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.

• Niaz Wali vs The State2018 PHC 1450, 2018 YLR 1803 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-30
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscharasprohibitory clauseFSL reportfurther inquirycontraband recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of four kilograms of charas, registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner argued that he was not in possession of the contraband, that his presence at the scene was doubtful, that the vehicle details were missing from the FIR, and that there were discrepancies between the FIR description of the substance as 'charas garda' and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report identifying it as 'brown solid'. The court examined whether these contentions warranted the concession of bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner's prima facie linkage to the offence, supported by prior information and recovery from his possession, brought the case within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Regarding the discrepancy, the court clarified that 'charas garda' refers to raw charas, which naturally appears as brown solid, consistent with the FSL report. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, establishing that minor descriptive variations in narcotics reports do not necessarily constitute grounds for bail when prima facie evidence exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the description of narcotics in an FIR and an FSL report automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics from the possession of an accused fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the term 'charas garda' inconsistent with the description of 'brown solid' in a forensic report?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Been etc vs The State2018 PHC 1595 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-03Read full judgment →
• Niaz Been and others vs The State2018 PHC 1595, 2018 PLD Peshawar 131 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-03
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealanti-terrorismleave to appealjurisdiction of high courtspecial court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous application under subsection 2-B of Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking suspension of their sentences and grant of bail during the pendency of their appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, following the grant of leave to appeal. They had been convicted by an Anti-Terrorism Court under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, Anti-Terrorism Act, Explosive Substances Act, and Arms Ordinance, and their appeal had previously been dismissed by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court can suspend a sentence and grant bail under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court, notwithstanding the barring clause in Section 25(8) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Peshawar High Court held that while the barring clause in Section 25(8) restricts bail during the pendency of an appeal in the High Court, the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 allows relief in exceptional circumstances such as coram non judice, short sentences with little likelihood of early hearing, or severe untreatable illness. However, exercising discretion under Section 426(2-B), the court dismissed the application as the petitioners failed to establish good grounds and had not been on bail during their previous appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant bail and suspend a sentence under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court despite the bar contained in Section 25(8) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does the statutory bar against releasing a convict on bail under Section 25(8) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 override the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • What conditions must a convicted person satisfy to successfully invoke Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence after the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
  • Can merits or reappraisal of evidence be considered while dealing with an application under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ali and 9 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary and 32018 YLR 1038 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-31Read full judgment →
• Niat Baig vs The State2018 MLD 378 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-09-26Read full judgment →
• Niamat Ali vs The State2018 YLR 289 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-29
  murder referencebenefit of doubtchance witnessocular evidencedelayed FIRmedical evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant delays in FIR registration and post-mortem examination, the status of the eyewitnesses as 'chance witnesses' without plausible explanations for their presence, and discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. It found the ocular testimony unreliable, the motive unproven, and the recovery of the weapon inconsequential due to procedural delays. The Court emphasized that when the prosecution's case is riddled with doubt, the burden does not shift to the accused to explain the death, even if it occurred in the matrimonial home. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of doubt as a matter of right. The principle laid down is that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal, and the prosecution must stand on its own legs without relying on defense weaknesses.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in the registration of an FIR and post-mortem examination create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's story?
  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be accepted without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to explain an unnatural death in the matrimonial home if the prosecution fails to establish its initial case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Next Capital Limited vs Commissioner Corporate Supervision2018 CLD 285 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2017-09-26Read full judgment →
• Nestle Pakistan Limited, etc. vs Federal Board of Revenue through its2018 P.C.T.L.R. 452 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Neelam Bibi vs The State2018 YLR 700 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-08
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionprohibitory clausetentative assessmentrecovery proceedingsControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Neelam Bibi, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 1600 grams of Charas from her possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the statutory bars against bail in such offenses. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, dismissing the petition. The Court reasoned that the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics established a prima facie case, and the petitioner's arguments regarding the falsity of the recovery required deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the prohibition on bail under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, applied, and that gender alone does not grant immunity or leniency in narcotics offenses. The Court emphasized that the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the Act and the ouster of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, supported the denial of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-association of public witnesses vitiate search and recovery proceedings under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a female accused claim immunity or leniency in bail matters solely on the basis of gender in narcotics cases?
  • Does the bar on bail under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, apply to offenses punishable with life imprisonment?
  • Is the question of whether a recovery is fake or planted a matter for deeper appreciation at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazrab Khan vs Assistant Settlement Officer, Gilgit and 3 others2018 MLD 405 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-03-07
  civil revisionland ownershipdeclaratory suitburden of proofperpetual injunctionappellate court findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a dispute over land ownership and possession, wherein the petitioner sought a declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents, challenging an order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established title to the disputed land measuring 3 kanals and 5 marlas, specifically regarding the portion remaining after the trial court's findings. The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's suit and declared the respondent as the owner of 1 kanal and 8 marlas. The first appellate court maintained this decision, noting the plaintiff's claim beyond 2 kanals was unproven. Upon review, the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of title for the remaining 1 kanal and 5 marlas of the suit land. The court affirmed that the trial court's judgment merged into the appellate court's order, which remained operative. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed as the petitioner could not substantiate their claim of ownership, establishing the principle that the burden of proof regarding title rests squarely upon the plaintiff in a declaratory suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the judgment of a trial court merge into the judgment of the first appellate court?
  • Can a plaintiff succeed in a suit for declaration of title without providing evidence of ownership for the disputed land?
  • What is the legal effect of a party failing to file an appeal or revision against adverse findings in a lower court judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Iqbal vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1284 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-24
  murderdeath sentence mitigationimprisonment for lifegrave and sudden provocationocular accountcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of death awarded to the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case rested on an eyewitness account corroborated by medical evidence, weapon recovery, and an alleged motive stemming from the deceased marrying the appellant's erstwhile sister-in-law. The appellant's counsel did not contest the conviction but prayed for the sentence to be mitigated to imprisonment for life, pointing out extenuating circumstances regarding the deceased's provocative conduct towards the appellant's wife. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony confidence-inspiring and corroborated. However, examining the mitigating circumstances regarding the deceased's conduct and provocative encounters with the appellant's wife, the Court held that death is not the mandatory default penalty where alternative sentencing exists. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal regarding conviction, altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether death penalty is the mandatory normal penalty under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or if alternative sentence of life imprisonment can be awarded based on facts and circumstances?
  • Can an accused waive statutory immunity regarding statements made to police officers to derive benefit from information otherwise inadmissible?
  • Whether the High Court can alter a death sentence to imprisonment for life when mitigating circumstances such as provocative conduct of the deceased are established?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs Muhammad Asif and 3 others2018 P Cr. L J 823 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-28
  cancellation reportcriminal revisionconstitutional petitionjudicial magistrateprecedentper incuriammaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, which accepted a criminal revision petition against a Judicial Magistrate's order that had agreed with a police cancellation report in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether an order by a Judicial Magistrate accepting a police cancellation report is amenable to a criminal revision petition before the Sessions Court or if it must be challenged via a constitutional petition. The Court held that the revision petition was not maintainable, setting aside the Additional Sessions Judge's order and restoring the Magistrate's original order. The Court relied on the principle established in the Supreme Court judgment of 'Bahadur and another v. The State and another' (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 62), which dictates that an order by a Judicial Magistrate agreeing with a police cancellation report is an executive act, not a judicial one, and is therefore only challengeable through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that lower courts are bound by Supreme Court precedents and cannot declare them per incuriam or distinguish them.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal revision petition maintainable against an order of a Judicial Magistrate agreeing with a police cancellation report?
  • Can a High Court single bench distinguish or declare a Supreme Court judgment per incuriam?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy to challenge a Judicial Magistrate's order accepting a police cancellation report?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed Soomro vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 SHC 1188 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-17Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The State2018 P.S.C. (Crl) 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-02-07
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessesocular evidenceburden of proofhouse murderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of his wife inside his house. The prosecution case rested on ocular testimony, medical evidence, and an alleged motive. Upon reappraising the evidence, the Supreme Court observed that the eyewitnesses were close relatives and chance witnesses whose presence was unbelievable, the delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem indicated deliberation and planting of witnesses, medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, and the defense produced a natural witness (the deceased's son) who exonerated the appellant. The Court also addressed the State's argument regarding the burden of proof when a vulnerable dependent dies in a house, holding that shifting part of the onus to the accused does not apply where the prosecution's entire case is unreliable. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does some part of the onus of proof shift to an accused person when a vulnerable dependent dies an unnatural death in his house if the prosecution's overall case is entirely unreliable?
  • Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of failing to explain the circumstances of a death in his house when the prosecution fails to produce believable evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and 2 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 694 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-19
  pre-arrest bailabductionrapedelay in FIRDarul-Amanfurther inquiryPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application for pre-arrest bail arising from FIR No. 257/2017 registered under Sections 496-A and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Chobara, District Layyah, concerning allegations of abduction and rape. The core legal questions involve whether the unexplained delay in reporting, contradictions regarding the victim's whereabouts in Darul-Aman, and lack of medical or judicial corroboration justify confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case due to an unexplained seven-day delay in lodging the FIR, the victim's admitted presence in Darul-Aman during the alleged time of occurrence as ordered by a Magistrate, and the absence of rape allegations in the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and medical reports. The court laid down the principle that where circumstances of a case point toward further inquiry and mala fide implication, the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail ought to be confirmed, leading to the confirmation of bail for the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of seven days in lodging an FIR warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when official records contradict the timeline of the alleged abduction?
  • Whether the absence of supporting evidence in a medico-legal certificate and a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 makes out a case for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazia Khan vs Province Sindh and others2018 SHC 1053 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-18Read full judgment →
• Nazia Bibi etc vs Additional District Judge, Ferozewala etc2018 PLD Lahore 916, 2019 PLJ Lahore 92, 2018 LHC 1938 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-11Read full judgment →
• Nazia Bibi and others vs Additional District Judge, Ferozewala and others2018 PLD Lahore 916 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-11Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Khan vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 8 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 224 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-28
  departmental inquirypolice administrationsupersession of inquiry officerInspector General of PoliceChief Secretarygood governancediscretionary powers
  Summary & questions settled

  Through the instant constitutional petition, the petitioner challenged the notification whereby the Government of Sindh appointed a new inquiry officer to probe the conduct of certain police officials in connection with a criminal case, superseding an earlier inquiry officer appointed by the Inspector General of Police. The core legal question was whether the Chief Secretary could lawfully supersede an internal departmental inquiry officer appointed by the IGP without cogent reasons or a challenge to the IGP's competence. The High Court held that while superior authorities possess supervisory powers, administrative actions must be exercised reasonably, fairly, and with due regard to statutory domains. The court ruled that the impugned order of the Chief Secretary lacked legal justification and cogent reasons for replacing the IGP's nominee, particularly as the administration of the police vests in the IGP under the Police Act. The petition was disposed of by setting aside the unjustified supersession while preserving the authority of the Chief Secretary to intervene upon receipt of proper complaints regarding corruption or misuse of power.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Secretary can supersede an inquiry officer appointed by the Inspector General of Police without assigning cogent reasons?
  • Does the superiority of an administrative authority vest in it the power to interfere arbitrarily with internal departmental inquiries?
  • Is an administrative order passed without application of mind or legal justification sustainable under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Hussain vs Appellate Bench NIRC and another2018 [M] C.L.R. 1732 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-19
  Civil Aviation AuthorityIndustrial Relations Actstatutory interpretationGeneral Clauses ActNIRC jurisdictiongrievance petitionrepeal and re-enactment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of the Civil Aviation Authority, challenged NIRC orders that dismissed their grievance petitions for lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether Section 23 of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982, which explicitly excluded the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, also precluded the application of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, to the Authority’s employees. The Court held that the NIRC correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction. Relying on the principle of statutory interpretation codified in Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Court reasoned that where a statute is repealed and re-enacted, references in other enactments to the repealed law must be construed as references to the successor legislation. Consequently, the exclusion of the 1969 Ordinance in the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982, must be read as an exclusion of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court affirmed that the NIRC had no authority to adjudicate grievances from these employees, thereby dismissing the writ petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 23 of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982, exclude the application of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, to employees of the Civil Aviation Authority?
  • How does Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, affect the interpretation of references to repealed statutes in existing legislation?
  • Does the non-obstante clause in Section 87 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, override specific exclusion clauses in other statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Hussain through Attorney vs Appellate Bench NIRC and another2018 PLC 269 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-19
  Civil Aviation AuthorityNIRC jurisdictionIndustrial Relations Actservice disputewrit petitionexclusion of labor lawsmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses three consolidated writ petitions involving employees of the Civil Aviation Authority who challenged adverse orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) or its benches. The core legal question was whether the N.I.R.C. possesses jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 to entertain grievance petitions filed by employees of the Civil Aviation Authority, given the exclusionary provisions contained in section 23 of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that section 23 of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982 explicitly bars the application of labor laws to persons in the service of the Authority, and that subsequent enactments such as the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 do not impliedly repeal or override the specific exclusion. The key legal principle established is that employees of the Civil Aviation Authority remain governed by their specific statutory service framework, and labor forums like the N.I.R.C. lack jurisdiction over their service disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to adjudicate grievance petitions filed by employees of the Civil Aviation Authority?
  • Whether section 23 of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982 excludes the application of subsequent labor legislation such as the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does section 87 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 override the exclusionary provisions of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed vs State and another2018 PLJ SC 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-10-16
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquiryrule of consistencymedical evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition, converted into an appeal, impugns the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the post-arrest bail application of the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for post-arrest bail in light of the medical evidence, police investigation findings, and the rule of consistency vis-a-vis a co-accused. The Supreme Court observed that while the petitioner was specifically alleged to have inflicted a hatchet blow to the deceased, the postmortem report indicated the injury was caused by blunt means, and the investigation concluded he was empty-handed with no recovery made from him. Furthermore, a co-accused attributed with causing an injury was granted bail by the High Court. Holding that these circumstances rendered the petitioner's case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court allowed the appeal and granted post-arrest bail to the appellant, laying down the principle that contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, coupled with investigation findings and the rule of consistency, justify the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions between ocular allegations and medical evidence regarding the weapon used make a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted on the basis of the rule of consistency when a co-accused with a similar or more active role has been released on bail?
  • Does the conclusion of the police investigation that an accused was empty-handed warrant the grant of bail after arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed and 10 others vs Ahmed Khan and others2018 MLD 151 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed & another vs Karachi Port Trust & others2019 YLR 1985, 2018 SHC 1032 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-11Read full judgment →
• Nazar Yousaf vs The State2018 SC AJK 29 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-11-24
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayconclusion of trialhardened criminalmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sharait Appellate Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appellant's revision petition seeking post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial. The appellant was charged along with co-accused under sections 302, 324, 337, 337H(2), and 34 of the Azad Penal Code (APC) in connection with a murder and assault arising from a land dispute. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to the concession of bail due to statutory delay in the trial, and whether findings characterizing him as a hardened, desperate, and dangerous criminal were sustainable. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir declined to delve into the merits of the bail application or the classification of the accused, noting that the trial was at its fag end with only a few witnesses remaining. The Court disposed of the appeal by directing the trial Court to conclude the evidence and the trial expeditiously within one month without being influenced by the High Court's observations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of trial can be granted when the trial is near its completion?
  • Does a prior unchallenging finding regarding an accused being a desperate and dangerous criminal bar the reconsideration of bail in subsequent rounds?
  • Can the appellate court direct the expeditious conclusion of a criminal trial instead of deciding a bail plea on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and another vs The State2018 YLR 1455 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-08
  honour killingcircumstantial evidencehostile witnessbenefit of the doubtcriminal appeallast seen evidencestandard of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for murder and destruction of evidence in an alleged honour killing case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where key prosecution witnesses turned hostile at trial, resiling from their earlier statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as there was no direct ocular evidence and the circumstantial evidence relied upon was insufficient to form an unbroken, reliable chain linking the appellants to the crime. The Court emphasized that evidence on oath given at trial supersedes earlier statements when witnesses resile. Furthermore, it reaffirmed that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature, excluding every hypothesis except the one proposed to be proved. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellants, and extended them the benefit of the doubt, noting that mere suspicion cannot replace cogent, reliable evidence in a criminal trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does evidence on oath given at trial supersede earlier statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when witnesses resile?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of evidence?
  • What is the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the mere existence of a motive constitute sufficient evidence to uphold a conviction in the absence of direct or corroborative circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and another vs Mst. Ayesha Bibi (Widow) deceased2018 PLJ Lahore 905 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-21
  declaratory suitpower of attorneyfraudulent mutationilliterate principalrevisional jurisdictionburden of prooffiduciary duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a declaratory suit filed by an elderly, illiterate woman challenging a mutation of land in favor of her nephew. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants fraudulently obtained a power of attorney and subsequently transferred her inherited property to themselves. The core legal question was whether the power of attorney and the resulting mutation were validly executed, particularly concerning the burden of proof on the beneficiary when dealing with a vulnerable, illiterate principal. Both lower courts concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, finding the documents fictitious. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the failure to produce the scribe or stamp vendor to prove the power of attorney, combined with the lack of independent advice or witnesses for the illiterate principal, rendered the transaction void. Furthermore, the court affirmed that an attorney cannot transfer property to themselves or their close relatives without explicit authorization and transparency. The court emphasized that its revisional jurisdiction is restricted to correcting clear errors of law or fact, which were absent in the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce the scribe or stamp vendor of a power of attorney invalidate the document when the principal is an illiterate person?
  • Can an attorney legally transfer the principal's property to themselves or their father without taking the principal into confidence?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's interference in revisional jurisdiction regarding concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad alias Nazroo vs The State2018 YLR 1992 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-17
  narcoticscharas recoverysafe custodymalkhanachemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge (Narcotics) convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the reliability of police evidence regarding an unwitnessed arrest in a populated area, the effect of a two-day delay in transmitting narcotic samples to the chemical examiner without proving safe custody at the Malkhana, and the legal sufficiency of a chemical examiner's report lacking prescribed protocols. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband, noted material contradictions among police witnesses, and ruled that a defective chemical examiner's report combined with unverified chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution's case. The court laid down that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, setting aside the conviction and ordering the immediate release of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of two days in sending narcotic samples to the chemical examiner without proof of safe custody at the Malkhana vitiate the conviction?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained on the basis of a chemical examiner's report that lacks the prescribed protocol and details of analysis?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when police officials fail to associate private independent witnesses from a populated area during a recovery?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when material contradictions exist between the testimonies of the complainant and the mashirs regarding the recovery proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 479 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-20
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailcriminal appealquantum of sentencebail pending appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioners, Nazar Hussain and Qaswar, seeking the suspension of their sentences of three years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala, in a cross-version case registered under Sections 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 506, 447, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to the suspension of their sentences pending the final adjudication of their appeal. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that the appeal was filed in 2017 and, given the relatively short duration of the sentences imposed, there was a significant likelihood that the petitioners would complete their entire term of imprisonment before the appeal could be decided on its merits. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, suspended the quantum of sentences, and directed the release of the petitioners on bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). The Court emphasized the principle that suspension of sentence is appropriate when the appeal is unlikely to be heard before the sentence is served.

  Questions settled

  • Is the suspension of a sentence justified when the duration of the sentence is short and the appeal is unlikely to be decided before the sentence is served?
  • Can a court grant bail to convicts pending the adjudication of their criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazakat Hussain and 4 others vs United Bank Limited and 4 others2018 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 30 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-07-03
  workman definitionindustrial relationswrit jurisdictionmanagerial capacitylabour court jurisdictionbank employeescoram-non-judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that declared grievance petitions filed by bank employees before a Labour Court as coram-non-judice. The appellants, bank officers in Grades II and III, sought redress for termination, while the respondent bank argued they were not "workmen" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1974. The core legal questions were whether the appellants qualified as workmen and whether the High Court properly exercised writ jurisdiction despite the existence of an alleged alternate appellate remedy. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that the appellants’ duties—evidenced by powers of attorney and promotion orders—were managerial and supervisory in nature, thereby excluding them from the statutory definition of "workman." Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court's jurisdiction, ruling that under Section 45(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1974, the Labour Court's decision was final, precluding an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The judgment establishes that employees performing managerial or administrative functions are excluded from the protection afforded to workmen under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1974.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bank employees holding managerial or supervisory positions fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1974?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition against a Labour Court decision when no statutory appeal lies against that specific decision?
  • Are decisions of the Labour Court final under Section 45(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Naza and others vs Abdul Hayee (deceased) through L.Rs & others2018 LHC 1569 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-28Read full judgment →
• Nayyar Abbas, Advocate District Bar Association, Chakwal vs CH. Amjad Hussain Ali, Advocate District B.A. Chakwal, etc.2018 PLJ Tr.C. (Pb.B.C.) 55 · Punjab Bar Council · 2017-07-13Read full judgment →
• Nayab Sohail vs Punjab Public Service Commission through its2018 PLJ Lahore 228 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-28Read full judgment →
• Nayab Ali vs Mst. Hameeda Bano and 6 others2018 MLD 1649 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-10Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Sharif Social Security Hospital vs Additional District Judge, Lahore2019 [M] C.L.R. 520, 2019 KLR Civil Case 317, 2019 MLD 511, 2018 LHC 2999 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-22
  rejection of plaintlicense agreementapprobate and reprobatespecific performanceinjunction barrecovery of possessionouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the concurrent orders of the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Lahore, which had dismissed the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of the respondents' plaint. The dispute arose from an affiliation agreement between the petitioner hospital and the respondent university, which had expired by efflux of time in 2016 without renewal. The respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming they were tenants. The High Court observed that the agreement was a license, not a lease, and that the respondents could not approbate and reprobate by asserting tenancy while relying on the license agreement. The Court held that upon the expiry of a revocable license, no enforceable right remains to sustain a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and the licensee's remedy lies only in damages, not injunction. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of civil courts to grant injunctive relief was barred under Section 10 of the Punjab Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1966. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the lower courts' orders were set aside, and the plaint was rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Can a licensee maintain a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to prevent eviction after the expiry of a revocable license?
  • Does the principle of approbate and reprobate apply when a party asserts a tenancy while simultaneously relying on an expired license agreement?
  • Are civil courts barred from granting temporary or interim injunctions against the government or its authorities under Section 10 of the Punjab Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1966?
  • Can an admission made by mistake or misapprehension in pleadings be permitted to be withdrawn or controverted?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Hussain vs The State2018 MLD 1552 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-06
  post-arrest bailattempted murderproperty disputecriminal trespasstentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arising out of FIR No. 222/2017 registered under Sections 452, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ibrahim Hyderi, Karachi. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail in view of an existing property dispute between the parties and contradictions in witness statements. The Sindh High Court held that since the accused was specifically nominated in the FIR, attributed a specific role, and corroborated by medical evidence showing a bullet injury to the injured victim, coupled with the fact that the trial is yet to commence and witness testimony is pending, the case warrants further inquiry at the trial stage rather than at pre-trial bail. The court laid down the principle that where an accused is specifically nominated with active roles in a heinous crime and trial is imminent, bail ought not to be granted prematurely merely on the existence of a prior civil dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is specifically nominated in the FIR with a distinct role in an attempted murder?
  • Does the existence of a prior civil property dispute between the parties automatically entitle an accused to bail in a criminal case?
  • Can bail be withheld on the ground that material prosecution witnesses have yet to be examined by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawas Khan vs The State and another2018 MLD 125 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-15
  post-arrest bailabscondenceacquittal of co-accusedidentical casemurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Nawas Khan, facing charges under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite his status as an absconder, given that his co-accused, who faced identical allegations, had already been acquitted. The Court held that the petitioner's case was indistinguishable from that of the acquitted co-accused, as no specific role of firing was attributed to him. The Court emphasized that abscondence, by itself, does not constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail if the case is otherwise meritorious. The key principle laid down is that where an accused's case is identical to that of an acquitted co-accused, the benefit of that acquittal should be extended to the petitioner, and abscondence alone cannot serve as a bar to the grant of bail if the case is otherwise fit for such relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused in an identical case entitle the remaining accused to bail?
  • Can bail be denied solely on the ground of the accused's abscondence?
  • Is abscondence by itself a sufficient indicator of an accused's guilt for the purpose of refusing bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawal Kishore & another vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 SHC 937 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-11Read full judgment →
• Nawabzada Sardar Ahmed Khan through Attorney vs Frontier Works2018 CLC 1744 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-12Read full judgment →
• Nawab Siraj Ali and another vs The State2018 YLR 2658 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-28
  Anti-terrorism lawJurisdictionPersonal vendettaCriminal appealDe novo trialStatutory interpretationPrivate revenge
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions rendered by a Special Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether a murder case, originating from a personal dispute and vendetta, fell within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, thereby justifying the jurisdiction of a Special Court. Relying on the precedent set in Waris Ali, the High Court held that crimes committed due to private revenge or traditional motives, regardless of their gruesome nature, do not constitute terrorism unless the primary objective is to create public alarm, dread, or a sense of insecurity. The court determined that the instant case lacked the essential element of terrorism and was improperly tried as such. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the ordinary Sessions Court for a de novo trial, granting the trial court authority to decide pending applications, including those regarding compromise. The judgment reinforces the principle that ordinary crimes should not be misclassified as terrorism, as doing so undermines the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts and violates the constitutional rights of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a murder committed out of personal vendetta constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can a case involving personal revenge be tried by a Special Anti-Terrorism Court if the element of public terror is absent?
  • What is the consequence of misclassifying an ordinary crime as an act of terrorism regarding the jurisdiction of the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ghaibi Sardar Khan Chandio vs Election Commission of Pakistan and 2 others2018 PLD Sindh 263 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-11Read full judgment →
• Nawab and another vs Pehlwan Khan (deceased) through L.Rs and others2018 LHC 3088, 2019 CLC 811, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 135, 2019 PLJ Lahore 471, · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-09Read full judgment →
• Naveeda Jabeen vs Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Housing2018 KLR Labour and Service Cases 226, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 649, PLJ 2018 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-16
  official accommodationallotment rulesgeneral waiting listdependent familycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for a declaration and injunction regarding the allotment of official government accommodation. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, specifically whether a married and non-dependent daughter of a retired allottee is entitled to retain or be allotted her parent's official accommodation without fulfilling the general eligibility and entitlement criteria, including placement on the General Waiting List. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory definition of 'family' requires complete dependency, and that the proviso to Rule 15(2) requires the claimant to be otherwise eligible and entitled, which includes waiting list entitlement. The court laid down the principle that the rules must be interpreted harmoniously to ensure that accommodations are allotted based on established rules, preventing preferential bypass of the General Waiting List.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a child of a retired allottee who is married and not wholly dependent can claim allotment of official accommodation under Rule 15(2) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Does the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 exempt an applicant from the requirement of being entitled on the basis of the General Waiting List?
  • How are the terms 'family' and dependency construed under the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 for the purpose of official accommodation allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveeda Jabeen vs Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Housing2018 PLJ Islamabad 262 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-16
  official accommodationallotmentcivil revisionwaiting listretirementdependent family
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for declaration and injunction regarding the retention and allotment of an official government accommodation previously allotted to her retired mother. The core legal question involves the interpretation of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, specifically whether a married, non-dependent child living with a retired allottee is automatically entitled to the transfer of official accommodation without awaiting their turn on the General Waiting List. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the claimant must fulfill all conditions of eligibility, including being part of the defined dependent family and becoming entitled on the basis of the General Waiting List. The key principle laid down is that the benefit under the proviso to Rule 15(2) of the Rules of 2002 cannot be claimed independently of the general eligibility conditions and waiting list seniority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a child of a retired government servant is entitled to retain official accommodation under Rule 15(2) of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 without being dependent and on the general waiting list?
  • Does the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002 exempt a serving spouse or child from fulfilling general eligibility conditions and seniority on the waiting list?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding whether a claimant was living with the allottee be interfered with in civil revision without showing a legal infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Rukhsar and another vs Muhammad Salim Lakhani2018 MLD 401 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-04Read full judgment →
• Naveed Needu vs State & anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 537 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-13
  criminal appealmurder convictionocular accountbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRappreciation of evidenceforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a murder conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the ocular testimony unreliable due to the dark night occurrence, the absence of a credible source of light, and the witnesses' presence in bolted rooms. Furthermore, the two-day delay in lodging the FIR suggested fabrication, and the motive was not established. The Court emphasized that once the intrinsic value of an ocular account is disbelieved, the remaining corroboratory evidence, such as weapon recovery, collapses. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the Murder Reference in the negative. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in the absence of a credible ocular account, corroboratory evidence cannot sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish a credible ocular account cause the collapse of corroboratory evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the FIR is lodged with an inordinate, unexplained delay?
  • Is the identification of an accused possible in a dark night occurrence without a reliable source of light?
  • What is the legal effect of withholding a material witness from the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed lqbal, etc. vs Registrar Cooperative Housing Society, Punjab, etc.2018 C.L.R. 1158 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-14Read full judgment →
• Naveed Alam, Junior Clerk (BS-11) vs Secretary Ombudsman Punjab, Lahore & another2018 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 160, 2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 17 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 2017-07-26
  service tribunalcivil servantpublic servantombudsmanjurisdictiontransfer ordermaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, challenging a transfer order from Lahore to Narowal issued by the office of the Provincial Ombudsman. The primary legal question addressed by the tribunal was whether an employee of the office of the Ombudsman qualifies as a civil servant so as to render an appeal maintainable before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The tribunal held that employees and staff of the Ombudsman's office, being deemed public servants under Section 27 of the Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997 and Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, are not civil servants within the meaning of service laws. The key principle laid down is that while all civil servants are public servants, not all public servants are civil servants, and the specialized statutory framework governing the Ombudsman excludes the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of the office of the Provincial Ombudsman is a civil servant under the law?
  • Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed by an employee of the Ombudsman's office against a transfer order?
  • What is the legal status of the employees and staff of the office of the Ombudsman under the Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Akhtar vs The State2018 MLD 1642, 2018 LHC 1497 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-09
  narcotics recoverycontrol of narcotic substancescomplainant as investigating officersafe custody of sampleforensic science agency reportreduction of sentenceinapplicability of section 103 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged recovery of 1020 grams of heroin. The core legal questions involve the validity of an investigation conducted by the complainant police officer, the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to narcotic cases, and the effect of a discrepancy between the weight of the sample alleged to have been sent and the weight recorded by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. The Lahore High Court held that a police officer may act as both complainant and investigating officer in the absence of statutory prohibition or demonstrated bias, that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is inapplicable to narcotic cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that a discrepancy in sample weight requires a proportional reduction in the total recovered quantity. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction under Section 9(c) and instead convicted the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, laying down the principle that prosecution must prove every element beyond doubt and discrepancies in measured quantities must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a police officer who acts as a complainant in a narcotics case can also legally perform the investigation of the same case?
  • Does the non-association of private witnesses from the vicinity vitiate recovery proceedings under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • How should a court deal with a significant discrepancy between the weight of the narcotic sample recorded by the police and the weight reported by the forensic laboratory?
  • What are the essential constituents the prosecution must prove to establish guilt in cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Ahmed vs Mst. Mehwish Riaz etc2019 CLC 511, 2019 PLJ Lahore 115, 2018 LHC 3148 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-28Read full judgment →
• Naved Alam Zubairi vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 PLJ Karachi 129, 2018 SHC 847 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-30
  Master and ServantManagement PrerogativeDisciplinary InquiryInterim InjunctionSuspensionService MatterDue Process
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenged the suspension and disciplinary inquiry initiated by the employer, Pakistan State Oil (PSO), against the plaintiff. The core legal question was whether an employer can reopen a disciplinary inquiry previously closed by the management, and whether the court should interfere with such proceedings under the Master-Servant relationship. The court held that the injunction application was meritless and dismissed it. It determined that the employer possesses the management prerogative to conduct disciplinary inquiries and that reopening an incomplete inquiry upon the discovery of new incriminating evidence is lawful. The court emphasized that it would not exercise supervisory jurisdiction over a premature disciplinary process where no final order of dismissal had been passed. The key principle laid down is that in a Master-Servant relationship, the employer has an inherent right to regulate its business and discipline employees, and courts should not interfere with internal disciplinary inquiries unless they are manifestly contrary to law or due process, particularly when the inquiry is ongoing and no final adverse action has been taken against the employee.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer reopen a disciplinary inquiry that was previously closed without a final determination?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to interfere in an ongoing internal disciplinary inquiry of a private or statutory entity?
  • Is the relationship between an employee and an organization without statutory service rules governed by the doctrine of Master and Servant?
  • Does the issuance of a show cause notice or the initiation of an inquiry constitute a justiciable cause of action before a final dismissal order is passed?
  Read full judgment →
• Nauman Ullah vs The State etc2019 YLR 1131, 2018 LHC 2894 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-12
  benefit of the doubtinterested witnessesmedical contradictiondelayed FIRrule of consistencycapital punishmentcriminal appealmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of criminal appeals challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the credibility of injured eyewitnesses, the implications of lodging a belated First Information Report after legal consultation and prior post-mortem examination, the rule of consistency following the acquittal of co-accused, and the evidentiary value of delayed forensic recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that where an eyewitness account is contradicted by medical evidence, suffers from significant delays in recording statements, and imputes impossible precision in ascribing individual firearm shots amidst a large mob, it cannot form the basis of a capital conviction. Furthermore, the court held that the principle of consistency applies when co-accused with identical roles have been acquitted. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants by giving them the benefit of the doubt, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the criminal revision for enhancement of sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an eyewitness account contradicted by medical evidence and post-mortem timings can sustain a capital conviction?
  • Does the principle of consistency require the acquittal of remaining appellants when co-accused with identical roles have already been acquitted?
  • What is the evidentiary effect of a delayed statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by an injured witness?
  • Can recoveries of crime empties and firearms be relied upon when dispatched to the forensic agency after considerable delay following the accused's arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Nauman Khan vs Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR, Lahore and 2 others2018 PTD (Trib.) 495 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2016-05-18Read full judgment →
• National Transmission and Despatch Company Limited vs Corporatization and Compliance Department, SECP2018 CLD 197 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2017-05-18Read full judgment →
• National Refinery Ltd. vs Mst. Farida Begum and others2018 PLC 232 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-20
  Workmen's CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipReview of OrderImpleading of PartiesJurisdiction of CommissionerConstitutional PetitionInterlocutory Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, which rectified a previous erroneous order that had deleted the petitioner from proceedings without a prayer to that effect. The core legal question concerned the Commissioner's authority to review and modify interlocutory orders, specifically regarding the impleading of parties and the deletion of a respondent in a claim for dues. The Court held that the initial order deleting the petitioner was passed without jurisdiction, as no such relief was sought. The Court affirmed that a judicial or quasi-judicial authority possesses the inherent power to rectify its own erroneous orders to prevent hardship and ensure compliance with the law. Relying on the principles regarding the employer-employee relationship established by the Supreme Court in Fauji Fertilizer Company Ltd. v. National Industrial Relations Commission, the Court emphasized that the determination of the actual employer requires a trial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, maintaining the Commissioner's order that restored the petitioner to the proceedings, thereby allowing the trial to proceed to determine the true liability.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation have the authority to rectify an erroneous interlocutory order that deleted a party without a prayer for such relief?
  • Is an order deleting a party from proceedings without a legal basis subject to review by the issuing authority?
  • What criteria must be applied to determine the employer-employee relationship in cases involving contractors and companies?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an interlocutory order that does not determine substantial rights?
  Read full judgment →
• National Insurance Company Limited vs Ahmed Ali Bhambhro and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 384, 2018 SCMR 2116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-06-21
  pensionary benefitsservice lawtransfer of employeepension liabilitystatutory interpretationcompelling circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service dispute regarding the entitlement of an employee to pensionary benefits for service rendered in a previous organization following his transfer to the National Insurance Corporation Limited. The respondent was transferred from the Pakistan National Produce Company Limited (PNPCL) to the petitioner corporation due to the winding up of his former employer. Upon retirement, the petitioner refused to count the respondent's prior service towards his pension, citing Regulation 6(3) of the National Insurance Corporation Employees' Pension Funds Regulation, 1986, which conditions the acceptance of pensionary liability on the existence of a pension scheme in the former organization and the payment of proportionate liability. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to pensionary benefits for his prior service despite the petitioner's reliance on the restrictive regulation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the regulation was inapplicable because the respondent was transferred under compelling circumstances rather than on deputation, and there was no evidence that his prior service lacked a pension scheme. The court affirmed the respondent's right to pensionary benefits for the entire period of service.

  Questions settled

  • Does Regulation 6(3) of the National Insurance Corporation Employees' Pension Funds Regulation 1986 preclude pensionary benefits for an employee transferred due to the winding up of their former company?
  • Is an employee transferred under compelling circumstances entitled to pensionary benefits for their prior service if the employer fails to prove the absence of a pension scheme in the former organization?
  Read full judgment →
• National Engineering Services Pakistan [Nespak] (Pvt.) Limited, etc. vs Kamil Khan Murntaz and others2018 P.S.C. 430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  heritage conservationmass transit projectvibration analysisjudicial reviewadministrative discretionenvironmental impactantiquities protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the Lahore Orange Line Metro Train (OLMT) project's impact on heritage sites. The core legal question was whether the project's construction, specifically near protected antiquities and special premises, violated the Antiquities Act 1975 and the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance 1985, and if the issued No Objection Certificates (NOCs) were legally valid. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's decision. It held that the project could proceed, provided that strict mitigation measures and expert-recommended safeguards were implemented to protect the structural integrity and visual landscape of the heritage sites. The Court established that preservation and infrastructural development are not mutually exclusive but must be balanced through rigorous planning and expert oversight. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that judicial review should not involve substituting the court's own technical findings for those of competent authorities and experts, absent clear evidence of illegality or irrationality in the decision-making process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court substitute its own technical findings for those of expert bodies in matters of infrastructure development?
  • Does the construction of a public infrastructure project near heritage sites violate the Antiquities Act 1975 if adequate mitigation measures are implemented?
  • Is the issuance of an NOC for development near protected premises a valid exercise of administrative power if based on expert reports?
  • Are preservation of heritage and infrastructural development mutually exclusive under Pakistani law?
  Read full judgment →
• National Engineering Services Pakistan [Nespak] (Pvt.) Limited and others vs Kamil Khan Mumtaz and others2018 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Orange Line Metro Train Projectheritage protectionprotected antiquitiesspecial premisesNo Objection Certificatevibration monitoringvisual impairmentjudicial review of policy decisionssustainable development
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from appeals against a Lahore High Court judgment setting aside No Objection Certificates (NOCs) granted for the construction of the Lahore Orange Line Metro Train (OLMT) Project near eleven protected antiquities and special premises. The core legal questions pertained to whether construction within the statutory 200-foot buffer zone around protected heritage sites complied with statutory requirements, whether expert technical reports assessing vibration and visual impact could be discarded by the High Court, and whether judicial review extends to setting aside public infrastructure decisions based on subjective environmental and heritage concerns. The Supreme Court, by a 4-1 majority, allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that statutory authorities possessed full competence under the law to grant conditional NOCs after proper application of mind and evaluation of independent expert technical assessments. It laid down that courts should defer to technical expert evaluations unless shown to be palpably arbitrary, and that sustainable development allows balancing public infrastructure needs with heritage preservation through strict mitigation measures.

  Questions settled

  • Whether construction projects within the statutory 200-foot buffer zone of protected antiquities and special premises can be lawfully permitted through NOCs granted by competent authorities?
  • Can a High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 substitute the unrebutted technical opinions of experts with its own conclusions?
  • Does the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution encompass the protection and preservation of cultural heritage?
  • What criteria and procedures must statutory authorities follow when evaluating vibration and visual impacts of infrastructure schemes on heritage sites?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Gul Rehman2018 PLC 253 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 2015-09-30
  back benefitsreinstatementlimitationindustrial relationsburden of proofgrievance petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter addresses an appeal filed under section 42 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1974, challenging a Labour Court decision that ordered the reinstatement of a bank cashier with full back benefits. The core legal questions involved whether the grievance petition was barred by time and whether an employee is automatically entitled to back benefits upon reinstatement without pleading or proving unemployment. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the petition was within time, having been filed pursuant to an order of the Federal Service Tribunal following the striking down of section 2-A of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973, and the absence of a limitation plea in the written statement. However, regarding back benefits, the Tribunal held that back benefits do not automatically follow reinstatement and that a workman must at least assert being unemployed during the dismissal period for the onus to shift to the employer. The Tribunal partly accepted the appeal, modifying the Labour Court decision to deny back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a grievance petition filed within the time stipulated in the abatement notice following the striking down of section 2-A of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973 is barred by limitation?
  • Do back benefits automatically follow an order of reinstatement when a dismissal order is set aside?
  • Where does the burden of proof lie regarding gainful employment during the period an employee is out of service when claiming back benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• National Accountability. Bureau (NAB) through its Chairman, Islamabad vs M_s. Hudaibya Paper Mills Limited, Lahore and others2018 PLD Supreme Court 296, 2018 PLJ SC 101, 2018 PLJ SC 240, 2018 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-05
  quashment of referenceabuse of processfair trialdue processsine die adjournmentcriminal prosecutionfundamental rightsNational Accountability Bureau
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against a Lahore High Court judgment that quashed a 2000 corruption reference against the respondents. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly quashed the reference and whether it was appropriate to permit a fresh investigation after the reference had remained pending and adjourned sine die for over a decade. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution's conduct—characterized by excessive, unjustified delays, failure to frame charges, and keeping the case in 'cold storage' for years—constituted an abuse of process and a violation of the respondents' fundamental rights to a fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that the prosecution cannot indefinitely keep a criminal case pending to suit its convenience. The principle laid down is that the state must prosecute with due diligence; where the prosecution fails to proceed for an inordinate period without reasonable cause, the court may quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of the judicial process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal reference be kept pending indefinitely by the prosecution without violating the accused's right to a fair trial?
  • Does the court have the authority to quash a criminal reference if the prosecution fails to proceed with due diligence for an inordinate period?
  • Is a statement recorded under Section 26 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 admissible as a confession if it is self-exculpatory?
  • Can a criminal trial be held in an inaccessible location that denies public access, contrary to the principle of open court?
  Read full judgment →
• National Accountability Bureau through Chairman vs Fazal Ahmed Jat2018 SCMR 1005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-02
  National Accountability Bureaucompetence of appealstatutory interpretationlimitation periodcondonation of delayAccountability CourtProsecutor-General Accountability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from appeals filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) challenging the acquittals of respondents by an Accountability Court. The High Court of Sindh dismissed these appeals, ruling that they were incompetently filed because, at the time of filing, there were no permanent incumbents holding the offices of Chairman, NAB, or Prosecutor-General Accountability, as required by the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether appeals filed in the absence of these statutorily designated officers are maintainable. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that when a statute designates specific officers to perform functions, those functions must be performed by those officers alone, and no other officer can assume these powers in their absence. The Court established the principle that statutory mandates regarding the exercise of authority must be strictly followed. However, acknowledging that the vacancies were beyond NAB's control, the Supreme Court allowed NAB to withdraw the appeals to file fresh, competent appeals, directing the High Court to consider applications for condonation of delay in light of these peculiar circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can an officer of the National Accountability Bureau perform the functions of the Chairman or Prosecutor-General Accountability when those offices are vacant?
  • Is an appeal filed by an unauthorized officer on behalf of the National Accountability Bureau maintainable?
  • When a statute requires a specific officer to perform a legal act, can that act be performed by another officer in the absence of the designated authority?
  • Can the High Court consider condonation of delay for fresh appeals filed by the National Accountability Bureau after the withdrawal of initially incompetent appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• National Accountability Bureau (NAB) vs M_s Hudaibya Paper Mills Limited, Lahore and others2018 SCP 1047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-05
  NAB referencequashment of referencefair trialsine die adjournmentcondonation of delayabuse of processspeedy trialArticle 10-A
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the Lahore High Court’s judgment quashing Reference No. 5 of 2000 filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against Hudaibya Paper Mills Limited and others. The core legal questions concerned whether the 1,229-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the long-dormant reference, which had been adjourned sine die, should be revived. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing to condone the inordinate delay. The Court held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay and that NAB’s conduct—keeping the reference in "cold storage" for over a decade without progress—constituted an abuse of the legal process. The Court emphasized that the right to a fair and speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 10-A of the Constitution. It established that criminal proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely as a "sword of Damocles" to oppress individuals. The Court affirmed that the state must act with diligence, and where prosecution fails to proceed, the court is duty-bound to prevent the abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal reference be kept pending indefinitely (sine die) by the prosecution without valid reason?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 include the right to a trial without undue delay?
  • Can a court condone a delay of over 1,200 days in filing an appeal without establishing 'sufficient cause'?
  • Is a statement recorded under Section 26 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 admissible if it was not recorded before the Chairman NAB or the Accountability Court?
  Read full judgment →
• National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through its Chairman, Islamabad2018 PLJ SC 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  NAB Referencefair trialsine die adjournmentabuse of processcondonation of delayconstitutional petitioncriminal procedureaccountability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that quashed Reference No. 5 of 2000 against the respondents. The petition was filed with a delay of 1,229 days. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing to condone the extraordinary delay, noting that NAB failed to provide sufficient cause and acted with lack of diligence. The Court held that the prosecution’s conduct—keeping the Reference in cold storage for over a decade through indefinite sine die adjournments without framing charges or producing evidence—constituted an abuse of process. Emphasizing the fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Court affirmed that criminal proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely to serve as a sword of Damocles over an accused. The holding establishes that the state must prosecute cases expeditiously, and persistent, unjustified delays by the prosecution warrant the quashment of proceedings to prevent the transformation of prosecution into persecution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case be adjourned sine die indefinitely by the prosecution without violating the accused's right to a fair trial?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to proceed with a case for over a decade constitute an abuse of process warranting the quashment of the reference?
  • Is a statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 26 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 valid if not recorded before the Chairman NAB or the Accountability Court?
  • Can a delay of over 1,200 days in filing a petition for leave to appeal be condoned without sufficient cause?
  Read full judgment →
• National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through its Chairman, Islamabad2018 PLJ SC 101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  quashment of referencedelay in filing appealfair trialdue processabuse of processsine die adjournmentNational Accountability Bureaufundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition assailing the Lahore High Court's judgment that allowed a writ petition and quashed Reference No. 5 of 2000 filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against the respondents, while also addressing a split opinion regarding reinvestigation. The core legal questions pertain to whether an extraordinarily delayed petition for leave to appeal with a delay of over 1,229 days could be condoned, and whether keeping a criminal reference pending indefinitely without progress, trial, or framing of charges constitutes an abuse of process violating fundamental rights to a fair trial and due process. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prolonged, unjustified inaction by NAB and the indefinite sine die adjournments amounted to severe persecution and an abuse of the legal process. The Court laid down the principle that a person cannot be made to indefinitely await the pleasure of a prosecuting agency, and where the prosecution fails persistently without reasonable cause to proceed expeditiously, resulting in protracted proceedings, the trial is a mockery of law and the constitutional guarantees of fair trial, expeditious justice, and due process are violated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extraordinarily delayed petition for leave to appeal can be entertained without showing sufficient cause for each day's delay?
  • Does keeping a criminal reference pending indefinitely for over a decade without progress or framing of charge constitute an abuse of process?
  • Whether the right to a fair trial and expeditious justice under the Constitution is violated by protracted and inactive prosecution?
  • Can a statement recorded under Section 26 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 be treated as a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without fulfilling statutory requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman vs Messrs2018 PLD Supreme Court 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-05
  NAB Referencequashment of criminal proceedingsfair trialdue processabuse of processcondonation of delaysine die adjournmentpolitical victimization
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that quashed a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Reference filed in 2000 against the respondents. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court correctly quashed the Reference and whether the Supreme Court should condone a 1,229-day delay in filing the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing to condone the delay. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to proceed with the case for over seventeen years, keeping it in "cold storage" as a tool for political victimization, which constituted an abuse of process. The Court laid down the principle that the right to a fair trial and due process, enshrined in Article 10A of the Constitution, prohibits indefinite, procrastinated criminal proceedings. It affirmed that a person cannot be subjected to perpetual prosecution without progress. Furthermore, the Court clarified that statutory bodies like NAB must act independently, and that "exile" is alien to the laws of Pakistan, rendering any such arrangements legally void.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case be kept pending indefinitely by the prosecution without violating the right to a fair trial?
  • Does the unexplained, long-term delay in filing an appeal against a High Court judgment justify the refusal of condonation of delay?
  • Is a statement recorded by a Magistrate under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 admissible if it does not comply with the statutory requirements for recording such statements?
  • Can a statutory body like the National Accountability Bureau delegate its prosecutorial discretion to other investigative agencies?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah alias Nasru vs The State2018 YLR 709 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-18
  double murderocular evidencecapital punishmentcriminal appealbenefit of doubtforensic evidenceQatl-e-Amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for the double murder of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the provided ocular evidence and alleged motive. The Lahore High Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution’s case was fraught with significant doubts. The court determined that the presence of the complainant at the crime scene was implausible given social norms and the fact that he was not targeted despite the alleged motive. Furthermore, the ocular account was inconsistent with the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries, and the absence of forensic evidence, such as spent casings at the crime scene, rendered the recovery of the weapon unreliable. The court established the principle that oral testimony, regardless of how impressively articulated, cannot sustain a capital conviction if it is incompatible with the natural order of events, lacks corroborative support, and fails to inspire judicial confidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when it is inconsistent with medical evidence?
  • Does the absence of spent casings at a crime scene undermine the prosecution's reliance on the recovery of a firearm?
  • Is a conviction for a capital offense safe when the presence of the primary eyewitness at the crime scene is rendered implausible by surrounding circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Raza vs Adj, Jhelum and another2018 KLR S.C. 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-03
  custody of minorsguardianshipHizanatwelfare of the minornatural guardianvisitation rightscustody dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a custody dispute between a father and a maternal grandmother following the death of the minors' mother. The core legal question concerned the determination of the minors' custody, specifically balancing the father's natural guardianship rights against the grandmother's long-term care. The Supreme Court held that the father, as the natural guardian, was entitled to custody, noting that the grandmother’s right of Hizanat had expired due to the children's ages. The Court emphasized that the father was fit, financially capable, and had not remarried, making him the suitable custodian for the minors' welfare. Conversely, the Court found no evidence of his unfitness. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the Additional District Judge's order granting custody to the father, and established a structured visitation schedule to maintain the emotional bond between the children and their grandmother. The key principle reaffirmed is that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration, and a natural father, absent any legal disability or unfitness, holds the superior right to custody over a grandmother.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right of Hizanat of a maternal grandmother continue indefinitely?
  • Is a natural father entitled to the custody of his children if he is fit and capable of providing for their welfare?
  • Can a court order visitation rights for a grandmother after granting custody to the natural father?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Raza vs Adj, Jhelum & another2018 PLJ SC 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-03
  guardianshipcustody of minorsHizanatwelfare of minorsnatural guardianfather's custody rightsvisitation rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a custody dispute over four minor children whose mother passed away. The maternal grandmother filed applications under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for guardianship and custody, which were initially allowed by the Guardian Judge. The father's appeals were successful before the Additional District Judge, but the High Court subsequently restored the Guardian Judge's orders granting custody to the grandmother with visitation rights to the father. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court held that the real father is the natural guardian, is financially stable, has not remarried or returned to his job abroad, and suffers from no legal disability or disqualification to act as guardian. The Court ruled that the welfare and best interest of the minors lie with their natural father, while preserving the grandmother's bond through a structured weekend visitation schedule. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the appellate court's decision in favor of the father, establishing principles regarding the primary right of custody of a natural father absent any disqualification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the welfare of minors lies with their natural father when he is financially capable and suffers from no legal disability?
  • Does a maternal grandmother retain the right of Hizanat after the passage of time when the father is willing and able to take custody?
  • Can a father be deprived of the custody of his minor children merely because they have developed an emotional attachment with their maternal grandmother?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Raza vs Additional District Judge, Jhelum and another2018 KLR 6, 2018 KLR S.C. 6, 2018 PLJ SC 201, 2018 SCMR 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-03
  custody of minorsnatural guardianright of Hizanatmaternal grandmotherwelfare of minorvisitation scheduleGuardians and Wards Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment in a constitutional petition that set aside an appellate court's decree and awarded custody of minor children to their maternal grandmother. The core legal question was whether the welfare of the minors and the legal rights of custody favoured the natural father or the maternal grandmother who had lost the right of Hizanat due to the children's ages. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the appellate court's decree granting custody to the father. The Court held that the father is the natural guardian and, absent any legal disability or unfitness, the best interest and welfare of the minors lie in his custody, particularly where the grandmother's right of Hizanat has expired. However, to preserve emotional bonds, the Court scheduled regular weekend visitation rights for the grandmother.

  Questions settled

  • Does a maternal grandmother retain the right of Hizanat over minors after they reach the relevant age under Islamic law?
  • Whether the real father as natural guardian is entitled to custody of minors when no legal disability or unfitness is proven against him?
  • Can a court order visitation rights for a maternal grandmother while granting paramount legal custody to the father?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Iftikhar vs Naseer Ahmad2018 MLD 186 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-07Read full judgment →
• Nasir and 3 others vs The State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 222, 2018 P Cr. L J 487 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-04
  pre-arrest bailbail before arrestmala fidevicarious liabilitycommon intentiontentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of offences under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail based on the distinct roles attributed to them and the presence or absence of mala fide. The Lahore High Court held that petitioners to whom specific injuries and active roles are attributed under non-bailable sections, and who failed to establish mala fide on the part of the complainant or police, do not deserve pre-arrest bail. Conversely, petitioners assigned a general or joint role without specific attribution of non-bailable injuries, who have joined the investigation and are previous non-convicts, have made out a case for pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail requires establishing mala fide for accused persons directly connected through specific role attribution and medical evidence, whereas generalized allegations coupled with a completed investigation can justify confirming pre-arrest bail for co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Are accused persons assigned specific roles for non-bailable injuries entitled to pre-arrest bail without establishing police or complainant mala fide?
  • Does the attribution of a joint or general role without specific non-bailable injuries justify confirming pre-arrest bail?
  • Can the questions of sharing common intention and vicarious liability be determined at the bail stage?
  • Does the completion of investigation regarding certain co-accused support the confirmation of their pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir and 3 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 222 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-04
  pre-arrest bailmala fidevicarious liabilitycommon intentiontentative assessmenthurt offencescriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought pre-arrest bail for four petitioners accused in an FIR involving various hurt and rioting offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, considering the allegations of specific versus joint roles and the presence of mala fide. The Court dismissed the petition for two petitioners (Nasir and Imran) because they were specifically attributed with causing injuries falling under non-bailable sections and failed to demonstrate mala fide on the part of the complainant or police. Conversely, the Court confirmed bail for the remaining two petitioners (Rizwan and Zahid) because no specific role was assigned to them, they were previous non-convicts, and the investigation against them was complete. The judgment reaffirms that pre-arrest bail requires a showing of mala fide regarding the intended arrest, and that questions regarding common intention or vicarious liability are to be determined by the trial court after recording evidence, not at the tentative bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is the concession of pre-arrest bail available to an accused who fails to demonstrate mala fide on the part of the complainant or the local police?
  • Can the questions of common intention and vicarious liability be determined at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Should pre-arrest bail be granted to an accused when no specific role is assigned in the FIR and the investigation is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs Chairman Balochsitan Public Service Commission, Quetta and 4 others2018 CL.R. 1111 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs Chairman Balochistan Public Service Commission and 42018 CLR 1111, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 174 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-28
  Public Prosecutorrecruitment criteriajudicial reviewconstitutional petitionPolice Rules 1934service matterallegation of bias
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the recruitment process conducted by the Balochistan Public Service Commission for the posts of District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney. The petitioner contended that the selected respondents were ineligible as their experience as Prosecuting Inspectors did not satisfy the "Public Prosecutor" qualification requirement. Additionally, the petitioner alleged bias against the Commission's Chairman, claiming he was failed due to remarks made during his interview. The Court examined the definition of "Public Prosecutor" under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the Police Rules, 1934, concluding that Prosecuting Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors perform functions analogous to Public Prosecutors and thus satisfy the requisite experience criteria. Regarding the allegations of bias, the Court found them to be unsubstantiated, frivolous, and a result of the petitioner's failure to secure a merit-based position. The Court emphasized that professional ethics require candidates to avoid making baseless allegations against selection bodies. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the selected candidates were duly qualified and the selection process was lawful.

  Questions settled

  • Do Prosecuting Inspectors and Prosecuting Sub-Inspectors qualify as "Public Prosecutors" for the purpose of meeting experience requirements for the posts of District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney?
  • Can a candidate challenge the selection process on the grounds of bias without providing cogent evidence?
  • Does the experience gained by a police officer as a Prosecuting Inspector satisfy the statutory definition of a Public Prosecutor under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali Shah vs Kabir Hussain Shah2018 YLR 475 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Naseer Akbar & others vs Raja Shahzad Khan & others2018 PLJ AJ&K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-02
  murderocular evidencerelated witnesschance witnessvicarious liabilityenhancement of sentencebenefit of doubtmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The captioned appeals arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting several accused persons for murder and related offences arising out of an incident where the deceased Sarfaraz was fatally shot. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related and chance eye-witnesses, the necessity of proving motive in cases based on ocular evidence, the principle of sifting grains from chaff regarding co-accused, and the standard of corroboration required for fire-arm injuries and recoveries. The High Court held that related or chance witnesses are credible if their presence is naturally explained and their testimony is consistent and confidence-inspiring, and that proof of motive is not strictly required when direct ocular testimony is reliable. The Court concluded that the prosecution successfully proved its case against most of the appellants, but extended the benefit of the doubt to one accused whose presence was doubtful. Consequently, the High Court partly accepted the complainant's appeal to enhance the principal offender's sentence to death, maintained the convictions and sentences of the other co-accused, and acquitted the appellant whose presence remained unproven. The key principles laid down include the criteria for evaluating interested and chance witnesses, the application of vicarious liability in firearm homicide, and the rule that minor discrepancies do not vitiate an otherwise reliable prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of close relatives of a deceased can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship without establishing any enmity against the accused?
  • Is proof of motive mandatory in a criminal case that is primarily established through direct ocular evidence?
  • Whether minor discrepancies and contradictions between the site-plan and the oral testimony of eye-witnesses are sufficient to demolish the entire prosecution case?
  • Can the principle of sifting grains from the chaff be applied to sustain the conviction of certain co-accused while other co-accused facing similar initial allegations are acquitted?
  • Whether the unverified report of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) that has not been formally exhibited in evidence possesses any evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseem Akhtar and another vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and others2018 PLD Lahore 903 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-29Read full judgment →
• Naseebullah Khan vs Abdus Samee Babar2018 PLJ Quetta 109 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-22Read full judgment →
• Naseebullah Khan Bazai vs Dr. Ummar Khan Babar and 2 others2018 [M] C.L.R. 267, 2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 119, 2018 CLC 841 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-23
  review applicationcivil service promotionconcealment of factsconstitutional jurisdictionclean hands doctrineNAB referencediscretionary reliefeligibility criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application challenged a previous judgment that directed the promotion of respondent No.1, arguing that the respondent had concealed pending criminal proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which disqualified him under the criteria of the Services of Pakistan (Redressal of Un-representation) Ordinance, 2012. The core legal question was whether a judgment obtained through the suppression of material facts, which would have otherwise rendered the petitioner ineligible for the relief granted, warrants review and recall. The Court held that the respondent had deliberately concealed his involvement in ongoing NAB criminal proceedings, a fact that directly contravened the eligibility criteria for promotion. Consequently, the Court recalled its previous judgment and dismissed the original petition. The principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and requires the petitioner to approach the court with clean hands. A judgment obtained through the concealment of material facts is liable to be reviewed and recalled, as the court has the inherent power to correct orders obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, regardless of the standing of the applicant seeking the review.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court review its own order passed in constitutional jurisdiction if it was obtained through the concealment of material facts?
  • Does the pendency of criminal proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 disqualify a civil servant from promotion under the Services of Pakistan (Redressal of Un-representation) Ordinance 2012?
  • Is a petitioner who conceals material facts regarding their eligibility entitled to discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseebullah Khan Bazai BCS-20 Osd, Government of Balochistan, Quetta2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 119 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-23
  review applicationcivil service promotionconcealment of factsconstitutional jurisdictionclean hands doctrineNAB referenceeligibility criteriafraud on court
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application challenged a previous judgment directing the promotion of respondent No. 1 to BS-21 for transfer to the Federal Government. The applicant, a senior officer, contended that the respondent had obtained the judgment by concealing material facts, specifically the pendency of a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference against him, which disqualified him under the criteria established by the Services of Pakistan (Redressal of Under-representation) Ordinance, 2012. The core legal question was whether a judgment obtained through the suppression of material facts and disqualifying criteria could be reviewed and recalled, particularly when the petitioner invoked the court's discretionary constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the respondent had deliberately concealed his ongoing criminal trial, which violated the eligibility criteria set forth in the Ordinance. Emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and requires the petitioner to approach the court with clean hands, the Court ruled that a judgment obtained through fraud or concealment of material facts must be recalled. Consequently, the Court exercised its review powers to set aside the previous judgment and dismissed the original constitutional petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court review its own judgment passed in constitutional jurisdiction if it was obtained through the concealment of material facts?
  • Does the pendency of a criminal case under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 disqualify a civil servant from promotion under the Services of Pakistan (Redressal of Under-representation) Ordinance, 2012?
  • Is a petitioner required to disclose pending criminal proceedings when seeking discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a court recall a judgment obtained through fraud even if the applicant for review was not a party to the original proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseebullah Khan Bazai BCS-20 Osd, Government of Balochistan Quetta2018 [M] C.L.R. 267 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-23
  review applicationconcealment of factsconstitutional jurisdictionclean hands doctrineeligibility criteriacivil service promotionfraud on courtNational Accountability Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application challenged a previous judgment that directed the promotion of the respondent, Dr. Umar Khan Babar, to BS-21 for transfer to the Federal Government. The applicant, a senior officer, contended that the respondent had concealed the pendency of a criminal case under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which disqualified him under the criteria of Ordinance VII of 2012. The core legal question was whether a judgment obtained through the suppression of material facts could be reviewed and recalled, particularly when the petitioner in the original matter failed to disclose his ineligibility. The Court held that the respondent had deliberately concealed his ongoing criminal trial, violating the eligibility criteria. Consequently, the Court recalled the previous judgment and dismissed the original Constitution Petition. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and requires the petitioner to approach the court with clean hands. It further established that the High Court possesses inherent power, alongside provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to review or recall orders obtained through fraud or the concealment of material facts, regardless of the applicant's status as a party to the original proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court review a judgment obtained through the concealment of material facts in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the pendency of a criminal case under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, disqualify a civil servant from promotion under Ordinance VII of 2012?
  • Is a party who conceals material facts from the Court entitled to relief under the discretionary constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the High Court have the inherent power to recall an order obtained through fraud or misrepresentation?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseeb Ullah Khan vs Government of KPK & others2018 PHC 1846 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-06Read full judgment →
• Nargis Naureen vs Judgf Family Court, Multan and others2018 PLD Lahore 735 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-20
  Family CourtInterim reliefMaintainabilityConstitutional petitionAppealable orderDowerInterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a Family Court order dismissing her application for a temporary injunction to restrain the transfer of property claimed as dower. The core legal question was whether this dismissal order, passed under Section 21-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, qualified as an unappealable "interlocutory order" or an appealable "decision given" under Section 14 of the Act. The Court held that the dismissal of an application for interim relief, which finally determines a party's right to the preservation of property during the suit's pendency, constitutes a "decision given" rather than an interlocutory order. Consequently, the Court ruled that the order is appealable. The principle established is that the term "interlocutory" in family proceedings does not encompass orders that finally determine a specific issue or right. If an order possesses the characteristic of finality regarding a contested issue, it is appealable under Section 14, rendering constitutional petitions inadmissible where such an alternative remedy exists.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order dismissing an application for interim relief under Section 21-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, considered an appealable decision or an unappealable interlocutory order?
  • Does the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 apply to proceedings before a Family Court?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an order of a Family Court if an alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • What is the test to determine whether an order passed by a Family Court is interlocutory or a decision given for the purposes of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Nargas Aftab Raja vs Accountant General, Accounts Department of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and 5 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 205 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-05-24
  service tribunalpay fixationstatutory interpretationadapted lawsjudicial officergovernment servantterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the pay fixation of the appellant, a District and Sessions Judge appointed as Chairperson of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Service Tribunal. The appellant contended that she was not a government servant and thus entitled to terms and conditions equal to a High Court Judge under Rule 5 of the Federal Service Tribunal Chairman and Members Service Rules, 1983. The respondents argued that she was a government servant subject to Rules 6 and 7. The core legal question was whether the phrase 'in the service of Pakistan' in the 1983 Rules, as adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, encompassed the appellant's service. The Court held that under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Adaptation of Laws Act, 1979, references to 'Pakistan' in adapted laws are construed as 'Azad Jammu and Kashmir.' Consequently, the appellant, as a judicial officer, was in the service of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, bringing her within the ambit of Rules 6 and 7. The Court affirmed that judicial officers hold posts in connection with the affairs of the State, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the phrase 'in the service of Pakistan' in the Federal Service Tribunal Chairman and Members Service Rules, 1983, when adapted, include service in Azad Jammu and Kashmir?
  • Are judicial officers in Azad Jammu and Kashmir considered to be in government service for the purpose of determining terms and conditions of service under the Federal Service Tribunal Chairman and Members Service Rules, 1983?
  • Is a judicial officer appointed as Chairperson of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Service Tribunal entitled to terms and conditions under Rule 5 of the Federal Service Tribunal Chairman and Members Service Rules, 1983?
  Read full judgment →
• Nand Lal vs Askari Bank Ltd. and others2018 CLD 1167 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-15Read full judgment →
• Nand Lal and another vs Askari Commercial Bank Limited and others2018 CLD 1320 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-15Read full judgment →
• Nakaf alias Naqab Khan vs The State and another2018 YLR 1765 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21
  post-arrest bailattempted murderprohibitory clausefurther inquirymedical reportghayr-jaifah munaqqilahShajjah-i-khafifah
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail petition arose from an FIR registered under Sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(vi), 337-E, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner was accused of firing a pistol at the complainant, causing a knee injury. The petitioner contended that the co-accused had already been granted bail and that the injuries sustained fell under non-prohibitory categories. The High Court examined the medical report, which classified the injuries as ghayr-jaifah munaqqilah and Shajjah-i-khafifah, carrying punishments of Daman and imprisonment terms that do not fall within the restrictive clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the court noted that the question of whether the petitioner had the requisite intention to kill and why he was singled out for effective firing required further inquiry at trial. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail, holding that where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., the concession of bail is generally allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether injuries classified as ghayr-jaifah munaqqilah and Shajjah-i-khafifah fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted where the intention to kill remains to be established at trial and the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to the concession of bail when the maximum statutory punishment for the alleged hurt does not attract the restrictive clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Naila Maqbool Laghari through next of kin, Maqbool Ahmed and 1362018 PLD Sindh 391 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-05
  medical admission testprovincial executive authorityfederal legislative competence18th Amendmentstatutory jurisdictionconstitutional petitionprofessional medical education
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the Sindh Provincial Government's decision to cancel the MBBS and BDS admission test held on October 22, 2017. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government or the Chief Minister possessed the jurisdiction to investigate and annul an admission test conducted under the MBBS and BDS (Admissions, House job and Internship) Regulations, 2016. The Court held that the cancellation notification was issued without lawful authority. It determined that professional medical education falls within the federal legislative competence of "legal, medical and other professions." Consequently, executive authority in this domain is exclusively federal, and the 2016 Regulations entrust the conduct and oversight of admission tests solely to the designated admission board and provincial committees, leaving no role for the provincial government. The Court affirmed that statutory bodies created by regulations possess exclusive jurisdiction over their mandates, precluding provincial executive interference. Furthermore, the Court found the factual allegations of test leakage and syllabus discrepancies unsubstantiated or insufficient to warrant cancellation, ultimately ordering the admission process to proceed based on the original test results.

  Questions settled

  • Does the provincial government have the authority to cancel an admission test conducted under the MBBS and BDS (Admissions, House job and Internship) Regulations, 2016?
  • Does professional medical education fall under federal or provincial legislative competence following the 18th Amendment?
  • Are the powers of the provincial committee constituted under the 2016 Regulations exclusive, or does the provincial government retain concurrent authority?
  • Can a court exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 to uphold an admission test despite allegations of syllabus discrepancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ali Wassan vs Syed Ghous Ali Shah and others2018 PLJ SC 470, 2018 SCMR 87 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-06-07
  election petitioncorrupt practicesundue influencestandard of proofNADRA reportRepresentation of the People Actreturned candidateforensic examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an Election Tribunal's judgment which had declared the appellant’s election to the National Assembly (NA-215) void under Section 68(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA) and declared the runner-up (Respondent No. 1) as the returned candidate. The respondent had alleged corrupt practices, undue influence, and widespread rigging. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the witnesses' testimonies were inconsistent, referred to polling stations not mentioned in the original petition, and failed to meet the high standard of proof required for allegations of a criminal nature. The Court also noted that a NADRA forensic report regarding thumb impressions did not materially affect the result given the large victory margin. Consequently, the Court held that the Tribunal misapplied the law and misread the evidence. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and reinstating the appellant's election, affirming that corrupt practices must be proved beyond reasonable doubt with precise particulars.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required to establish a charge of corrupt practices in an election petition?
  • Can an Election Tribunal consider evidence regarding incidents or polling stations not specifically pleaded in the election petition?
  • Whether a NADRA report showing undecipherable thumb impressions is sufficient to void an election if the number of such votes is less than the victory margin?
  • Is oral evidence regarding election malpractices admissible if it is not supported by unimpeachable documentary or circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Naghma Rani vs Additional District Judge, Gujrat etc2018 PLJ Lahore 230 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-27Read full judgment →
• Naghma Rani vs Additional District Judge, Gujrat and 3 others2018 CLC 767 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-27Read full judgment →
• Naeem Khan vs The State etc2018 PHC 1848 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• Naeem Akhtar and another vs Learned Civil Judge and Judicial2018 MLD 1173 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-07Read full judgment →
• Naeem Akhtar alias Ali Haider and another vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 66 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-25
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaydelay in trialnarcotics recoveryControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged recovery of 100 kgs and subsequently 3213 kgs of Charas, registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The primary grounds urged for bail were statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial and non-compliance with earlier court directions to expedite the trial. The State opposed the bail, contending that the delay was attributable to the defense's tactical changes of counsel and failure to cross-examine available witnesses. The High Court held that the delay in the trial could not be entirely attributed to the prosecution, distinguishing the case from precedents where witnesses persistently failed to appear, and noted that non-compliance with a previous timeframe order does not ipso facto furnish a fresh ground for bail. Consequently, the court dismissed the post-arrest bail application while directing the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to conclude a trial within a previously stipulated timeframe create a fresh ground for the grant of bail?
  • Can bail be granted on the ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial when the delay is partly attributable to the conduct of the defense?
  • Whether the recovery of a massive quantity of narcotics disentitles an accused to post-arrest bail on statutory delay grounds under the circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadir Jan vs The Chairman, National Accountability Bureau and 32018 MLD 6 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-20Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ramzan vs The State2018 PLJ SC 463, 2018 SCMR 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-11-14
  MurderAppealConvictionDeath sentenceLife imprisonmentMotiveEvidence reappraisalOcular evidenceCriminal procedureCompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b), P.P.C., after he allegedly caused seven dagger injuries leading to the death of Mst. Kausar Bibi. The Supreme Court undertook a reappraisal of the evidence. The core legal questions revolved around the sufficiency of evidence for conviction and the impact of an unproven motive on the death sentence. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the consistent ocular account of natural eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, sufficient to establish guilt. However, the Court partly allowed the appeal regarding the sentence, reducing the death penalty to life imprisonment. It was held that the principle of deeming a fact proved if not cross-examined applies to civil, not criminal, cases, and criminal cases are decided on the totality of circumstances. The failure of the prosecution to prove the asserted motive, which remained shrouded in mystery, was a factor cautioning against the death sentence. The order for compensation was maintained, and the benefit under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended.

  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ramzan vs State2018 PLJ SC 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murdercapital punishmentmitigation of sentenceocular evidencemotivecriminal trialcross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of Mst. Kausar Bibi. The core legal questions were whether the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and whether the death sentence remained appropriate despite the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged motive. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular evidence of natural witnesses consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. However, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court held that the principle of deeming a fact proved due to a lack of cross-examination is applicable to civil, not criminal, cases. Criminal cases must be decided based on the totality of circumstances rather than narrow evidentiary rules. Furthermore, the Court established that when the prosecution asserts a motive but fails to prove it, such failure may serve as a significant mitigating factor in capital cases, especially when the true cause of the occurrence remains shrouded in mystery, thereby justifying the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle that a fact is deemed proved if not cross-examined apply to criminal cases?
  • Can the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive justify the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Should a criminal case be decided on the totality of circumstances or on the narrow ground of cross-examination of a witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Iqbal and others vs The State through Additional Advocate2018 YLR 1922 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-02-16
  Qatl-i-amdmitigating circumstancesdeath sentence commutationeyewitness reliabilityforensic evidencecriminal appealAzad Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur, which convicted Nadeem Iqbal for the murder of Muhammad Yaseen and acquitted three co-accused. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony regarding identification in low-light conditions, the impact of unexhibited forensic reports, and whether the death penalty was warranted given the circumstances. The Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir upheld the acquittal of the co-accused, finding the evidence insufficient to implicate them. Regarding the convict, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court held that while direct evidence established guilt, the failure to exhibit crucial forensic reports, the mystery surrounding the motive, and other procedural lapses constituted significant mitigating circumstances. The key principle laid down is that where the motive for an offence is shrouded in mystery or not satisfactorily established, the extreme penalty of death is not warranted, and a lesser penalty of life imprisonment is appropriate to meet the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to exhibit forensic reports in a murder trial constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  • Can a conviction be maintained against one accused while acquitting others based on the same ocular evidence?
  • Is the extreme penalty of death warranted when the motive for the crime remains shrouded in mystery?
  • Must a witness be confronted with their previous statement under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for a contradiction to be considered?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ilyas vs Country Director etc2018 PHC 1373 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-16Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Iftikhar vs Director (CSD), Securities and Exchange2018 CLD 149 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2017-05-18Read full judgment →