Latest Judgments

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

• Rooh Niaz vs The State etc2018 PHC 1658 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-07Read full judgment →
• Roidad Khan vs Zigrawar alias Aigre & others2018 PHC 1605 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-06
  illegal dispossessionrestoration of possessionproperty disputecriminal appealtenant at willexecution of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, wherein the appellant challenged the trial court's acquittal of the respondents regarding allegations of forcible dispossession from his land. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint despite evidence indicating the appellant's legal title and the respondents' lack of a valid claim to possession, following their prior unsuccessful attempts to challenge their own lawful ejectment from the property. The High Court held that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence, as the respondents had been previously ejected through due process and failed to substantiate their possession. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal to the extent of the possession issue, ruling that the appellant was entitled to restoration of the property. The key principle laid down is that under Section 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, once a court finds that an owner or occupier was illegally dispossessed, it is under a legal obligation to direct the restoration of possession, utilizing police assistance if necessary to overcome resistance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the authority to order the restoration of possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 if it finds the complainant was illegally dispossessed?
  • Can a court direct the officer-in-charge of a police station to assist in the restoration of property under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
  • Is a respondent who has been previously ejected from property through due process of law entitled to retain possession against the rightful owner under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Roche Pakistan Limited through Authorized Attorney vs Pakistan through Secretary and 3 others2018 PLD Sindh 222 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-12
  drug registrationsimilar biotherapeutic productsWHO guidelinesDRAP Actinjunctionpublic interestbiological drugsstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenged the registration of 'Reditux' injection as a Similar Biotherapeutic Product (SBP) by the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP). The plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, argued that the registration violated the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012, and the WHO Guidelines, specifically contending that the defendant failed to conduct required prospective clinical trials and bio-similarity studies. The core legal question was whether the WHO Guidelines on the evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products are mandatory for the registration of biological drugs under the relevant Pakistani statutes. The court held that the WHO Guidelines are directory rather than mandatory, as no express provision in the Drugs Act, 1976 or the DRAP Act, 2012 makes them a mandatory prerequisite for registration. The court found that the DRAP, through its expert committees, had duly evaluated the safety, efficacy, and quality data of the product. Consequently, the court dismissed the injunction application, emphasizing that the balance of convenience favored public access to cost-effective, life-saving medication over the plaintiff's claims.

  Questions settled

  • Are the WHO Guidelines on the evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products mandatory for the registration of biological drugs under the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012?
  • Does the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 repeal the Drugs Act, 1976?
  • Can a court grant an injunction against the registration of a life-saving drug based on the alleged non-compliance with directory guidelines?
  • Does the failure to comply with directory provisions in a statute render an administrative decision void?
  Read full judgment →
• Robinson vs Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police2018 SCMR 845 · Supreme Court of United Kingdom · 2018-02-08Read full judgment →
• Robert Leroy McCOY vs Louisiana2018 SCMR 1749 · Supreme Court of United StatesRead full judgment →
• Rizwan Shabbir Kiyani vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 20 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-06-12
  criminal jurisdictionsentencing powersMagistrate Section 30Code of Criminal Proceduretrial competencepolice reportSection 173 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision challenges the orders of a Judicial Magistrate and a Sessions Judge, who transferred a criminal case to the Sessions Court solely because the potential sentence for the charged offences (sections 394, 511, and 337-A(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860) exceeded the Magistrate's sentencing powers. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate may refer a case to the Sessions Court on the grounds that the prescribed punishment exceeds their sentencing jurisdiction, despite the offence being triable by a Magistrate of the 1st Class. The Court held that the impugned orders were illegal. It established that the jurisdiction to try an offence is distinct from the power to award a specific quantum of punishment. A Magistrate of the 1st Class possesses the jurisdiction to try offences triable by them, regardless of whether the maximum prescribed sentence exceeds their sentencing authority. If a Magistrate finds a case beyond their jurisdiction, they must return the police report under section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rather than making a reference to the Sessions Court under section 190(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that a prescribed sentence exceeds a Magistrate's sentencing power deprive the Magistrate of the jurisdiction to try the offence?
  • Can a Magistrate refer a case to the Sessions Court under section 190(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely because the potential punishment exceeds their sentencing authority?
  • What is the correct procedure for a Magistrate to follow when they determine a case is beyond their jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ali and 5 others vs The Commissioner (SMD), SECP, Islamabad2018 CLD 346 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2017-11-08Read full judgment →
• Riyasat Hussain and another vs Muhammad Sabir and 3 others2018 P Cr. L J 344 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-10-06
  acquittal appealdying declarationbenefit of doubtdouble presumption of innocencepolice investigation negligencecontradictory eyewitness testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the accused-respondents by the trial court in a murder and dacoity case. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the dying declaration, contradictory eyewitness testimonies, and suspicious recoveries. The High Court held that the dying declaration recorded by the investigating officer himself when the medical officer was available lacked credibility, the sole eyewitness made continuous improvements, and multiple discrepancies plagued the police investigation and recovery proceedings. Reaffirming that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and that even a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to relief, the court concluded that the trial court's judgment of acquittal was neither perverse nor arbitrary. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, laying down principles regarding the evaluation of police-recorded dying declarations, the necessity of a fair and untainted investigation, and the strict standard required to interfere with an order of acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration recorded by an investigating officer himself be relied upon when a medical officer was readily available?
  • Whether an acquittal order carrying a double presumption of innocence can be interfered with in the absence of perversity or arbitrariness?
  • Is a single reasonable doubt or infirmity in the prosecution's evidence sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  • Does a material improvement in the testimony of a sole eyewitness undermine the credibility of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Riffat Humayun vs P.T.v and Ors2018 SHC 589 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-02Read full judgment →
• Riaz-ud-Din vs Province of Punjab, etc.2018 KLR Civil Cases 19 · Lahore High Court · 2012-06-19Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs The State2018 YLR 2059 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-06
  abduction for ransombenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRhostile witnesspolice encountercapital punishment referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for abduction for ransom and sentencing them to death and imprisonment for life respectively, alongside a reference for the confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of abduction and ransom beyond a reasonable doubt, considering significant delays, hostile testimony from the complainant, and glaring contradictions in police evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with serious doubts, including delayed FIR lodging, contradictions regarding the identity of the accused, doubtful police encounters and recoveries, and flawed investigations. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants, and answered the reference for confirmation of the death sentence in the negative. The key principle laid down is that when the prosecution evidence is riddled with material contradictions, delayed reporting, and doubtful recoveries, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case in an abduction for ransom trial?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the primary complainant fails to identify the accused during the trial?
  • Is a death sentence confirmation reference maintainable when the underlying conviction is based on doubtful and contradictory police evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of material contradictions between the testimonies of eyewitnesses and the recovery evidence presented by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Muhammad Khan Swati vs The State and 5 others2018 YLR 1687 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-24Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain vs State & anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 988, PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 712 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-23
  rapebenefit of doubtdelayed FIRhearsay evidencecriminal appealacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Riaz Hussain, who was found guilty by the trial court under Section 376(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the offense of rape, resulting in a twenty-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant delay in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies in the victim's testimony regarding the date of occurrence, and the lack of corroborating medical or ocular evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was based on shaky, contradictory, and implausible evidence. The court emphasized that hearsay evidence is inadmissible and that the medical report failed to support the prosecution's version. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any failure to do so, particularly when the evidence is intrinsically weak or contradictory, necessitates the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR in a rape case undermine the prosecution's credibility?
  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained solely on the basis of a victim's testimony when that testimony is contradictory and lacks corroboration?
  • Is hearsay evidence admissible to prove the commission of a criminal offense?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove the charge against an accused beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed vs The State2018 MLD 389 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-04
  interim bailexecution of warrantProvincially Administered Tribal AreaPATAmalicecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhelum, declining interim bail to the petitioner who had been arrested in Jhelum pursuant to a warrant issued by a court in District Malakand (a Provincially Administered Tribal Area). The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under the second proviso to Section 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant interim bail to a person arrested for execution of a warrant from a tribal area. The Lahore High Court held that the Sessions Judge was fully competent to grant interim bail under Section 86, and his refusal was unjustified given the circumstances, including allegations of mala fides and previous litigation between the parties. The court set aside the impugned order and admitted the petitioner to interim bail, directing him to approach the competent forum in Malakand within fifteen days.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Sessions Judge has jurisdiction under Section 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant interim bail to a person arrested within his division pursuant to a warrant issued by a court in a Provincially Administered Tribal Area?
  • Can a Sessions Judge refuse to exercise discretion to grant interim bail under Section 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when sufficient grounds such as alleged mala fides are demonstrated?
  • What is the proper procedure for the removal in custody of a person arrested in a settled district pursuant to a warrant from a Tribal Area under Section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad Khan vs District Land Acquisition Collector, Mardan and 5 others2018 MLD 331 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
• Riasat alias Sati vs The State through Advocate General Azad Jammu2018 MLD 1942 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-05-25
  narcoticspost-arrest bailrecovery witnessborderline recoverytentative assessmentbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the rejection of a bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarabad, in a case involving the recovery of 1200 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the lack of private witnesses during the recovery, the submission of the challan, and the quantity of the narcotics recovered. The Court held that the failure to associate private witnesses as required by law cast doubt on the prosecution's story, allowing for the benefit of doubt to be extended to the accused at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court noted that since the investigation was complete and the challan submitted, the accused's continued incarceration was unnecessary. Additionally, the Court applied the principle that where the recovery of narcotics is between 900 and 1500 grams, the case falls into a borderline category between clauses of the relevant statute, justifying the grant of bail. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court's order and admitted the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is the failure to associate private witnesses during a narcotics recovery sufficient grounds to grant bail?
  • Does the recovery of narcotics between 900 and 1500 grams entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the bail stage based on contradictions in prosecution witness statements?
  • Should an accused be granted bail if the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted to the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs Muhammad Anwar2018 YLR 82 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-05Read full judgment →
• Resident of Raghain and Residents of Reshan Gol Bala through their2018 YLR 298 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-10Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah alias Rematoli vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2018 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-26
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderwrit jurisdictionmechanical detention ordergrounds of detentionliberty of citizenindependent judicial mind
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves nine consolidated writ petitions challenging detention orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal questions were whether the detention orders were issued mechanically based solely on police recommendations without independent application of mind, whether the failure to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenus rendered the orders illegal, and whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 3(6) of the Ordinance. The Court held that the detention orders were illegal and without lawful authority because the detaining authority acted mechanically on police reports without objective satisfaction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the failure to serve grounds of detention violates the legal obligations imposed by the Ordinance. Regarding maintainability, the Court held that constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked directly when an order is challenged as being without jurisdiction or mala fide, rendering the alternative statutory remedy a futile exercise. The Court consequently quashed the impugned detention orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can a detention order be sustained if the detaining authority acts mechanically on police recommendations without independent application of mind?
  • Does the failure to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu render the detention order illegal?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a detention order when the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of representation under Section 3(6) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960?
  • Is the satisfaction of the Government for preventive detention subjective or objective in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah alias Rematoli vs Government Oe Khyber Pakhtukhwa2018 PLJ Peshawar 57, 2018 PLJ Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 535 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-12
  pre-arrest bailbailable offencecriminal liabilitybail cancellationjuvenile offendervicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Rehmat Ullah, in connection with FIR No. 330, registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-A(iii), 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Taunsa. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was initially granted bail as a juvenile but subsequently had that bail cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge, was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the specific allegations against him. The court observed that the primary injury to the complainant was attributed to a co-accused, Abdul Karim, who had already been granted bail. The only role assigned to the petitioner was damaging a car, an act falling under Section 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is bailable in nature. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief. The petition was allowed, and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed, establishing the principle that bail should be granted when the specific role attributed to an accused involves a bailable offense, regardless of the overall FIR charges.

  Questions settled

  • Is an offense under Section 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered bailable?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted to an accused whose specific role in an FIR is limited to a bailable offense, even if other co-accused face non-bailable charges?
  • Does the absence of an injury attribution to an accused justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The State and another2018 MLD 508 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-25
  criminal appealabductionrapebenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencerecovery proceedingsprocedural compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for abduction and rape under sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the ocular account of the victim and witnesses is inconsistent, medical evidence fails to corroborate the allegations, and procedural requirements for recovery evidence were ignored. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing significant gaps in the evidence, including the victim's implausible narrative, the lack of corroboration from independent witnesses, the failure to comply with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding recoveries, and the absence of supporting medical findings. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case to the hilt, and where the evidence is insufficient or contradictory, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace, adhering to the golden rule of criminal jurisprudence that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than for one innocent person to suffer.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during recovery proceedings, in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction for rape sustainable when medical evidence fails to corroborate the victim's account and no physical evidence is produced?
  • Does an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR, despite the complainant's prior contact with police, cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
  • When should the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Manager, Habib Bank Limited, Railway Road, Kasur and others2018 PLC 258, 2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 76 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 2017-10-10
  ex-gratia paymentretrenchment policybank employeeworkmanlabour courtrevision petitionpayment of wages
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises out of an impugned judgment passed by the Punjab Labour Court, which had partially accepted an appeal by setting aside an ex-gratia payment awarded to the petitioner by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The core legal questions involved whether an employee retrenched under a bank's retrenchment policy is legally entitled to claim an ex-gratia payment as a matter of right based on a previous Supreme Court judgment, and whether the disallowed service benefits were substantiated by evidence. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that an ex-gratia payment, being a sum paid out of goodwill or as a result of a specific settlement in a prior proceeding where the petitioner was not a party, does not constitute a binding precedent or form part of statutory wages enforceable after a lapse of time. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to substantiate the remaining refused claims through convincing evidence. The Tribunal upheld the Labour Court's judgment and dismissed the revision petition, laying down that ex-gratia payments cannot be claimed as a matter of legal right without an underlying settlement or binding precedent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee retrenched under a corporate policy is entitled to claim an ex-gratia payment as a matter of right based on a judgment rendered in a different proceeding?
  • Does an ex-gratia payment fall within the definition of legally enforceable wages under labour laws?
  • Can a revision petition succeed against concurrent findings of fact when the petitioner fails to substantiate claims through oral and documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Manager, Habib Bank Limited and others2018 PLC 258 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 2017-10-10
  retrenchmentex-gratia paymentlabour lawservice duesworkmanrevision petitionbank employeeprecedent
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged a judgment of the Punjab Labour Court regarding the denial of certain service dues and ex-gratia payments to a retrenched bank employee. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, an SSG Guard retrenched in 2006, was entitled to ex-gratia payments based on the Supreme Court judgment reported as 2011 SCMR 259, and whether he had substantiated his claims for other withheld benefits. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the revision petition lacked merit. The Tribunal affirmed that ex-gratia payments are voluntary in nature, paid out of goodwill, and do not constitute a legal obligation unless arising from a specific settlement. It further held that the cited Supreme Court judgment was based on a settlement between specific parties and did not establish a universal precedent for all retrenched employees, particularly those who, like the petitioner, had accepted their retrenchment without challenge for years. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower court's decision to deny the ex-gratia claim and other unsubstantiated benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Is an ex-gratia payment a legal entitlement for a retrenched employee?
  • Does a Supreme Court judgment based on a settlement between specific parties constitute a binding precedent for all similarly situated employees?
  • Can a retrenched employee claim ex-gratia payments if they accepted the retrenchment order without challenge?
  • Is the burden of proof on the employee to substantiate claims for withheld service dues?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali alias Rehma and others vs The State and others2018 YLR 1181 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-17
  benefit of doubtinterested witnessesocular and medical conflictcriminal appealappeal against acquittalmurder referenceimpersonationrecovery of weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference addresses convictions and sentences under sections 302(b), 149, 148, 324, 440, and 419 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a triple murder and firearm injuries sustained during an alleged ambush. The core legal questions involve the credibility of interested eyewitnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence and alleged weapon recoveries, the legality of convictions under section 419 for personation, and the standards for evaluating appeals against conviction and acquittal. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular testimony was unreliable, riddled with improbabilities, and lacked independent corroboration, especially given that co-accused facing similar allegations were acquitted. The Court established that where eyewitness accounts are contradicted by medical evidence and motivated by deep-seated enmity, and where recovery evidence fails due to a lack of exclusive possession, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the death sentences and convictions were set aside, the murder reference was answered in the negative, the appeals against conviction were allowed, and the appeals against acquittal were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of closely related and inimical eyewitnesses can form the sole basis for a capital conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does medical evidence serve as primary proof of a crime or is it strictly corroborative in nature?
  • Whether an accused person is entitled to the benefit of doubt when the prosecution case is fraught with serious contradictions and improvements?
  • What are the stringent legal standards required by superior courts to interfere with a judgment of acquittal passed by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Can a conviction under section 419 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in the absence of proof that the personation caused actual harm or damage to someone's body, mind, reputation, or property?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman Sher vs The State2018 MLD 1971 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-13
  narcoticscharas recoverycontrol of narcotic substancescriminal appealtaxi transportprivate mashirsdriving seat liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge-II (CNS) Karachi, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine following the recovery of twenty kilograms of charas from a taxi driven by him. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, whether the absence of private witnesses vitiated the recovery, and whether the driver of a vehicle can be held liable for narcotics found therein. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution fully established its case through consistent official testimony and corroborating chemical reports, that section 25 of the CNS Act excludes the application of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the person on the driving seat of a vehicle is presumed responsible for the transportation of narcotics found within it. The key principles laid down are that official witnesses are competent and reliable in narcotics cases absent proven enmity, that section 103 Cr.P.C. does not apply to recoveries under the CNS Act, and that a driver is legally responsible for contraband transported in the vehicle under their control.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of private witnesses at the time of recovery invalidates a narcotics case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is a person on the driving seat of a vehicle held responsible for the transportation of narcotics recovered from the vehicle?
  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the minimum punishment under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 when the quantity of recovered narcotics exceeds ten kilograms?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman Shah vs The State & 1 another2018 PHC 1429 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-04Read full judgment →
• Regional Election Commission, Naseerabad vs Abdul Ghafoor2018 YLR 1917 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-23
  criminal acquittal appealnomination papersfalse declarationeducational qualificationArticle 62(1)(f)remandelection disqualification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the trial court's judgment acquitting the respondent of charges concerning the submission of false educational documents and affidavits during his nomination for the 2013 General Elections. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in its assessment of evidence and failure to consider Supreme Court observations regarding the respondent’s disqualification for lack of honesty and integrity under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. The High Court held that the trial court’s judgment was perverse and non-speaking, as it failed to properly evaluate the documentary evidence and the binding observations of the Supreme Court regarding the respondent's submission of fake credentials. The Court emphasized that making false declarations in nomination papers exposes a candidate to criminal liability under the Pakistan Penal Code. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal, remanding the case to the trial court with directions to provide both parties full opportunities to lead evidence and to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the law and Supreme Court precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Does the submission of false educational documents in nomination papers constitute grounds for criminal proceedings under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Is a trial court required to consider Supreme Court observations regarding a candidate's lack of 'Ameen' status under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution when deciding a criminal complaint?
  • Can a trial court acquit an accused in an election-related criminal complaint without providing the complainant full opportunity to produce documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Regional Director Anti-Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi through Additional Director Law vs Muhammad Aslam2018 P Cr. L J 87 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-05-29
  quantum of sentencecontrol of narcotic substancesconfessional statementjudicial discretionprinciple of proportionalitydeterrencenarcotics trafficking
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter before the Islamabad High Court involves multiple appeals filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force against the quantum of sentences awarded by the Special Court (CNS), Islamabad. The respondents in these cases were convicted on the basis of their confessional statements for possessing and transporting various quantities of narcotic drugs under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the trial court's adoption of a stereotype formula—handing down sentences limited strictly to the period already undergone in custody regardless of the type or quantity of narcotics involved—was sustainable in law. The Court held that the trial court's methodology was an arbitrary exercise of discretion that violated legislative intent and established precedent. Setting aside the sentences while maintaining the final convictions, the High Court established key principles regarding sentencing discretion, proportionality, the significance of drug quantities, and the requirement for structured judicial reasoning in narcotics cases, remanding the matters back to the trial court to redetermine appropriate sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can adopt a stereotype formula limiting a sentence to the period already undergone in custody upon an accused's confession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the quantum of sentence for narcotics offences depend upon the quantity and nature of the recovered substance?
  • What are the guiding principles for structuring judicial discretion when determining the adequate punishment for offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Whether strong and convincing reasons are required for awarding a lesser sentence when a statute prescribes multiple alternative punishments including death or life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Razia Sultana Tahir vs Fed. of Pakista and Ors2018 SHC 1102 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-07Read full judgment →
• Rawail vs The State etc2018 PHC 1857 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-14Read full judgment →
• Rasool Khan vs Khyber Medical University and 5 others2018 MLD 1227 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
• Rasool Khan vs Khyber Medical University & 5 others2018 MLD 1227, 2018 PHC 1502 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan vs State2019 MLD 675, 2018 PHC 1818 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-08Read full judgment →
• Rashid Hussain vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 590 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-14
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsinvestigation powersCIA personnelcognizable offencefurther inquirypolice jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 3000 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether CIA personnel, who conducted the raid and investigation, possessed the legal authority to investigate a cognizable offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that CIA personnel lack the authority to investigate cognizable offences under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as such power is reserved for the officer in-charge of the police station having jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that CIA personnel are subordinates meant to assist the police and cannot initiate investigations on their own motion without specific entrustment. Finding that the investigation was conducted illegally by unauthorized personnel and noting the delay in the chemical analysis report, the Court determined that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the rigours of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, were not attracted when a case for further inquiry is established.

  Questions settled

  • Do CIA personnel have the legal authority to investigate a cognizable offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can CIA personnel initiate an investigation into a cognizable offence on their own motion?
  • Does an illegal investigation by unauthorized personnel constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Are the restrictions on bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 applicable when a case for further inquiry is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid etc vs Mr. Wilayat Khan, Aag, assisted2019 P Cr. L J 438, 2018 PHC 1737 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-19
  criminal revisionrecording of evidencepresiding officerjudicial recordvalidity of statementtrial procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the trial court, which refused to include in the judicial record a statement of the complainant recorded in the absence of the presiding officer. The petitioners, accused in a case under Sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, argued that the statement, recorded in the presence of the public prosecutor and the complainant's counsel, should be treated as valid evidence. The core legal question was whether a witness statement recorded in the absence of the presiding judge constitutes a valid judicial record. The Peshawar High Court held that a statement recorded without the presiding officer present is legally void and cannot be considered part of the judicial record, regardless of the presence of counsel. The Court emphasized that the presiding officer's presence is a fundamental requirement for the recording of evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the trial court's decision to discard the statement, noting that the defence assumed the risk of proceeding in the absence of the judge and cannot now seek to validate an irregular procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness statement recorded in the absence of the presiding officer be admitted as part of the judicial record?
  • Is a statement valid if recorded in the presence of counsel but without the judge presiding?
  • Does the absence of the presiding officer during the recording of evidence invalidate the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ameer vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 199, 2018 [M] C.L.R. 340 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-21Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali Memon vs Chief Secretary, through Government of Sindh &2019 PLC (C.S.) 1245, 2018 SHC 488 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-26
  regularization of servicecontract employeesdoctrine of lachesconstitutional jurisdictiondiscriminatory treatmentequitable reliefservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the regularization of the petitioner's service in the Live Stock & Fisheries Department, Government of Sindh. The petitioner, initially appointed on a contract basis, sought regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, alleging discriminatory treatment compared to colleagues whose services were regularized. The core legal questions were whether the petition was maintainable despite the doctrine of laches and whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization under the 2013 Act. The Court held that the petition was maintainable, rejecting the plea of laches as the issue of delay is subject to equitable principles and the facts of each case. Finding the petitioner's situation identical to that of his colleagues who had been regularized, the Court directed the respondent department to consider the petitioner's case for regularization without discrimination, subject to his eligibility and qualifications. The key principle laid down is that the government cannot engage in 'cherry-picking' by regularizing some employees while terminating others who are similarly placed, and that constitutional jurisdiction may be exercised to remedy manifest wrongs and ensure equal treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be dismissed solely on the ground of laches without considering the equitable circumstances of the case?
  • Is the government permitted to adopt a policy of cherry-picking by regularizing some contract employees while terminating others who are similarly placed?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to direct the regularization of contractual employees if the government has already regularized their similarly situated colleagues?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another2018 PLD Peshawar 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-04Read full judgment →
• Rasheed vs State, etcPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 756 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryspeedy trialdelayed F.I.R.criminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 324, 337-F(iii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Okanwala Bangla, Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the alleged offense and the status of the investigation. The Court observed an unexplained seven-day delay in lodging the F.I.R., noted that the injury sustained was to a non-vital part of the body, and questioned the intent to kill. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the lack of progress in the trial, emphasizing the accused's constitutional right to a speedy trial. Concluding that the case required further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, the Court held that the matter fell within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion to grant post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that significant delays in F.I.R. registration and the absence of trial progress are valid grounds for bail under further inquiry provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute grounds for post-arrest bail?
  • Is the lack of progress in a trial a relevant consideration for granting bail?
  • Does a non-vital injury raise a question of intent sufficient to warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Akbar Khan vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 1495 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-31
  forgerycorrupt practicesnomination papersbenefit of doubtsecondary evidencecriminal appealelection offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellant for offences under sections 468, 471, 474, and 476 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 82 of the Representation of the People Act 1976, regarding the alleged submission of a fake B.A. degree with nomination papers for the 2002 General Elections. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to establish forgery and the admissibility of unverified secondary evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the alleged fake degree was merely a photocopy, inadmissible as secondary evidence, and the verification report lacked an official seal. Furthermore, the complainant was a political rival, and the co-accused had been acquitted on the same evidence. The court emphasized that the benefit of doubt is a right, not a grace, and that conviction cannot rest on suspicion. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on secondary evidence that was not proved in accordance with law?
  • Is a report regarding the verification of a degree admissible in evidence if it lacks the official seal of the issuing authority?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the same set of evidence provide grounds for the acquittal of the remaining accused?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a matter of right for an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmad vs Nazar Hussain Malik Etc.2018 CLC 1811, 2020 [M] C L R 143, 2018 LHC 631 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-21Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmad (Deceased) through L.Rs, vs Nazar Hussain Malik and another2018 CLC 1811 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-21Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Sarwar vs Returning Officer, PP-77, Sargodha & another2018 PLJ Lahore 1142, 2018 LHC 1619 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-12Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Sarwar vs Returning Officer and another2019 [M] C.L.R. 143, 2019 [M] CLR 143, 2018 LHC 1265, 2018 LHC 1337 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-29Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Sarwar vs Returning Officer & another2018 LHC 1265 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-27Read full judgment →
• Rao Ishtiaq Khurshid vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-21
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of the doubttest identification paradesupplementary statementfirst information reportocular accountcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge at Rawalpindi convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing the qatl-i-amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside a connected murder reference. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account, the belated nomination of the appellant through a supplementary statement, and the evidentiary value of a test identification parade where prior acquaintance and identity are doubtful. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies regarding the time of the incident, unexplained omission of the appellant's name from the initial crime report and inquest proceedings, dubious presence of related witnesses, and a negative forensic report. The court laid down the principle that a supplementary statement cannot cure initial anonymity in the crime report, and where witness testimonies regarding prior acquaintance or identification are contradictory and uncorroborated, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, resulting in the setting aside of the conviction and the rejection of the death reference.

  Questions settled

  • Can a supplementary statement be equated with or read in extension of a First Information Report?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a test identification parade when eye-witnesses give contradictory accounts regarding prior acquaintance with the accused?
  • Does a negative forensic report regarding the weapon of offence and crime empty undermine the reliability of the prosecution case?
  • How does the unexplained delay in naming the accused in the initial crime report affect the credibility of subsequent ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Rani Bibi vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 310 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-24
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencecriminal appealmurder convictioninadmissible evidencepolice custody confessionacquittalmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically last seen evidence, alleged motive, and a disclosure leading to the recovery of the deceased's body. The core legal question was whether these circumstances, in the absence of direct evidence, were sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and that the last seen evidence lacked necessary corroboration. Furthermore, the court ruled that the alleged disclosure by the appellant while in police custody was inadmissible under Articles 39 and 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as it did not lead to the discovery of a new fact. The court emphasized that last seen evidence is the weakest form of evidence and that evidence disbelieved against one co-accused cannot be used to convict another. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is last seen evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Under what conditions is a disclosure statement made by an accused in police custody admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can evidence that is disbelieved against one co-accused be used to convict another co-accused?
  • What is the consequence of the prosecution's failure to prove a motive that it has explicitly alleged?
  Read full judgment →
• Rani Bibi vs The State, etc.2018 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 226, K.L.R. 2018 Criminal Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-24
  circumstantial evidencelast-seen evidencemurdermotivecustodial confessioninadmissible evidencerule of consistencyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court whereby the appellant, Rani Bibi, was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a murder case. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, specifically last-seen evidence, the admissibility of custodial disclosures under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the consequences of failing to prove an alleged motive, and the rule of consistency in convicting co-accused on the same set of evidence. The Lahore High Court held that last-seen evidence is of a weak nature requiring independent corroboration, that custodial disclosures not leading to a fresh discovery are inadmissible, and that an accused cannot be convicted when a co-accused facing identical allegations has been acquitted on the same evidence. The Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the honorable acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Is last-seen evidence sufficient on its own to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What are the legal requirements for admissibility of a custodial statement under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the same set of evidence upon which a co-accused has already been acquitted?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution sets up a motive but fails to prove it during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Rani Bibi vs State, etcK.L.R. 2018 Criminal Cases 1, 2018 PCRLJ 310, 2018 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 226, PLJ · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-24
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceadmissibility of evidenceSection 342 Cr.P.C.motivecriminal appealacquittaldisclosure statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of her husband. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically last-seen evidence, alleged motive, and the recovery of the body. The core legal questions were whether the circumstantial evidence provided sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction, whether the trial court erred in admitting inadmissible evidence, and whether the appellant was entitled to acquittal given the acquittal of a co-accused on the same evidence. The Court held that the last-seen evidence was weak and lacked independent corroboration. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive, and the disclosure statements relied upon were inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court emphasized that evidence not put to the accused during examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be used for conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances necessary to connect the appellant to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Is last-seen evidence sufficient on its own to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Can a statement made by an accused in police custody be used as evidence if it does not lead to the discovery of a new fact?
  • Does the failure to put incriminating evidence to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render that evidence unusable for conviction?
  • If the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence, what is the legal consequence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Shahbaz Ahmad vs Sessions Judge and another2018 MLD 460 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-13Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Rasheed vs The Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh &2018 SHC 460 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-13
  service record correctiondate of birthsuperannuationcivil servants rulesgrievance applicationlimitation periodconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the judgment of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which rejected the petitioner's grievance application seeking the correction of his date of birth in his service record. The petitioner, employed in 1974, sought to alter his recorded date of birth from 1952 to 1954 shortly before his retirement in 2012. The core legal question was whether a public servant can seek alteration of their date of birth near the verge of retirement and whether such relief can be obtained through a civil suit or a grievance application after significant delay. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's request was an afterthought and time-barred. The Court affirmed that the procedure for correcting a date of birth is strictly governed by Rule 12-A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, which mandates that such applications must be made within two years of the commencement of service. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that civil courts lack jurisdiction over service matters regarding such administrative entries, and that established principles preclude late-stage alterations to service records.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public servant seek alteration of their date of birth in their service record at the verge of retirement?
  • Is a civil suit the appropriate forum for a public servant to seek correction of their date of birth in their service record?
  • What is the limitation period for applying for the correction of a date of birth in a service record under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Khalil vs Regional Audit Chief, NBP Audit Office2018 PLC (C.S.) 442 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-23
  pensionary benefitsNational Bank of Pakistancost of living allowanceBanks (Nationalization) Actintra-court appealpersonnel policystatutory force
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a single bench decision that dismissed a writ petition seeking the inclusion of a 7% cost of living allowance in the appellant's pensionary benefits. The appellant, a retired National Bank of Pakistan employee, relied on a 2011 Federal Government notification to claim this allowance. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government's notification regarding pensionary benefits applied to employees of the National Bank of Pakistan, given the bank's own 1995 circular explicitly excluding such allowances from pension calculations. The Court held that amendments to the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, specifically Section 11, vested the Board of Directors with exclusive authority over personnel policies, remuneration, and benefits, effectively removing the bank from Federal Government control in these matters. Consequently, the bank's 1995 circular superseded earlier government instructions, and the 2011 notification was inapplicable to the bank's employees. The Court affirmed that the Board's decisions under Section 11 hold statutory force, and the appeal was dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Government have the authority to dictate pensionary benefits for employees of the National Bank of Pakistan following the amendments to the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974?
  • Does a decision taken by the Board of Directors of the National Bank of Pakistan under Section 11 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, possess statutory force?
  • Can a circular issued by the National Bank of Pakistan supersede federal government notifications regarding employee remuneration and benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Javed Iqbal vs The State and another2018 YLR 207 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-08
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconflicting statementsdelay in FIRrapeabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 432/2016 under sections 376 and 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Sarai Sidhu, District Khanewal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given the delayed FIR, conflicting statements of the victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and differing conclusions of the police investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the variance between the victim's statements, the lack of explanatory delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of violence marks in the medical report, and the petitioner's exoneration by the investigating officer collectively brought the case within the scope of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that conflicting versions emerging during investigation, coupled with material discrepancies in the victim's statements, make out a proper case for granting post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether variance between statements recorded under section 161 and section 164 Cr.P.C. makes a case one of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.?
  • Can delay in registration of FIR not explained by the complainant create doubt in the prosecution story at the bail stage?
  • Whether the opinion of the police during investigation can be considered while deciding a bail application?
  • Does the absence of marks of violence on the victim's body support a plea for post-arrest bail in a rape case?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Khurram Shehzad and another vs The State and another2018 MLD 830 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-02
  pre-arrest bailmala fidebenefit of doubtabductiontentative assessmentFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 411/17, registered for an offence under Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court observed an unexplained thirteen-day delay in the registration of the FIR, during which the petitioners were not named as culprits. Furthermore, the alleged abductee had previously filed an application under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alleging abduction by her own relatives and claiming a free-will marriage with a co-accused. The Court noted that the petitioners were not named in the initial FIR, despite being local residents, and that the prosecution's case against them appeared to be a result of mala fide intention and ulterior motive. Holding that the prosecution story was doubtful regarding the petitioners, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused even at the bail stage, particularly when false implication is prima facie apparent.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the FIR, despite a significant delay in registration, constitute grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when there is a prima facie indication of mala fide intention and false implication by the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Khurram Shehzad and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 258 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-02
  pre-arrest bailabductionbenefit of doubtmala fideFIR delaytentative assessmentSection 164 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 411/17 registered under Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of abduction. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the contradictions in the prosecution's case and the circumstances surrounding the alleged abduction. The Court observed an unexplained thirteen-day delay in the FIR's registration, during which the petitioners were not named. Furthermore, the alleged abductee had previously filed an application under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, claiming she married of her own free will, and later filed a private complaint. The Court held that the prosecution's story against the petitioners appeared doubtful, noting the absence of their names in the initial FIR and the potential influence of parents on the abductee's subsequent statements. Emphasizing that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused at the bail stage, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, concluding that the petitioners' implication was likely motivated by mala fide intent and ulterior motives.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the accused is not named in the initial FIR?
  • Is a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to scrutiny regarding potential parental influence during a bail hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Farmaish Ali and another vs State & anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 36 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-06
  pre-arrest bailbailable offencebail confirmationcriminal proceduredeletion of offencesPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 427 dated 03.08.2016 registered under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Chehlyak, Multan. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the non-bailable offences originally cited have been deleted during investigation, leaving only a bailable offence. The Lahore High Court held that since offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code were deleted during investigation and the remaining offence under Section 420 is bailable, no judicial discretion remains to be exercised regarding bail under the second schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners was confirmed. The key principle laid down is that where only bailable offences subsist against an accused after investigation, the court does not exercise discretionary jurisdiction over bail as it is a matter of right under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the non-bailable offences initially registered are deleted during investigation, leaving only a bailable offence?
  • Does a court retain discretion to refuse bail when the subsisting offence against the accused is bailable under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ram Chandra Singh vs Rajaram and Ors2018 SCInd 36 · Supreme Court of India · 2018-08-14Read full judgment →
• Rajib Ali Shah vs Chairman NAB and others2018 PLD Sindh 256 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-08Read full judgment →
• Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur vs Shri Phool2018 SCInd 72 · Supreme Court of India · 2018-09-20
  back wagesreinstatementlabour courtwrongful dismissalburden of proofgainful employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the final judgment of the High Court upholding the award of the Labour Court, which had set aside the dismissal of a deceased workman, directed his reinstatement, and awarded full back wages. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court and the High Court were justified in awarding full back wages as a matter of right upon setting aside the dismissal. The Supreme Court held that back wages cannot be awarded as of right merely because a dismissal order has been set aside; the initial burden lies on the employee to plead and prove that they were not gainfully employed during the relevant period. The Court modified the impugned order, reducing the back wages to 50% in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, laying down the principle that the award of back wages requires consideration of pleadings, evidence, and judicial discretion rather than automatic grant upon reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a workman is entitled to claim back wages as of right upon the setting aside of a dismissal order and direction for reinstatement?
  • Upon whom does the initial burden lie to plead and prove gainful employment or the lack thereof following dismissal from service?
  • Can an appellate court modify an award of full back wages to partial back wages based on the facts and circumstances of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajab Ali vs The State2018 MLD 1979 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-07
  narcoticshashish recoveryinterested witnessbenefit of the doubtsampling of narcoticscriminal appealpolice animosityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution's case was that the appellant abandoned a rickshaw during police patrolling and fled, leaving behind packets of hashish. The core legal questions involved the credibility of an interested police witness alleged to have prior animosity with the appellant, the legal sufficiency of identification based on seeing a fleeing suspect from behind, the failure to associate independent witnesses from a populated area, and the proper procedure for sampling narcotic substances. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies, lack of independent corroboration, improper sampling, and admitted enmity between the star witness and the appellant. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, laying down that the testimony of an interested witness with a motive for false implication must be scrutinized with extreme caution and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether identification in court by a witness who only saw the accused running from behind can be relied upon as direct evidence?
  • How should the testimony of a police witness who has an admitted motive for enmity against the accused be evaluated?
  • Is it mandatory for the prosecution to associate independent private witnesses from the locality when specific animosity against police officials is alleged in a populated area?
  • What is the effect of failing to take separate samples from each separate packet or container of recovered narcotic substances?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajab Ali vs The State and others2018 YLR 809 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-11
  illegal assetsdisproportionate sources of incomeNational Accountability Ordinancehandwriting expertburden of proofjoint family propertyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellants, Rajab Ali and Latif Hussain, under sections 9(a)(v), 9(a)(xii), and 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for accumulating assets disproportionate to known sources of income and for fabricating a sale deed. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established that the assets were acquired through illegal means and whether the disputed sale transaction of ancestral land was forged. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence demonstrated that the appellants and their brothers constituted a joint family owning substantial ancestral agricultural property with significant lawful income sufficient to cover the acquired assets and construction costs, and the expert handwriting opinion regarding the sale deed was outweighed by ocular and corroborative defense testimony. The court laid down the principle that the presumption under section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove the essential ingredients of the offense of corruption and corrupt practices before any onus shifts to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 shift the burden of proof to the accused before the prosecution proves the essential ingredients of corruption?
  • Can an expert's opinion on handwriting outweigh trustworthy ocular and corroborative testimony regarding a disputed document?
  • Whether income from joint ancestral property and remittances of family members can be considered as known legal sources of income to justify acquired assets?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Sohaib Manzoor and others vs The Inspector General of Police &2018 SHC 1172 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-07
  service lawpolice recruitmentjudicial reviewservice tribunalSupreme Court precedentillegal appointmentreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought the implementation of a judgment from the Sindh Service Tribunal, which had ordered their reinstatement as Police Constables following their dismissal. The core legal question was whether the High Court could enforce this reinstatement order given that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had subsequently declared the entire recruitment process for the years 2012 to 2015 illegal and mandated a fresh recruitment procedure. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Supreme Court’s judgment superseded the tribunal’s order. The Court reasoned that the Supreme Court’s directive nullified the recruitment process under which the petitioners were originally appointed, rendering the tribunal's reinstatement order infructuous. Furthermore, the petitioners had participated in the court-mandated re-examination process but failed to qualify, thereby forfeiting any claim to the positions. The key principle established is that a Supreme Court judgment invalidating a recruitment process takes precedence over any prior tribunal orders, effectively nullifying the basis for reinstatement claims derived from the invalidated process.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Supreme Court judgment declaring a recruitment process illegal supersede a prior Service Tribunal order reinstating employees appointed under that process?
  • Can a High Court enforce a Service Tribunal order when the underlying recruitment process has been nullified by the Supreme Court?
  • Are employees who participated in a court-mandated re-examination process and failed entitled to claim reinstatement based on previous service?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Naseer and another vs Ghulam Shah and another2018 CLC 1769, 2018 LHC 1357 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-17Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Amir Khan and another vs Raja Sher Afzal Jasmin2018 YLR 487 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-24Read full judgment →
• Raja Khurram Ali Khan vs Mst. Tayyaba Bibi (complainant) through herPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 697 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Raja Khurram Ali Khan and another vs Tayyaba Bibi and another2018 IHC 62 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-06-04
  child crueltychild labourdomestic worker abusemens rea in child neglectsentence enhancementcross-examination failurechild witness testimonydisappearance of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court adjudicated an appeal against conviction by a Judicial Officer and his wife, alongside the State’s petition seeking acquittal reversal and sentence enhancement. The case arose from the severe physical abuse, confinement, and exploitation of Tayyaba Bibi, a domestic child maid under ten years of age. The core legal issues centered on the assessment of a traumatized child witness's evidence, the failure to cross-examine material prosecution witnesses, the evidentiary and mens rea standards required under Section 328-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and principles for sentencing enhancement. The High Court dismissed the convicts' appeal, allowed the State’s appeal, enhanced their Section 328-A sentences from one to three years' imprisonment, convicted them under Section 201 PPC, and further convicted the female appellant under Sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(i) PPC with 'daman'. The Court held that Section 328-A encompasses both actual and potential harm and is satisfied by subjective awareness or reckless disregard, while child domestic labor constitutes severe exploitation.

  Questions settled

  • What legal inference arises when a party fails to cross-examine a prosecution witness on a material statement of fact?
  • What standard of mens rea is required to establish the offence of cruelty to a child under Section 328-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a First Information Report be lawfully registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on an unsigned complaint?
  • What principles govern the judicial discretion to impose the maximum prescribed sentence rather than a lesser punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Iviz Mehmood and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M_o Information Technology and Telecommunication and others2018 SCMR 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-11-07
  Transferred EmployeesNew Terms and Conditions of ServiceVoluntary ResignationEmployment ContractTermination of ServiceMaster and Servant PrincipleEstoppelDiscriminationConstitutional PetitionService Protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns civil petitions challenging the Islamabad High Court's decision regarding the termination of "Transferred Employees" of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL). The core legal questions revolved around whether employees, by voluntarily opting for new terms and conditions of service (NTC) and tendering resignations, relinquished statutory and contractual protections of their original employment status, and the validity of their subsequent termination. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners, having consciously and voluntarily accepted NTC, tendered resignations, and executed fresh contracts with enhanced benefits, severed their previous employment relationship and the protections available to "Transferred Employees" under the Share Purchase Agreement and Section 36 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996. Their new relationship was governed by the 'Master and Servant' principle. The Court affirmed that voluntary acceptance of new terms, acted upon by both parties, estops employees from later claiming prior protections. It also held that termination according to contract terms, even if notice or payment in lieu was omitted, does not warrant reinstatement, and discrimination claims require substantial proof of mala fides.

  Read full judgment →
• Raja Imtiaz Ahmed Khan vs Muhammad Mahroof and 2 others2018 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 22 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-01-23Read full judgment →
• Raja Faisal Azad, Primary Teacher vs Divisional Director Elementary2018 PLJ AJ&K 149 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Raja Asir Munir and another vs DHL Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited and 2 others2018 CLD 725 · Appellate Bench Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2017-05-23Read full judgment →
• Raj Wali and 2 others vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1505 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-05-22
  quashment of FIRinherent powersabductionfree-will marriagesui jurisabuse of processconsent of wali
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking quashment of FIR No. 02/2014 registered under Sections 365, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the petitioners were accused of abducting the complainant's daughter. The petitioners contended that the alleged abductee was a sui juris adult who voluntarily contracted marriage with petitioner No. 1 without coercion, corroborating this via a registered Nikahnama, an affidavit, and a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution opposed the petition, asserting that petitioner No. 1 absconded for four years after forcibly marrying her. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that under Islamic law and constitutional protections under Article 35 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, an adult, sane woman has the right to marry of her own free will without requiring the consent of a Wali. Finding the continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of process and unnecessary harassment, the Court quashed the FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an adult and sane Muslim female requires the consent of a Wali to contract a valid marriage?
  • Can criminal proceedings under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where the alleged abductee confirms marriage by her own free will?
  • Whether the continuation of criminal trial against a husband constitutes an abuse of the process of court when the alleged abductee records a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 denying abduction?
  Read full judgment →
• Rai Muhammad Khan vs NAB through Chairman and others2018 PLJ SC 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-22
  post-arrest bailcorruptionmisappropriation of fundsprinciple of consistencyaccountability lawsspeedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's bail application in a corruption case. The petitioner, a former Chairman of a Citizens Community Board, was accused of misappropriating government funds allocated for road construction through fake completion bills. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, particularly given the principle of consistency regarding a co-accused who had been granted bail, and whether internal NAB SOPs regarding monetary thresholds for cognizance of corruption cases were binding. The Supreme Court held that bail is to be decided on individual merits and declined to interfere with the High Court's order. The Court emphasized that corruption poses a severe threat to the State economy and the welfare of the public. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that anti-corruption laws must be applied with greater rigidity at the bail stage, and that courts should not show leniency in sentencing once corruption is proven, distinguishing such cases from ordinary criminal matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of consistency in bail matters mandate that a co-accused must be granted bail if another co-accused has been released?
  • Should anti-corruption laws be applied with greater rigidity at the bail stage compared to ordinary criminal cases?
  • Is the judiciary obligated to take a strict stance against corruption to protect the State economy and public welfare?
  Read full judgment →
• Tassadaq Nawaz vs Masood Iqbal Usmani and others2018 PLD Lahore 830 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-12
  interim custodyconstitutional petitionmaintainabilityguardianshipFamily Courts Actappellate remedyres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by a Judge Family Court regarding the interim custody of a minor. The core legal question was whether an order passed under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, by a Family Court is appealable under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, thereby precluding the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order is indeed appealable before the District Court under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The Court laid down the principle that once guardianship matters are brought under the jurisdiction of Family Courts, the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 prevails over the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Consequently, interim orders under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, qualify as 'decisions' under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, rendering them appealable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory appellate remedies, and interim custody orders are tentative, allowing for modification upon material changes in circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, by a Family Court appealable under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court extend to interim orders passed by a Family Court when a statutory remedy of appeal is available?
  • Are interim custody orders passed by a Guardian Court subject to the principle of res judicata?
  • Does the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 prevail over the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, in matters of guardianship?
  Read full judgment →
• Rai Muhammad Khan vs NAB thr. its Chairman and others2018 SCP 1127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-03-21
  post-arrest bailcorruptionmisappropriation of fundsprinciple of consistencyspeedy trialaccountability lawsNAB SOP
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's bail application in a corruption case. The petitioner, as Chairman of a Citizens Community Board, was accused of misappropriating Rs. 11.04 million in government funds allocated for road construction through fake completion bills. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the principle of consistency due to a co-accused receiving bail, and whether internal NAB SOPs regarding monetary thresholds for cognizance of cases possess the status of binding statutory law. The Supreme Court held that each bail petition must be decided on its own merits. It emphasized that corruption poses a severe threat to the State economy, necessitating a more rigid application of anti-corruption laws at the bail stage compared to ordinary criminal cases. The Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order, noting that courts should not show leniency in corruption matters. It further directed the Trial Court to ensure a speedy trial, mandating its conclusion within six months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of consistency entitle an accused to bail simply because a co-accused has been granted the same?
  • Should anti-corruption laws be applied more rigidly at the bail stage compared to ordinary criminal cases?
  • Is a trial court required to conclude a corruption trial within a specific timeframe if the accused has a right to a speedy trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahmatullah vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 413 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryterrorist attackpresumption of innocencesupplementary statementcriminal conspiracytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal miscellaneous bail applications filed by the petitioners, Rahmatullah and Rafiullah, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 324, 353, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and section 15 of the Arms Act. The core legal question was whether sufficient incriminating material existed prima facie to connect the petitioners to the alleged terrorist attack and whether their case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to point out any solid incriminating evidence, relying merely on a vague supplementary statement and unverified friendships, while mobile data and records failed to establish complicity. The court decided that the case fell squarely within the scope of further inquiry. The key legal principle laid down is that the presumption of innocence remains paramount regardless of the heinousness of the charged offense, and where prima facie incriminating evidence is lacking and the prosecution's case is vague, bail must be granted under the purview of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when prima facie incriminating material is lacking?
  • Does the heinousness of an offense alone override the presumption of innocence at the bail stage?
  • Can a supplementary statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 serve as sufficient grounds to deny bail without corroborative evidence?
  • How are the bail considerations under section 21-D(4) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 applied when evidence connecting the accused to the crime is absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahmatullah Khan etc vs Abu Khan etc2019 MLD 648, 2018 PHC 1816 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-07Read full judgment →
• Rahman Rashid vs Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), Rto, Faisalabad2018 PTD (Trib.) 447 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-10-27
  Final Tax RegimeCommercial ImporterShow-cause noticeSales Tax ActTax assessmentInput tax creditValue addition tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a commercial importer challenging tax demands issued by the Inland Revenue authorities. The core legal questions were whether a registered person falling under the Final Tax Regime (FTR) via S.R.O. No. 645(I)/2007 is liable for further sales tax on subsequent supplies of imported goods, and whether the show-cause notices issued under Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, were legally valid. The Appellate Tribunal held that commercial importers under the specified FTR regime are not liable for further sales tax on subsequent supplies, as the tax is collected at the import stage. Regarding the procedural aspect, the Tribunal ruled that show-cause notices issued under Section 11(2) and 11(3) must clearly specify the grounds for assessment, such as collusion or inadvertence. Because the notices in this case were vague and failed to delineate the specific legal basis for the reassessment, they were declared illegal ab initio. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the lower authorities, affirming that defective notices invalidate the resulting tax proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a commercial importer under S.R.O. No. 645(I)/2007 liable to pay further sales tax on the subsequent supply of imported goods?
  • Does a show-cause notice issued under Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, require specific allegations of collusion or error to be legally valid?
  • Can tax proceedings initiated on the basis of a vague or defective show-cause notice be sustained?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bukhsh vs Mst. Shehzadi and others2018 CLC 1789 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-22
  constitutional petitionfamily court decreeexecution of decreeobjection petitionappealable decisioninterlocutory ordermaintainability of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed against the orders of the appellate court and executing court dismissing the petitioner's appeal and objection petition regarding the execution of a family court decree. The core legal question was whether an order dismissing an objection petition in execution proceedings under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 constitutes a 'decision given' and is thus appealable under Section 14 of the Act, or whether it is merely a non-appealable interim order. The Lahore High Court held that an order which finally determines an issue or a party's objection possesses the characteristic of finality and amounts to 'a decision given' under Section 14 of the Act, making an appeal maintainable, provided it is not a purely interlocutory order where the matter is merely deferred. The key principle laid down is that the test for the maintainability of an appeal under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 depends on whether the order has finally decided an issue between the parties rather than simply being passed during the pendency of proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order dismissing an objection petition against the execution of a family court decree is appealable under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does every order passed during the pendency of family proceedings qualify as a non-appealable interlocutory order?
  • What is the legal test to determine whether an order passed by a Family Court amounts to 'a decision given' for the purposes of filing an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh and another vs The State2018 PLD Balochistan 8 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-02-13
  attachment of propertyproclaimed offenderabscondingproclamationrestoration of propertylimitation periodcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the restoration of immovable properties attached by the trial court under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellants, having been acquitted of charges under Sections 302, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought the release of their attached properties. The trial court dismissed their application, citing the two-year limitation period prescribed by Section 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the attachment proceedings were lawful given the trial court's failure to adhere to the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the trial court acted without jurisdiction by simultaneously issuing proclamation and attachment orders without ensuring the mandatory thirty-day notice period for the accused to appear. The Court established that where the statutory requirements for a valid proclamation under Section 87 are not met—specifically the absence of a proper thirty-day notice and the lack of a written statement confirming publication—the subsequent attachment under Section 88 is void. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the properties were ordered to be restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court simultaneously issue a proclamation and an order for the attachment of property under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an attachment order valid if the court fails to provide the mandatory thirty-day notice period for the accused to appear as required by Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the limitation period under Section 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to attachment proceedings that were initiated without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh alias Shada vs The State2018 MLD 359 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-03Read full judgment →
• Rahib Ali vs The State2018 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-10-30
  concurrent sentencesconsecutive sentenceslife imprisonmentinherent jurisdictionsentencing policyAnti-Terrorism Actkidnapping for ransomcriminal appealHigh Court jurisdictionSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a petition challenging a High Court order that declined to direct two life sentences, awarded in separate proceedings by different courts, to run concurrently. The core legal question was whether courts, particularly the High Court exercising inherent jurisdiction, could order concurrent running of sentences, especially when superior courts had previously maintained or enhanced sentences without such a direction. The Supreme Court held that courts generally adopt a charitable view in matters of liberty and liberally exercise powers under Sections 35 and 397 Cr.P.C. to order concurrent running of sentences, both within a single trial and across subsequent trials. The Court emphasized that computing two life sentences consecutively would negate the principle that life imprisonment corresponds to a maximum of 25 years. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and directed that the two life sentences awarded to the petitioner in the two distinct trials run concurrently. It was affirmed that the High Court and Supreme Court possess jurisdiction under Section 561-A read with Section 35 and/or Section 397 Cr.P.C. to issue such directions.

  Read full judgment →
• Rahib Ali vs State2018 PLJ SC 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-10-30
  concurrent sentencesconsecutive sentencesmultiple convictionslife imprisonmentinherent jurisdictionsentencing consolidation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a convict serving life imprisonment, impugned a High Court order dismissing his application under Section 397 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought to run two separate life sentences awarded in different trials concurrently. The core legal question was whether the High Court or appellate courts possess the jurisdiction to order concurrent running of multiple sentences arising from separate trials when the earlier conviction was not brought to the notice of the court at the time of the subsequent sentencing. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that courts in Pakistan generally take a charitable view regarding deprivation of liberty and possess inherent and statutory powers under Sections 35, 397, and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order sentences from separate trials to run concurrently. The key principle laid down is that where multiple sentences are passed in separate trials without an explicit direction for consecutive execution, the High Court and Supreme Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct that such sentences run concurrently.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court or Supreme Court can order life sentences awarded in separate and successive trials to run concurrently under Section 561-A read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Do courts have the jurisdiction to order a sentence of imprisonment in default of fine to run concurrently with substantive sentences of imprisonment?
  • What is the effect of an omission to disclose an earlier conviction at the time of a subsequent trial on the power of the court to consolidate sentences?
  • Whether multiple sentences of imprisonment awarded in separate trials run consecutively by default unless specifically ordered to run concurrently?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheem Shah vs Momin Khan and another2018 CLC 816 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
• Raheem Bakhsh and another vs Bashir Ahmed and 4 others2018 CLC 967 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-15Read full judgment →
• Raheel Ahmad vs Govt. of K.P.K and others2018 PLJ Peshawar 171, 2018 PHC 1643 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-16
  writ petitionpublic appointmentsnepotismmeritzonal quotatransparencypolitical interferencere-advertisement
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the appointment of a respondent to the post of Laboratory Assistant (BPS-6) on political grounds and without meeting merit, despite the petitioner securing the highest marks in the written test. The core legal question concerned the transparency, fairness, and legality of public appointments made in violation of established recruitment rules, zonal quotas, and merit. The Peshawar High Court held that the selection process was vitiated by nepotism, political interference, and non-transparent re-arrangement of interviews after initially declaring no suitable candidates were available. The Court laid down the principle that once a selection committee concludes no suitable candidates are available, the posts must be re-advertised rather than filled through arbitrary appointments of favored individuals. Furthermore, public appointments must strictly adhere to merit, transparency, and codal formalities, and any appointments made in violation thereof through political dictation or favoritism are liable to be struck down to uphold the rule of law.

  Questions settled

  • What is the proper course of action for a department when a selection committee concludes that none of the candidates called for interview are suitable for appointment?
  • Does the appointment of candidates who failed to appear in the written test or meet zonal quotas violate the principle of transparency in public employment?
  • Can public appointments made through political dictation and in departure from recruitment rules be sustained by the courts?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against non-transparent selection processes and discriminatory appointments to public posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheel Abbas vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1307 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-29
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoverycomplainant as investigating officerstudent bailcharas recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, after 2500 grams of charas was allegedly recovered from his possession. The core legal questions involved whether the recovery of narcotics by a police official who also acted as the investigating officer created grounds for further inquiry, and whether the student status and upcoming examinations of the accused warranted the grant of bail. The Sindh High Court held that since the case rested entirely on police evidence and the complainant had also conducted the investigation, the matter required deeper scrutiny at trial, and further noted that refusing bail would irreparably damage the academic career of the student accused. The court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail, establishing that combined roles of complainant and investigator warrant further inquiry and that student status facing imminent examinations is a relevant consideration for tentative assessment in non-prohibitory or general bail matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the complainant himself acts as the investigating officer in a narcotics case?
  • Does the recovery of a large quantity of charas bar the grant of bail under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Whether the imminent academic examinations of an accused student constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahat Ali vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-17
  murder referencecapital punishmentunnamed eyewitnessrule of prudenceinterested witnessabsconsionmitigation of sentencelife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arose from the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a young widow returning from her intermediate examination. The primary legal questions concerned the evidentiary value and admissibility of an eyewitness not named in the First Information Report (FIR), the reliance on an alleged interested witness, the effect of minor investigative omissions, and the appropriate quantum of sentence. The Peshawar High Court held that the exclusion of an eyewitness's name from the FIR is a rule of prudence rather than a rigid rule of law; where the testimony of such a witness is natural, confident, and corroborated, it can be safely relied upon. The Court found the eyewitness reliable and the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, noting non-fatal inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and following established mitigating sentencing principles, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an eyewitness whose name does not appear in the First Information Report be relied upon to sustain a conviction?
  • Whether the testimony of an alleged interested witness can be accepted if it rings true and is corroborated?
  • Does long-standing unexplained absconsion serve as a corroborative piece of evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Under what circumstances can a death penalty for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be commuted to life imprisonment due to non-fatal inconsistencies in the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Raga Hussain through legal representatives and others vs Muhammad2018 YLR 1053 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-15Read full judgment →
• Rafique vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others2018 MLD 579 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-10
  Exit Control ListECLFundamental rightsRight to travelNational Accountability OrdinanceConstitutional petitionNAB reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, an accused in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference, seeking the removal of his name from the Exit Control List (ECL). The petitioner, facing charges of cheating the public in a housing project scam, argued that the trial had been pending since 2014 and he wished to exercise his fundamental right to travel abroad for religious purposes. While the NAB opposed the request, fearing the petitioner might abscond given the magnitude of the alleged fraud, the Court noted that the petitioner had been on bail since 2015 without attempting to abscond or delay proceedings. Furthermore, the petitioner had deposited his share of the potential liability. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the right to travel abroad under Article 15 of the Constitution cannot be lightly restricted, even for an accused person. Consequently, the Court ordered the removal of the petitioner's name from the ECL, subject to the condition that he must obtain prior permission from the trial court for any travel and ensure his absence does not delay the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person's name be removed from the Exit Control List if they have deposited their share of potential liability and have not delayed trial proceedings?
  • Does the right to travel abroad under Article 15 of the Constitution apply to an accused person facing criminal charges?
  • Under what conditions may a court permit an accused person to travel abroad despite their name being on the Exit Control List?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Ahmed and others vs Government of Balochistan through its Chief2018 P.S.C. 209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  deputationabsorptioncivil servantsGwadar Development Authorityservice regulationsrepatriationstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from appeals against a High Court judgment that dismissed petitions filed by appellants challenging their repatriation to their parent departments after serving on deputation at the Gwadar Development Authority (GDA). The core legal question was whether the appellants’ absorption into the GDA was legally permissible under the governing service regulations. Upon reviewing the Gwadar Development Authority Employees (Service) Regulation, 2006, the Supreme Court observed that while the regulations explicitly provide for appointment by initial recruitment, promotion, and deputation, they contain no provision authorizing the absorption of deputationists into the GDA. Consequently, the Court held that the absorption of the appellants was contrary to law and rules, rendering their repatriation to their parent departments valid and unexceptional. The Court affirmed that statutory bodies must strictly adhere to their prescribed service regulations regarding appointments. Finding no merit in the appellants' contentions, the Court treated the appeal as a review petition and dismissed it, thereby upholding the legality of the repatriation process and reinforcing the necessity of following established legal procedures for appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Gwadar Development Authority Employees (Service) Regulation, 2006 permit the absorption of civil servants serving on deputation?
  • Can a statutory body absorb employees into its service without an express provision in its service regulations?
  • Is the repatriation of civil servants to their parent departments valid when their absorption into a statutory body is found to be illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Ahmed and others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2018 PLC (C.S.) 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-09-29
  civil servantsdeputationabsorptionrepatriationGwadar Development Authorityservice regulationsparent departmentmerit and regional quota
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan with leave of the Court against the judgment dated 14.03.2017 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan, which dismissed the appellants' constitutional petitions as not maintainable. The appellants, originally civil servants recruited via the Balochistan Public Service Commission, were transferred on deputation to the Gwadar Development Authority (GDA) and subsequently absorbed, later challenging their repatriation to parent departments. The core issue before the Court was whether the absorption of civil servants in the GDA was legally permissible under the service regulations. The Supreme Court examined the Gwadar Development Authority Employees (Service) Regulation 2006, observing that while initial appointment, promotion, and deputation were recognized, absorption was nowhere provided for in the regulations, nor could transfer provisions be extended to civil servants. Holding that the appellants' absorption was contrary to law and rules, the Court found the repatriation notification valid, treated the appeal as a review petition, and dismissed it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether civil servants serving on deputation in the Gwadar Development Authority can be legally absorbed into its service in the absence of enabling provisions in the relevant service regulations?
  • Can provisions governing appointment by transfer under the Gwadar Development Authority Employees (Service) Regulation 2006 be extended to Federal or Provincial civil servants?
  • Whether civil servants upon completion of their deputation period are legally obligated to be repatriated to their parent departments where absorption is void under the rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Hussain vs Asifa Altaf etc2019 PLD Lahore 194, 2019 PLJ Lahore 189, 2018 LHC 3132 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-12Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Hussain and others vs The State and othersPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 244, 2018 KLR Criminal Cases 55 · Lahore High Court
  murder referencemitigating circumstancesdeath sentence conversioncommon intentionvicarious liabilitysifting grain from chaffappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals arising from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, whereby appellants Rafaqat Hussain, Shafqat Hussain, and Muhammad Imran were convicted and sentenced for murder and hurt offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, whether common intention was established for vicarious liability, and whether mitigating circumstances warranted the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular account, supported by medical evidence and recoveries, proved the specific roles of the appellants, but that common intention and vicarious liability were not established in the absence of a pre-arranged plan or prior concert. The Court maintained the conviction of Rafaqat Hussain under Section 302(b) but converted his death sentence to imprisonment for life in view of mitigating circumstances, including the non-repetition of the firearm blow and an unproven motive. The convictions of Shafqat and Imran under Section 324 were set aside, while their convictions under Section 337-F(iv) were upheld. The key legal principles laid down include that a single mitigating circumstance is sufficient to warrant the lesser penalty of life imprisonment instead of death, that common intention presupposes prior concert and a pre-arranged plan, and that the falsus in uno falsus in omnibus rule is not applicable in Pakistan's criminal jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-repetition of a fatal blow by an assailant constitutes a mitigating circumstance for converting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence ipso facto require the acquittal of remaining convicted co-accused under the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus?
  • Can a person be held vicariously liable under Section 34 or Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of prior concert or a pre-arranged plan?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance in capital sentencing?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Hussain and others vs State and othersPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 244 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-12
  murder referencecommon intentionmitigating circumstancesdeath sentence commutationvicarious liabilityfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences handed down by the trial court regarding offences under Sections 302, 324, 337F(iv), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern the applicability of vicarious liability in the absence of a pre-arranged plan, the validity of the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, and whether the non-repetition of a fatal injury constitutes a mitigating circumstance for capital punishment. The Court held that while the prosecution proved the specific roles of the appellants, the vicarious liability of co-accused under Sections 34 or 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not established as there was no evidence of a prior meeting of minds. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for certain appellants but maintained the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the principal offender. However, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, establishing the principle that the non-repetition of a fatal injury demonstrates an implied lack of intent to take unfair advantage, serving as a valid mitigating circumstance to avoid the capital penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus applies to criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Does mere presence at the scene of an occurrence establish common intention under Section 34 or 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the non-repetition of a firearm injury by an assailant serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is an accused vicariously liable for the acts of co-accused in the absence of a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds?
  Read full judgment →
• Raees Khan vs The State2018 MLD 835 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-07Read full judgment →
• Raees Iqbal and another vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home2018 MLD 1928 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-22Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 184 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-05
  criminal appealexplosive substancesnarcotics possessionmotiveburden of proofbenefit of doubtconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, as handed down by a Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, motivated by a personal vendetta regarding a runaway marriage, planted explosive materials and narcotics in a rickshaw driven by a prosecution witness. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the alleged motive and the act of planting the contraband. Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the motive or to prove that the appellant instigated the co-accused to plant the incriminating articles. The Court held that the conviction was based on surmises and conjectures, noting a complete lack of evidence regarding the appellant's involvement. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, emphasizing that a conviction cannot be sustained in the absence of cogent evidence connecting the accused to the alleged criminal act.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to provide any evidence to substantiate the alleged motive?
  • Is a conviction valid if it is based solely on surmises and conjectures rather than concrete evidence?
  • Does the failure to prove the act of instigation in a conspiracy-based charge warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Muhammad Afzal and others2018 PHC 1847 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-06Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Mubri Khan and 4 others2018 P Cr. L J 558 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-19
  revision petitionacquittalcompensationfalse accusationseparate remediesappeal against acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the judgments of the Magistrate Section-30 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Talagang, whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 380, 448, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the petitioner-complainant was ordered to pay compensation under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellate court had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the compensation order solely on the ground that an appeal challenging the acquittal was pending before the High Court. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an order of compensation under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is barred or rendered incompetent due to the pendency of an appeal against acquittal. The Lahore High Court held that an order of acquittal and an order of compensation are distinct, separate orders arising from the same proceedings, appealable through separate appeals before different forums independently, and the pendency of one does not affect the competency of the other. The petition is disposed of by setting aside the appellate court's judgment with directions to decide the appeal on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against an order of compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is competent when an appeal against acquittal is pending before the High Court?
  • Are an order of acquittal and an order for payment of compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 separate orders requiring independent appeals before different forums?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal against a compensation order solely on the ground that proceedings challenging the main acquittal are pending?
  Read full judgment →