulam Rasool Bhatti and others2018 CLC 1972 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-28Read full judgment →
- S.M Suleman vs PTCL and ORs2019 PLC (C.S) 1381, 2018 SHC 977 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The instant constitutional petition was filed seeking to set aside an order dated 26.10.2016, whereby the petitioner, a transferred employee of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), was removed from service following disciplinary proceedings for participating and winning in the Local Bodies Elections of 2015 while in service. The core legal questions examined by the court were the maintainability of a constitutional petition against PTCL under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and whether an employee's participation in local body elections constitutes misconduct under the applicable service rules. The Sindh High Court held that PTCL performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation and its employees whose terms and conditions are statutorily protected can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The court further held that participating in elections while remaining in service violates the applicable Government Servants (Conduct) Rules 1964 and amounts to misconduct justifying removal from service. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on merits.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL)?
- Does participation in local bodies elections by an employee of a statutory corporation or body owned by the government constitute misconduct?
- Whether the terms and conditions of service of transferred employees of PTCL are statutory in nature allowing them to invoke writ jurisdiction?
- S.E. MEPCO and others vs Judge District Consumer Court and another2019 PLD Lahore 165, 2018 LHC 2959 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal challenges an order passed by the District Consumer Court, which directed the appellants to relocate electricity transformers to specific allocated sites. The core legal questions were whether the Consumer Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute concerning the administrative placement of transformers and whether the respondent complied with the mandatory pre-litigation notice requirements. The Lahore High Court held that the Consumer Court, being a court of limited jurisdiction, erred in assuming authority over a matter that did not involve "defective products" or "faulty services" as defined under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. The Court emphasized that the dispute was essentially administrative and fell outside the scope of consumer protection legislation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the respondent failed to satisfy the mandatory statutory requirement of serving a legal notice upon the service provider prior to filing the complaint, as required by Section 28 of the Act. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and dismissed the complaint, affirming that consumer courts cannot entertain claims lacking a clear nexus to faulty services or defective products.
Questions settled- Does a District Consumer Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the administrative installation sites of electricity transformers?
- Is the service of a pre-litigation notice mandatory under Section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, before a consumer can file a complaint?
- Can a Consumer Court assume jurisdiction over a matter that does not involve defective products or faulty services?
- Rustam Khan vs The State and others2018 PLD Peshawar 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-06Read full judgment →
- Rustam Khan and another vs Tehsil Council Balakot through Presiding2018 PLD Peshawar 179 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-31Read full judgment →
- Rustam and others vs The State2018 P.S.C. (Crl.) 348, 2018 SC MR 384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a criminal case originating in 2003 regarding the alleged abduction of an individual for ransom, leading to convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which convictions were partially upheld by the High Court while acquitting two co-accused. The core legal question was whether the acquittal of the co-accused by the High Court ought to be set aside upon a show-cause notice issued suo motu by the Supreme Court years later. The Supreme Court held that since the prosecution evidence against the acquitted co-accused was deficient, the ransom payment witness's testimony was rightly discarded by the High Court, and no appeal against acquittal had been filed by the State or complainant for about twelve years, no useful purpose would be served by persisting with the notice. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal order resting on sound reasons and deficient evidence, particularly after a long lapse of time where no appeal was filed by the aggrieved parties.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will set aside an acquittal when the prosecution evidence against the accused is deficient?
- Is a show-cause notice issued against an acquittal sustainable after a long lapse of time when no appeal was filed by the State or complainant?
- Does the mere presence of an accused outside a car at a public place during ransom payment suffice for conviction without reliable corroborative evidence?
- Russel Joy vs Union of India & Ors2018 SCInd 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2018-01-11Read full judgment →
- Rukhsana Yasmeen vs Executive District Officer (Education)2018 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 195 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal challenged the penalty of withholding three annual increments imposed on the appellant, a teacher, by the Executive District Officer (Education), Gujranwala, following allegations of misconduct, inefficiency, lack of interest, and poor performance. The disciplinary action was initiated after a student failed the Biology examination, resulting in a 0% pass rate for the appellant's class. The appellant contested the charges, providing evidence that the student's failure was due to illness, supported by medical records and a statement from the student's mother, and noting the student's success in other subjects. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary authority acted reasonably and lawfully in imposing penalties without properly considering the appellant's defense. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the disciplinary and appellate authorities failed to consider the appellant's explanation and the supporting evidence regarding the student's medical condition. Consequently, the Tribunal found the allegations unfounded, set aside the impugned orders, and accepted the appeal, establishing that disciplinary penalties cannot be sustained when the authority ignores a substantiated defense.
Questions settled- Can a disciplinary authority impose a penalty under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006 without considering the defense version provided by the employee?
- Does a student's failure in an examination automatically constitute misconduct or inefficiency on the part of the teacher?
- Is a service tribunal empowered to set aside a disciplinary penalty if the findings of the department are based on unfounded allegations?
- Rukhsana and others vs Asmatullah and 3 others2018 PLJ Quetta 15 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-29Read full judgment →
- Rukhsana and 8 others vs Asmatullah and 3 others2018 YLR 454 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-29Read full judgment →
- Royal Rice Millers Limited through CEO and 5 others vs Habib2018 CLD 933 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-30Read full judgment →
- Roshan Ali vs Government of Sindh & others2018 SHC 898 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-06Read full judgment →