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.

• Khadim Hussain vs The State and another2018 YLR 445 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-06
  murdercriminal appealSection 342 statementocular evidenceacquittalgrave and sudden provocationappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant, Khadim Hussain, for the murder of two individuals, Talib Hussain and Amir Bakhsh, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based solely on his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after having discarded the prosecution's evidence as unreliable. The High Court found that the prosecution's ocular account was riddled with material contradictions regarding the presence of witnesses, the motive, and the recovery of weapons, rendering the testimony of the eye-witnesses doubtful. The Court held that the trial court erred in law by relying on the appellant's Section 342 statement to secure a conviction after rejecting the prosecution's case. The established legal principle is that if the prosecution fails to prove its case, an accused must be acquitted, even if they have admitted to the killing in their statement; an accused's statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, can only be used to support reliable prosecution evidence, not to substitute it.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be convicted solely on their statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution's evidence has been rejected?
  • Is the statement of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
  • Under what circumstances can the inculpatory part of an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Muhammad Tariq etc2021 CLC 805, 2018 LHC 2362 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-28Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Government of Balochistan Education2018 PLC (C.S.) 417 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-04-21
  contract employeeregularization of servicevested rightservice disputeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that his removal from service as Principal (B-20) of Balochistan Residential College Turbat was illegal, alongside prayers for regularization of his services, posting, and release of withheld salary. The core legal question was whether a contract employee possesses a vested right to claim extension of contract or regularization of service. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a contract employee has no vested right to claim extension or regularization of services, particularly when initial appointment and regularization did not comply with prescribed legal formalities and procedures. The court established that contractual employment terminates upon the expiry of its term and does not confer any right to continuous employment or permanent absorption.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract employee have a vested right to claim extension or regularization of their services?
  • Whether the continuance of employment of a temporary employee for two years or more converts the appointment into a permanent one?
  • Does an ad hoc or contract appointment confer any right or interest to continuous appointment, seniority, or promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadam Hussain vs Azad Govt and others2018 SC AJK 35 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• Kh. Zafar Iqbal, Distributor Lever Brothers Pakistan Limited2018 PTD 1574 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-05-22Read full judgment →
• Kazim Khan vs The State2018 PHC 1842 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-03Read full judgment →
• Kaymu PK: In the matter of vs N/A2018 CLD 919 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2018-03-30Read full judgment →
• Kausar Zahoor vs District & Sessions Judge, etc.2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 36 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-20Read full judgment →
• Kausar Iqbal Malik vs Federation of Pakistan & 02 others2018 SHC 935 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-11Read full judgment →
• Kathiawar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. through Member2018 YLR 560 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-08
  amenity plotcooperative housing societyrestrictive covenantinjunctive reliefcommercialization of amenity landallotment conditionscharitable purpose
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit concerns the unauthorized transfer of an amenity plot, originally allotted for a Girls High School, by the defendant to a third party for commercial purposes. The core legal question is whether the restrictive covenants in the original allotment order, which mandate charitable use and prohibit transfer without the society's consent, survive the subsequent execution of a lease deed that omits these specific restrictions. The Court held that the allotment conditions remain binding and do not merge into or vanish upon the execution of a lease. It ruled that amenity plots, granted for specific community welfare, cannot be commercialized or assigned to non-charitable entities without the society's approval, as such actions would negate the original purpose of the allotment. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' application for an injunction, restraining the defendant from creating third-party interests or transferring the plot. The decision emphasizes that amenity plots are public property intended for community benefit, and their status cannot be altered by private agreements that ignore the foundational terms of their grant.

  Questions settled

  • Can an amenity plot allotted for a specific charitable purpose be transferred or assigned to a third party for commercial use without the society's consent?
  • Do restrictive covenants in an original allotment order survive the subsequent execution of a lease deed that does not explicitly incorporate them?
  • Does the commercialization of an amenity plot, originally intended for community welfare, violate the foundational terms of its grant?
  • Can a court grant an injunction to prevent the transfer of an amenity plot where the transferor is violating the original allotment conditions?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Nawaz etc. vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 365 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-03
  anti-terrorismtest identification paradebenefit of doubtcriminal appealballistic reportextortioncircumstantial evidencesentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under Sections 324, 427, and 386 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, alongside a connected writ petition seeking sentence enhancement. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of a joint test identification parade, the reliability of delayed forensic and ballistic reports, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in a dark-night occurrence against unknown persons. The Lahore High Court held that joint identification parades of multiple accused persons are legally unreliable, that unexplained delays in dispatching crime empties and weapons to forensic laboratories render recoveries inconsequential, and that material doubts in the prosecution's case warrant acquittal. The court laid down the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained on tainted circumstantial evidence, vague arrests, and suppressed facts, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a joint test identification parade conducted for multiple accused persons in one go?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending crime empties to the forensic laboratory render the recovery of weapons inconsequential?
  • Can a conviction be sustained in a dark-night occurrence where the accused were initially unknown and no source of light is established?
  • Whether the prosecution must establish a clear chain of custody for items sent to forensic agencies to rely on their reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Nawaz and others vs The State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 365, 2018 YLR 1084 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-03
  benefit of doubttest identification paradejoint identification paradechain of custodyforensic evidenceanti-terrorismcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences awarded by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, while a connected constitutional petition seeks enhancement of those sentences. The core legal questions concern the reliability of a joint test identification parade, the evidentiary value of forensic reports where the chain of custody is compromised, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in a dark-night occurrence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the joint test identification parade was legally flawed and inadmissible, the chain of custody for crime empties was suspicious, and the recovery of the weapon was inconsequential due to delayed submission to the forensic agency. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt, and dismissed the petition for sentence enhancement. The judgment reaffirms the principle that joint identification parades are disapproved and that a compromised chain of custody renders forensic evidence unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a joint test identification parade of multiple accused persons conducted in one go legally admissible?
  • Does a delay in submitting crime empties to a forensic agency, coupled with a lack of documentation regarding the depositing official, render the forensic report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish a clear chain of custody for recovered weapons and crime empties?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Khan, etc. vs State and othersPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 433 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-14
  capital punishmentbenefit of doubtmurderocular accountacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, along with a connected murder reference and an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused. The core legal question involves determining whether the ocular account, heavily relied upon by the prosecution but disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused, is sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction in the absence of a proved motive and corroborative evidence, and considering significant delays in reporting and post-mortem examinations. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inherent improbabilities, lack of motive, suspicious delays, and the principle that an ocular account disbelieved against acquitted co-accused requires strong independent corroboration before being used against a remaining accused. The court laid down the principle that uncorroborated ocular testimony, already rejected regarding multiple co-accused, cannot safely form the basis of a capital conviction when serious doubts shroud the time and manner of the occurrence, thereby extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ocular account disbelieved qua majority of acquitted co-accused can be relied upon to maintain a conviction against a remaining appellant without independent corroboration?
  • Does a delayed reporting of the crime and delayed post-mortem examinations create fatal doubts in a murder case?
  • Can a capital conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the motive and presents an improbable sequence of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakutunkhwa through Secretary2018 YLR 2239 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-26Read full judgment →
• Kashif Imran and another vs Altaf Hussain and another2018 PLD Lahore 60 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Kartar Lal Pirwani vs Muhammad Waqar Azeem and others2018 IHC 93 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-07-13Read full judgment →
• Kartar Lal Pirwani vs Muhammad Waqar Azeem and 3 others2018 YLR 2219 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-06-04
  Regular First Appealrejection of plaintres judicataspecific performancewithdrawal of suitprivity of contractcompensationdamages
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal was filed against the order and decree of the Civil Judge, Islamabad, which rejected the appellant's plaint for specific performance and permanent injunction under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. on the ground of res judicata. The appellant had entered into an agreement to sell with respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who had previously contracted with respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1's prior suits for specific performance against respondent No. 3 were dismissed as withdrawn or rejected, without any adjudication on the merits. The High Court held that the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the C.P.C. does not apply because the appellant was not a party to the earlier suits, the subsequent agreement was not the subject matter of those suits, and there was no prior adjudication on the merits. Additionally, the Court ruled that even in the absence of privity of contract with the original owner, a court has the power under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, to award damages or compensation for breach of contract in lieu of specific performance. The appeal was allowed, the impugned decree set aside, and the case remanded for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent suit is barred by the principle of res judicata if the previous suit was dismissed as withdrawn without an adjudication on the merits?
  • Can a plaint be rejected partially under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. if some of the reliefs claimed are barred by law while others are not?
  • Does a court have the power to award damages or compensation under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, in a suit for specific performance even if the plaintiff has not specifically prayed for such relief?
  • Can the principle of res judicata be applied against a person who was not a party to the former suit and whose contract was not the subject matter of that former litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Kartar Lal Pirwani vs Muhammad Waciar Azeem and others2018 [M] C.L.R. 1682 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-31Read full judgment →
• Kareem Khan vs Inspector-General of Police ICT Islamabad and 32018 PLD Islamabad 108 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-15Read full judgment →
• Karamat Ullah Khan Chaudhry vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 555 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-05
  territorial jurisdictionwrit jurisdictionconstitutional petitionforum non conveniensservice matterjudicial reviewfederal authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner, a civil servant, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the re-advertisement of a BS-20 Trade Officer position and seeking appointment to the post. The core legal question was whether the Lahore High Court possessed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition, given that the respondents, the impugned actions, and the entire recruitment process—including the advertisement, testing, and interviews—were situated within the Islamabad Capital Territory. The Court held that it lacked the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. It emphasized that while a High Court has judicial power to review federal actions, it must strictly adhere to its territorial boundaries. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is not absolute and requires a territorial nexus; where the dominant object of the petition and the cause of action arise entirely outside the Court's territorial limits, the petition is not maintainable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, directing the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, underscoring the principle of judicial comity and the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have the territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ against federal authorities when the entire cause of action and the respondents are located outside its territorial limits?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable before a High Court if the dominant object of the petition relates to matters occurring entirely within the Islamabad Capital Territory?
  • Does the principle of forum non conveniens apply to the exercise of writ jurisdiction by a High Court in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamat Ali and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and others2018 PLD Sindh 8 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-07
  public interest litigationpolice reformslegislative competencefundamental rightsautonomy of commandtenure of officepostings and transfersInspector General of Policeconstitutional law
  Summary & questions settled

  These public interest litigation petitions challenged the Sindh (Repeal of the Police Order, 2002 and Revival of the Police Act, 1861) Act, 2011, and sought the enforcement of fundamental rights through police reforms. The core legal questions involved the legislative competence of the Provincial Assembly to repeal a federal law (Police Order, 2002), the validity of reviving the Police Act, 1861, and the court's power to ensure police autonomy under Article 199. The Court held that 'Police' is an exclusive provincial subject under the 1973 Constitution; thus, the 2011 Act is intra vires. However, the Court found that frequent political interference in police transfers and tenures violated fundamental rights. Applying a 'Ghaidan-style' interpretive approach to the Police Act, the Court ruled that the Inspector General (IGP) must have autonomy of command. It held that the IGP's five-year tenure under the Rules of Business is mandatory and that the power of postings and transfers vests exclusively in the IGP to ensure independence from executive whim. The Court quashed several government notifications that had centralized transfer powers in the Home Department.

  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Port Trust vs National Insurance Corporation2018 YLR 1172 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-23Read full judgment →
• Karachi International Container Terminal through duly authorized2018 PTD 936 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-14Read full judgment →
• Karachi Customs Agents Association vs Provincial Assistant Registrar &2019 YLR 76, 2018 SHC 710 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-22Read full judgment →
• Kamran Mukhtiar Qureshi vs The State and another2018 YLR 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-03Read full judgment →
• Kamran Khan and another vs The State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 413, 2018 MLD 479 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-08
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausearms and ammunitiontentative assessmentdiscretionary reliefillegal transportation of weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail after being apprehended with a substantial cache of arms and ammunition, including multiple pistols, rifles, and thousands of rounds of ammunition, during a police operation. The petitioners argued that the consignment was being transported under a valid license issued to a third party, and contended that because the minimum sentence for the alleged offences was five years, their case fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court rejected these arguments, noting that the licensee had not come forward to claim the consignment and that the facts of the cited precedents were distinguishable. The Court held that even where an offence is punishable by less than ten years, the Court retains discretion to decline bail based on the nature of the accusation and supporting material. Given the massive volume and lethality of the recovered arms, the Court dismissed the bail petition, finding no grounds for relief at the stage of tentative assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a minimum sentence of less than ten years for an offence automatically entitle an accused to bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can a court decline discretionary bail even if an offence is punishable by less than ten years imprisonment?
  • Is the plea of a valid license for transporting a large cache of weapons a sufficient ground for bail at the stage of tentative assessment when the licensee has not come forward?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Khan and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 413 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-08
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausearms and ammunitiondiscretionary relieftentative assessmentcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition for post-arrest bail arises from the recovery of a substantial cache of arms and ammunition, including multiple pistols, rifles, and thousands of bullets, from the petitioners' vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the argument that the weapons were being transported under a valid license issued to a third party, and whether the potential minimum sentence of five years for the alleged offences removed the case from the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail, noting that the licensee never came forward to claim the consignment and that the vast volume and lethality of the recovered cache necessitated a denial of relief. The Court affirmed that even if an offence is punishable by less than ten years, the Court retains discretion to decline bail based on the nature of the accusation and supporting material. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the existence of a minimum sentence ceiling does not automatically exempt an offence from the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a minimum sentence of five years automatically exclude an offence from the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a court legally compelled to grant bail in offences punishable by less than ten years imprisonment?
  • Can a court decline bail based on the nature of the accusation and the volume of recovered contraband despite arguments regarding a valid license?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran alias Sher, Afghan and others vs State etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 69 · Lahore High Court
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionfirearm recoveryforensic ballisticscapital punishmentmurder referenceunchallenged testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of Abid Pervaiz and Riasat Ali. The Lahore High Court examined a chain of circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, an extra-judicial confession, recovery of the crime weapon matching crime empties via a forensic report, and recovery of the deceased persons' personal belongings at the appellant's instance. The core legal questions revolved around the reliability and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, unchallanged cross-examination testimony, and the admissibility of disclosures leading to recoveries. The court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing squarely at the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. The ratio decidendi affirms that unchallenged statements in cross-examination are deemed admitted, and convincing circumstantial evidence coupled with matching forensic reports and recoveries is sufficient to sustain a capital conviction. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the death sentence, and answered the murder reference in the affirmative.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of a witness's testimony going unchallenged during cross-examination?
  • Whether a capital conviction can be safely sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the absence of compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a recovery effected pursuant to a voluntary disclosure under the law?
  • What constitutes a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence touching from the dead body to the assailant?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Ahmed Siddiqui and another vs The State2018 MLD 611 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-05
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailland grabbingcooperative societies disputefurther inquiryforgery and fraudarbitration by Registrar
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two connected bail applications arising from a single First Information Report concerning allegations of land grabbing, forgery, and criminal trespass regarding a residential plot in a cooperative housing society. The core legal questions pertained to whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest and post-arrest bail where both competing parties claimed ownership through documents issued by the society administrator, and whether a criminal case was maintainable given that the dispute involved society membership and property rights governed by cooperative societies legislation. The court held that the case constituted one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly as the dispute fell within the purview of arbitration by the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 and malafide could be attributed to the lodging of the FIR without first resolving the civil/cooperative dispute. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail of two applicants and granted post-arrest bail to the others, emphasizing that matters involving administrative malpractice within cooperative housing societies require inquiry and arbitration rather than direct criminal prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the names of the accused persons do not appear in the initial FIR and are only implicated subsequently in the final report?
  • Is a criminal case maintainable regarding a property ownership dispute between members of a cooperative housing society without first referring the matter to arbitration under the Cooperative Societies Act 1925?
  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted in a property dispute case where both competing parties hold documents issued by the authorized administrator of a cooperative housing society?
  • Does the lodging of an FIR without approaching the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for resolution of a membership dispute indicate malice?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamal Nath vs Election Commission of India and Others2018 SCInd 119 · Supreme Court of India · 2018-10-12Read full judgment →
• Kamal Din alias Kamala vs The State2018 P.S.C. (Crl.) 235, 2018 SCMR 577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-10-13
  MurderAttempted murderTest identification paradeWeapon recoveryBenefit of doubtAcquittalEvidentiary valueCriminal appealPolice encounter
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of Kamal Din alias Kamala for offences under Section 302(b) PPC read with Section 34 PPC, and Section 324 PPC read with Section 34 PPC, stemming from an incident where a police official was killed and others injured. The Supreme Court undertook a reappraisal of the evidence, focusing on the reliability of the test identification parade and the alleged weapon recovery. The Court found the identification parade flawed due to the initial non-nomination of culprits, the Investigating Officer's inability to deny showing the accused to witnesses prior to the parade, the lack of reference to any specific role during identification, and its conduct as a joint parade for multiple accused. An injured witness also confirmed being shown the accused at the police station. The weapon recovery was deemed irrelevant as it related to an earlier case, and its safe custody and transmission were not proven. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, allowing the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitting the appellant.

  Read full judgment →
• Kalsoom Akhtar and 2 others vs Sardar Muhammad through L.Rs, and others2018 YLR 1652 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-09Read full judgment →
• Kaloo Khan and others vs OGDCL and others2018 IHC 148 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-13
  bogus educational testimonialsmisconductdismissal from servicefrauddisciplinary proceedingsOGDCLwrit petitionservice benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several writ petitions filed by employees of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) challenging their dismissal from service. The petitioners were terminated after disciplinary inquiries confirmed they had submitted bogus educational testimonials to either secure employment or obtain service benefits, such as increments and promotions. The core legal question was whether the submission of fake educational certificates constitutes "misconduct" warranting the major penalty of dismissal, particularly when the specific qualification was not a mandatory prerequisite for the position held. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the submission of fake educational documents constitutes fraud and a "cardinal sin" that deprives deserving candidates of employment opportunities. The Court affirmed that such conduct qualifies as misconduct, justifying the penalty of dismissal regardless of whether the certificate was a strict requirement for the initial appointment. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that public sector entities are obligated to verify credentials and initiate disciplinary and criminal proceedings against employees who utilize forged documents, and noted that the petitioners failed to exhaust available departmental appellate remedies before approaching the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the submission of a bogus educational certificate by an employee constitute misconduct warranting dismissal from service?
  • Can an employee be dismissed for submitting a fake educational certificate if that specific qualification was not a mandatory requirement for their initial appointment?
  • Is the submission of fake educational testimonials considered a fraud on the employer and other deserving candidates?
  • Are employees required to exhaust departmental appellate remedies before challenging disciplinary actions in a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Kalimullah vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 553 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-09
  revision petitioncross-examinationinvestigating officerpolice diarieszimniesrefreshing memoryfair investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner, an under-trial prisoner, challenging the trial court's order disallowing certain questions during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer (PW-12). The core legal question revolved around the right of the defence to cross-examine an Investigating Officer with reference to police case diaries (Zimnies) when the officer has refreshed his memory. The Peshawar High Court held that while the defence cannot directly call for or inspect police diaries as a matter of right under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, once the Investigating Officer refers to or uses the case file to refresh memory, the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order apply, and the adverse party is entitled to cross-examine the witness regarding the investigation. The court laid down the principle that an Investigating Officer is a vital witness obliged to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, and the defence has an inalienable right to cross-examine such a witness to test their veracity and contradict them when memory is refreshed from official records.

  Questions settled

  • Can the defence cross-examine an Investigating Officer regarding the contents of police case diaries?
  • What are the rights of an accused when a police officer uses case diaries to refresh memory during testimony?
  • Is an Investigating Officer considered a formal witness or a material witness in a criminal trial?
  • What is the scope of an Investigating Officer's duty regarding the collection of evidence for both the prosecution and the defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaleemullah vs The State Etc2018 PLD Peshawar 157, 2018 PHC 1590 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-12Read full judgment →
• Kabir Ahmad vs The Additional District Judge, Lahore and another2018 CLC 161 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-25Read full judgment →
• K.S. Rajan (D) through LRs vs The State of Kerala & Anr2018 SCInd 26 · Supreme Court of India · 2018-08-10
  land acquisitioncompensation enhancementmarket valueparity in compensationreference courtwet land
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Kerala in 1980 for a multipurpose development scheme. The core legal question was whether the compensation determined by the High Court for the appellants' 'wet land' and 'chira land' was just and proper, or if it required enhancement to align with compensation awarded to other landowners whose properties were acquired in the same proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that in a separate case involving identical land acquired under the same notification, a Reference Court had awarded Rs. 2000 per cent for wet land, which became final as the State did not challenge it. Finding that the appellants' land was identical in nature, location, and surroundings to those other lands, the Court held that the appellants were entitled to the same rate of compensation. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing the compensation for wet land to Rs. 2000 per cent, while maintaining the High Court's determination for other land categories. The principle established is that landowners are entitled to parity in compensation when their lands are acquired under the same notification and share identical characteristics.

  Questions settled

  • Are landowners entitled to the same rate of compensation as other landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification and share identical characteristics?
  • Can a court enhance compensation for acquired land based on a final, unchallenged award granted to other landowners in the same acquisition proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Justice, Islamabad2018 P.S.C. 1078 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Supreme Judicial Councilin camera proceedingsjudicial accountabilityindependence of judiciaryimplied powersopen justiceArticle 209due process
  Summary & questions settled

  Sitting High Court Judges facing misconduct inquiries before the Supreme Judicial Council filed constitutional petitions under Article 184(3) challenging the Council's order refusing open-court hearings and contesting the constitutional validity of the Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Enquiry 2005, specifically paragraphs 7 and 13. The Supreme Court examined the legal nature of the Council, its procedural powers, and the constitutionality of in-camera disciplinary inquiries. Disposing of the petitions, the Court held that the Council is a unique constitutional domestic fact-finding forum possessing implied and ancillary powers to frame its own procedural rules, rendering the 2005 Procedure intra vires. While preliminary scrutiny must strictly occur in camera, subsequent inquiry proceedings are also presumed in camera for institutional integrity and the judge's reputation; however, the judge may waive this privilege. Nonetheless, the Council retains overriding discretion to maintain in-camera proceedings under recognized exceptions, such as preventing scandalous attacks. The Council was directed to decide the petitioners' open-hearing requests afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Judicial Council possess implied and ancillary constitutional powers to formulate its own rules of procedure in the absence of an express legislative enactment?
  • Does Article 209(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 disqualify a member of the Supreme Judicial Council from participating in inquiries concerning third parties merely because that member is also facing an inquiry?
  • Can a judge facing an inquiry before the Supreme Judicial Council waive the benefit of in-camera proceedings under paragraph 13 of the Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Enquiry 2005, and what are the limitations on such a waiver?
  • Are in-camera proceedings conducted by the Supreme Judicial Council violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 10A and 19A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Justice, Islamabad and others2018 PLD Supreme Court 538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Supreme Judicial CouncilJudicial misconductIn-camera proceedingsOpen courtConstitutional petitionImplied powersJudicial independenceDue processFundamental rightsJudicial accountability
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court adjudicated Constitution Petitions challenging the in-camera proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against sitting Judges for alleged misconduct, and the vires of the SJC Procedure of Enquiry 2005. The core legal questions revolved around whether SJC proceedings must be open, the constitutionality of in-camera hearings, the SJC's power to frame its own procedure, and the applicability of fundamental rights like due process and freedom of information. The Court held that the SJC is a unique constitutional forum, not a court, akin to a domestic disciplinary tribunal, conducting administrative and fact-finding inquiries with recommendatory but conclusive findings. It ruled that the SJC possesses implied power to frame its own procedure, thus validating the SJC Procedure of Enquiry 2005, including paragraph 7 (preliminary scrutiny) and paragraph 13 (in-camera proceedings). The Court affirmed that in-camera proceedings do not violate the Constitution, serving to protect the judge's reputation and the judiciary's institution from baseless allegations. While acknowledging the general principle of open justice, the Court recognized well-defined exceptions, emphasizing that the right to information (Article 19A) is subject to reasonable restrictions. The SJC was directed to revisit and decide afresh the request for open proceedings, considering the judge's waiver of in-camera privilege and the SJC's discretion to hold in-camera proceedings based on recognized exceptions.

  Read full judgment →
• Justice (RTD.) Shoaib Saeed, Chairman Muhammad Waqas vs Inspector2018 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 95 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 2017-01-18
  service lawdisciplinary proceedingsdouble jeopardypast and closed transactionPEEDA Actlimitation for revisionspecial law vs general lawreinstatementlocus poenitentiae
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed before the Punjab Service Tribunal challenging the respondent authority's order rescinding the appellant's reinstatement in service. The appellant had originally been dismissed from service under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA Act, 2006), but his penalty was reduced to forfeiture of one year of approved service by the revisional authority. Two years later, the authority issued a fresh show-cause notice on identical charges and rescinded the reinstatement order under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Tribunal evaluated whether the authority could reopen the matter after statutory limitation and whether general powers of rescission apply against special enactments. The Tribunal held that issuing a fresh show-cause notice on identical allegations amounted to impermissible double jeopardy and disturbed a past and closed transaction. Furthermore, under Section 17(1) of the PEEDA Act, 2006, suo motu or revisional examination was limited to one year. Since the PEEDA Act is a special law, it overrides general powers under the General Clauses Act. The appeal was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether departmental authorities can issue a fresh show-cause notice and re-open disciplinary proceedings on identical allegations previously decided by an appellate authority?
  • Does Section 17(1) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 bar the competent authority from calling for and examining records after the expiry of one year?
  • Can Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 be invoked to rescind a service order passed under the special provisions of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
  Read full judgment →
• Justice (R) Sardar Abdul Hameed Khan, Judge of High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir vs Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and 4 othersPLD 2018 High Court (AJ&K)] 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Jurio Mal through L.Rs and others vs Nanik Ram and others2018 CLC 1082 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-04Read full judgment →
• Junaid Arshad vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 739 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-05
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailcybercrimemala fideequality before lawelectronic evidenceFIA investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by a senior police officer accused of creating a fake social media profile to disseminate sexually explicit images of his estranged wife. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, given his status and assertions of innocence, was entitled to the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any mala fide or abuse of process in the investigation. The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an exceptional remedy, not a substitute for post-arrest bail, and is reserved for cases where the prosecution is motivated by malice. The court further established the principle that the law does not distinguish between citizens based on social status, official position, or power. Forensic evidence, including IP logs and subscriber information obtained from Facebook, provided sufficient grounds to deny the relief, as the court affirmed that the law treats all individuals equally regardless of their professional rank or worldly status.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail a right that can be claimed in every criminal case as a substitute for post-arrest bail?
  • Does the status or official position of an accused person entitle them to special consideration or preferential treatment in bail proceedings?
  • What is the primary legal requirement for the grant of pre-arrest bail in Pakistan?
  • Can forensic evidence, such as IP logs and subscriber information, be sufficient to deny a petition for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs The State2018 YLR 949 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-28
  pre-arrest bailfurther enquirycounter-versiondelayed FIRC-class reportmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This application for pre-arrest bail arose from a murder case where the applicant was nominated in the First Information Report (FIR) but was not attributed with any overt act of firing at the deceased. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, pointing to a five-day delay in lodging the FIR, a counter-version of the incident recorded in an earlier FIR by an independent witness where the applicant was listed as an injured witness, and the fact that the investigating officer had recommended the disposal of the case under "C" class. The High Court of Sindh observed that the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained, the applicant had sustained ten injuries during the incident as supported by medical evidence, and the existence of two conflicting versions of the same incident created a situation of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant's involvement required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained five-day delay in lodging an FIR, combined with a conflicting counter-version of the same incident, makes a case fit for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when no overt act of firing is attributed to the accused and the investigating officer recommended the case for disposal under 'C' class?
  • Does the existence of a prior FIR lodged by an independent witness, which portrays the accused as an injured witness rather than a culprit, support the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs Ayub and 8 others2018 PLJ AJ&K 134, 2018 PLD Balochistan 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-08-07Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs Ameer Sultan and others2018 YLR 334 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-11Read full judgment →
• Juma Gul vs Government of Pakistan Model Customs Collectorate2018 YLR 75 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
• Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witness_ff201d182018 SCMR 1593 · Supreme Court of CanadaRead full judgment →
• JSK Securities Limited vs Commissioner (Securities Market Division), Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan2018 CLD 1211 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2018-05-15Read full judgment →
• Joseph Peter Paul Groia vs Law Society of Upper Canada., Director of_1e53122f2018 SCMR 1478 · Supreme Court of CanadaRead full judgment →
• Jehanzeb Touseef etc vs Habib Bank Limited2018 [M] C.L.R. 1452, 2018 P.C.T.L.R. 552 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-20Read full judgment →
• Jehanzaib Habib and 7 others vs Government of the Punjab and others2018 CLC 1422 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
• Jehan Sharif vs The State2018 MLD 504 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-24
  post-arrest bailnarcotics traffickingprohibitory clauseprima facie connectioncontraband recoverybail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail petition arises from a criminal case where the petitioner, Jehan Sharif, sought post-arrest bail following his apprehension for allegedly trafficking 930 grams of heroin concealed within his stomach. The petitioner was intercepted based on intelligence reports while attempting to board a flight to Sharjah. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offence and the evidence presented, specifically the recovery of narcotics and an affirmative Forensic Science Laboratory report. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner was prima facie connected to the commission of the offence. The Court emphasized that trafficking narcotics, particularly when involving international travel and the potential for severe consequences abroad, constitutes a serious offence. The key principle laid down is that even if an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail may still be refused if the accused is prima facie connected to a serious offence involving the trafficking of contraband narcotics.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be refused in a narcotics case even if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the recovery of narcotics from the body of an accused, supported by a positive Forensic Science Laboratory report, establish a prima facie case for the denial of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawed Akhtar vs Secretary Education & others2018 SHC 910 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-04
  contractual employmentconstitutional jurisdictionstatutory service rulesmaster and servanttermination of servicedue processdisputed questions of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a contract employee of the Sindh Education Foundation, challenged his termination order, alleging it was issued without lawful authority and violated his right to a fair hearing. The core legal questions were whether the Sindh Education Foundation Employees Service Rules, 1999, are statutory, thereby rendering the petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution, and whether the termination of a contract employee without a formal inquiry constitutes a violation of fundamental rights. The Court held that because the Service Rules were framed under the Sindh Education Foundation Act, 1992, they are statutory, making the petition maintainable. However, on merits, the Court found that the petitioner was afforded due process, including show-cause notices and an inquiry committee, and that his contractual status precluded any vested right to reinstatement. The Court further affirmed that it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact within its constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that while statutory service rules allow for judicial review, contract employees remain subject to the principle of master and servant.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Sindh Education Foundation Employees Service Rules, 1999 considered statutory in nature?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an organization governed by statutory service rules?
  • Does a contract employee possess a vested right to claim reinstatement in service?
  • Can the High Court adjudicate disputed questions of fact within its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawaid Alam vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 SHC 995 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-27Read full judgment →
• Javeed vs The State2018 MLD 1146 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-10-27Read full judgment →
• Javed vs The State2018 MLD 1533 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-22
  recall of witnesscriminal revisionfilling up lacunapost-deposition affidavitretraction of testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant invoked criminal revision jurisdiction to challenge an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing his application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby he sought to recall and re-examine a prosecution witness. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to summon the witness to confront him with a subsequent affidavit retracting his earlier deposition. The Sindh High Court held that the application was an afterthought filed eleven months after the witness's deposition, aimed at filling gaps in the defence and procuring an unwarranted re-examination without showing grave illegality or irregularity. The court ruled that powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be exercised as a matter of routine to permit the re-cross-examination of a fully cross-examined witness or to facilitate the filling of lacunae in the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the power to recall a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be exercised as a matter of routine?
  • Can a witness be recalled for re-examination based on an affidavit executed months after the recording of his testimony?
  • Does the refusal to recall a witness who has already been thoroughly cross-examined amount to an illegality or irregularity warranting interference in criminal revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Judge Family Court and others2018 MLD 1296 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-04Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Additional Sessions Judge, Hafizabad and others2018 P Cr. L J 426 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-07
  quashing of proceedingsabuse of process of courtacquittal at premature stagecriminal breach of trustcheatingcivil dispute given criminal color
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 called into question orders passed by the lower judicial forums dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and subsequent revisional proceedings. The core legal question was whether an application for acquittal under Section 249-A can be entertained before recording prosecution evidence, and whether criminal proceedings instituted from a civil land dispute constituted an abuse of the process of the court. The Lahore High Court held that an application under Section 249-A can be filed at any stage of the trial even before recording evidence, and that utilizing criminal proceedings as a tool for leverage in a civil dispute when no ingredients of the alleged offenses are made out warrants quashment. The court established the principle that where there is no probability of conviction and criminal process is abused, the High Court under Section 561-A may set aside interlocutory orders and acquit the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be filed and entertained before the recording of prosecution evidence?
  • Whether criminal proceedings can be allowed to continue when a dispute is essentially civil in nature and initiated to gain leverage in civil litigation?
  • What are the mandatory ingredients required to attract the offense of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal and another vs The State2018 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-02-26
  criminal appealrapeabductionbenefit of doubtprosecution evidencemedical evidencecredibility of witnessesacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged the conviction and sentences of the petitioners for abduction and rape under Sections 365-B and 376(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged eyewitness testimony and medical evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the complainant’s account of witnessing the rape after a chase was highly improbable, considering the distance, the presence of populated areas, and the lack of inquiry by the complainant. Furthermore, the court noted significant contradictions between the victim's testimony and the medical examination, particularly regarding the timing of the alleged injury and the absence of forensic evidence on the victim's clothing. Holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to these unexplained lacunas and inconsistencies, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and acquitted the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of any doubt arising from material inconsistencies and unexplained gaps in the prosecution's evidence must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to explain material contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and the victim entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the medical evidence regarding the timing of an injury contradicts the prosecution's timeline of the occurrence?
  • Should the benefit of the doubt be extended to an accused when the prosecution's narrative of the crime is inherently improbable and unsupported by physical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Planning and Development Division and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 228 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-08-21
  minimum wagecontractual employeesfundamental rightsright to livelihoodpublic policyBECS projectwrit petitionexploitation of labor
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, teachers in the Basic Education Community Schools (BECS) project, filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to fix their monthly salary at the government-notified minimum wage of Rs. 13,000, rather than the lower honorarium they were receiving. The core legal question was whether the government could pay contractual employees less than the statutory minimum wage based on their employment contracts. The Court held that the payment of a salary below the minimum wage to the petitioners was unlawful and constituted exploitation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court ruled that the state is obligated to ensure fair remuneration, and any contract stipulating wages below the statutory minimum is unenforceable as it violates public policy. The Court affirmed that the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution includes the right to earn a livelihood with dignity, and paying meager wages impedes the state’s constitutional obligation to provide education under Article 25-A. Consequently, the respondents were directed to ensure the petitioners receive the notified minimum wage.

  Questions settled

  • Are contractual government employees entitled to the minimum wage notified by the government despite agreeing to a lower salary?
  • Does the payment of a salary below the minimum wage violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Is an employment contract that stipulates wages below the statutory minimum wage enforceable against the state?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal & 8 others vs The State2019 KLR Criminal Cases 119, 2019 P Cr. L J 484, 2018 LHC 2794 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-26
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubtocular evidencemurder trialdeath sentenceforensic reportreliability of witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences imposed by the trial court in a murder case involving the deaths of five individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and forensic evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed and unreliable. The Court identified significant discrepancies, including the suspect time of occurrence, the unexplained delay in conducting autopsies, and the unconvincing nature of the ocular testimony provided by the complainant and other witnesses. Furthermore, the Court noted that the motive alleged was unsubstantiated, and the identification of the accused in dark, crisis conditions was improbable. Consequently, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's ocular account is inherently suspect and riddled with contradictions, forensic evidence alone cannot bridge the gap to sustain a conviction. The Court emphasized that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution's narrative is not free from reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can forensic evidence alone sustain a conviction when the ocular account is found to be unreliable?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting autopsies cast doubt on the prosecution's timeline of a murder occurrence?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution's narrative regarding the time and circumstances of the crime is inconsistent with the medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Hassan vs Mst. Farkhnda Yasmin and others2018 CLC 273 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-23Read full judgment →
• Javed Hameed and 7 others vs Aman Ullah and 12 others2018 YLR 131 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-03Read full judgment →
• Javed Butt vs District Regional Transport Authority (Drta) through Chairman and 2 others2018 PLD Lahore 122 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-23Read full judgment →
• Janna T Bibi vs State etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 190 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-11
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelay in FIRattempted murdercriminal conspiracyappraisal of evidencebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 437/2017 registered under Sections 324, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, Okara, facing allegations of pressing the necks of children and setting household articles on fire. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, observing an unexplained thirty-three-hour delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions regarding eyewitness accounts under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, discrepancies in medical examination timings and history, absence of burnt items collected from the scene, and pending animosity between the parties. The court laid down the principle that where multiple circumstances collectively render the prosecution's case doubtful and cast shadow on the allegations, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging the FIR can make a criminal case one of further inquiry for the purpose of post-arrest bail?
  • Does contradiction between eyewitness statements and the FIR regarding presence at the scene justify granting bail?
  • Whether discrepancies in medical history and delay in medical examination support a petition for post-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• Janabai vs Additional Commissioner and Others2018 SCInd 63 · Supreme Court of India · 2018-09-19Read full judgment →
• Jan Noor vs Hidayat Shah and 2 others2018 PLJ Peshawar 35, 2018 MLD 131 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-19Read full judgment →
• Jan Nisar Zafar vs The State2018 MLD 1857 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-02Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs The State2018 YLR 746 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-04
  post-arrest bailforeigners actnationality disputeprohibitory clauseNADRA verification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Jan Muhammad, who was confined in jail in connection with Crime No. 08 of 2017 registered at Police Station Naperkot, District Shikarpur, for an offence under section 14(2) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, after his bail was earlier declined by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Shikarpur. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given that NADRA authorities verified his family data while his own nationality remained subject to further proof, and whether the alleged offence fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail as the offence carried a punishment extendable up to five years thus falling outside the prohibitory clause, the challan had been submitted rendering him unnecessary for further investigation, and NADRA verification supported aspects of his identity. The court laid down the principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused is no longer required for investigation, bail should generally be granted, leaving deeper questions of nationality for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged under section 14(2) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the verification of family data by NADRA authorities constitute a ground for granting post-arrest bail pending trial regarding a disputed question of nationality?
  • Is an accused person entitled to bail when the challan has been submitted and they are no longer required for further investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs Custodian Evacuee Property Aj&K Muzaffarabad2018 PLJ AJ&K 35 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad alias Janu vs The State2018 YLR 190 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-06
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsControl of Narcotic Substances Actprohibitory clauserecovery of charasindependent mashirsbail in narcotics cases
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in a case registered under Section 6/9/C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 4.5 kilograms of Charas. The core legal question involves whether an accused found in possession of a massive quantity of narcotics is entitled to bail under the prohibitory clause, and whether sentencing guidelines from precedents like Ghulam Murtaza apply at the bail stage. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the recovery of 4.5 kg of Charas attracts Section 9(c) of the CNSA, bringing the case within the prohibitory clause. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Socha Gul v. The State, the court held that sentencing guidelines restricting sentences based on quantity at the trial stage are not strictly applicable at the bail stage, that narcotics offenses are crimes against society, and that the absence of independent mashirs does not invalidate the search due to the explicit exclusion of Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code under Section 25 of the CNSA.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sentencing guidelines limiting punishment based on the quantity of recovered narcotics are applicable at the bail stage?
  • Does the absence of independent mashirs vitiate a search and seizure under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the recovery of 4.5 kilograms of Charas bring an offense under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 within the prohibitory clause for the purpose of bail?
  • Is bail to be granted as a matter of course when an accused is charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamshoro Joint Venture Limited vs Sui Southern Gas Company Limited2018 SHC 785 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-29Read full judgment →
• Jamshad Khan vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman2018 P Cr. L J 341 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-24
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaytrial delayconstitutional petitionaccountability referenceMudariba fraudliberty of the subject
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking post-arrest bail by an accused facing trial in a reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau regarding alleged financial fraud involving the collection of funds under the guise of 'Mudariba' business. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial, given that only eight out of 296 prosecution witnesses had been examined despite previous court directions to expedite proceedings. The Court held that keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period, where the delay was not attributable to the accused, violated the interests of justice. Relying on established precedents, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that an accused cannot be left to languish in jail indefinitely due to the slow pace of trial. The principle laid down is that while statutory restrictions on bail exist, the court retains the discretion to grant relief in cases of prolonged, unjustified trial delays not caused by the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted bail on the ground of inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial?
  • Does the court have the discretion to grant bail in cases of prolonged incarceration where the delay is not attributable to the accused?
  • Is the pace of trial a relevant factor in determining the entitlement to bail for an accused in custody?
  Read full judgment →
• James Chadwick Rankin, Carrying on Business as Rankin's Garage & Sales vs J.J. by His Litigation Guardian, J.A.J., J.A.J., A.J. and C.C., Ontario Trial Lawyers Association and Justice for Children and Youth---Interveners2018 SCMR 1634 · Supreme Court of CanadaRead full judgment →
• Jameel Ramzan Dehwar, Advocate, Supreme Court at Quetta vs Sadiq2019 [M] C.L.R. 1160, 2018 PLD Balochistan 67 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ramzan Dehwar, Advocate Supreme Court vs Sadiq Sanjrani and 32019 KLR Civil Cases 403, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1227, 2018 PLD Balochistan 67 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Jalil Ahmad Khan vs State and 8 others2018 PLJ Lahore 421 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-01Read full judgment →
• Jalaluddin vs Dileep and another2018 YLR 697 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-24
  acquittal appealdishonour of chequepresumption of double innocencematerial contradictionscriminal procedureappellate review
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in a case involving the dishonour of a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on correct legal premises given the evidence presented. The High Court, upon reviewing the record, identified material contradictions in the prosecution witnesses' statements and noted the respondent's defense that the loan amount had been repaid and the cheque misused. The Court held that the trial court's judgment was a well-reasoned, speaking order. The key principle laid down is that the principles for deciding appeals against conviction and acquittal differ significantly; once an accused is acquitted by a competent court after a trial, they earn a presumption of double innocence, which cannot be disturbed by an appellate court without compelling grounds or justification.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquitted accused enjoy a presumption of double innocence that limits the scope of appellate interference?
  • Can an appellate court set aside an acquittal judgment where the prosecution evidence contains material contradictions?
  • Is a trial court's judgment of acquittal sustainable if it provides sufficient and convincing reasons for the decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalal Shah vs Niaz Akber and 2 others2018 P Cr. L J 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-26
  statutory bailpost-arrest baildelay in trialhardened criminalfundamental right to fair trialcriminal procedurebail on statutory grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by an accused charged under sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, citing statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having been detained for over two years without the trial concluding, was entitled to bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the "hardened, desperate or dangerous" exception in the fourth proviso applied due to his involvement in other criminal cases. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as a matter of right, as the statutory period of two years had elapsed without the trial concluding, and the delay was not attributable to the accused. The Court further clarified that a murder arising from a dispute over womenfolk does not inherently classify an accused as a "hardened, desperate or dangerous" criminal. The key principle laid down is that where the statutory period for trial completion is exceeded without fault of the accused, bail should be granted unless the accused falls strictly within the exclusionary categories of the fourth proviso.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory period for bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 commence from the date of arrest or the date of framing of the charge?
  • Is an accused charged with murder arising from a dispute over womenfolk automatically classified as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminal for the purposes of the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When does the delay in the conclusion of a trial entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Jai Singh and Ors vs University Grants Commission and Ors2018 SCInd 93 · Supreme Court of India · 2018-09-24Read full judgment →
• Jahanzaib Malik vs Balochistan Public Procurement Regulatory Authority2018 KLR S.C. 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-04
  public procurementappointment validityeducational qualificationjudicial reviewjurisdictioncontract extensionservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside the appointment and subsequent contract extension of the petitioner as Director (Monitoring and Evaluation) at the Balochistan Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (BPPRA). The core legal questions were whether the petitioner possessed the requisite educational qualifications by the application deadline and whether the High Court acted within its jurisdiction by setting aside an extension order that was not challenged in the pleadings and affected third parties not before the court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was qualified, as the transcript confirmed completion of his MBA degree by the relevant date, despite the formal issuance of the degree certificate occurring later. Furthermore, the Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside an extension order that was never challenged by the respondent and by nullifying the extensions of other employees who were not parties to the proceedings. The judgment reaffirms that formal degree issuance dates do not invalidate qualifications if course work was completed by the deadline and emphasizes the limits of judicial review regarding unchallenged administrative orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does the formal issuance date of a degree determine qualification if the course work was completed by the application deadline?
  • Can a High Court set aside an administrative order that was not challenged in the pleadings?
  • Is it permissible for a court to set aside the service extensions of third parties who were not impleaded in the petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahanzaib Malik vs Balochistan Public Procurement Regulatory2018 SCMR 414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-04
  public procurementeducational qualificationservice extensionwrit jurisdictionsuo motu noticeappointment eligibilitynatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment that set aside the appointment and subsequent service extension of the petitioner as Director (Monitoring and Evaluation) at the Balochistan Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (BPPRA). The High Court had ruled that the petitioner lacked the requisite educational qualification on the application deadline, as his MBA degree was formally issued after that date. The Supreme Court examined whether the completion of academic requirements prior to the deadline, despite the delayed formal issuance of a degree, satisfied the eligibility criteria. The Court held that since the petitioner had successfully completed his coursework and examinations in January 2014, as evidenced by his transcript and degree certificate, he was duly qualified before the August 2014 deadline. Furthermore, the Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside a service extension order that was never formally challenged by the respondent. The Court emphasized that a candidate who has completed all academic requirements for a degree is considered qualified, and courts cannot strike down administrative orders involving third parties without providing them a hearing.

  Read full judgment →
• Jahanzaib Khan vs Special Judge CNS Court, Lahore and another2018 P Cr. L J 354 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-18
  local inspectionfair trialdue processnarcotics traffickingcriminal procedureconstitutional rightevidence appreciation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged an order by the Special Court, CNS, Lahore, which dismissed an application under Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant, charged with drug trafficking, sought a local inspection of the vehicle allegedly used for the crime to prove the absence of secret cavities where narcotics were purportedly concealed. The core legal question was whether the trial court was obligated to conduct this inspection and whether its refusal infringed upon the appellant's fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court’s refusal was arbitrary and caused a miscarriage of justice. It ruled that Section 539-B permits the inspection of "any other place," which includes a vehicle parked outside the courtroom. The court emphasized that the right to a fair trial requires courts to facilitate the discovery of truth, particularly when the defense challenges the physical possibility of the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial judge to conduct the inspection personally.

  Questions settled

  • Does the phrase 'any other place' in Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 include a vehicle parked outside the courtroom?
  • Can a trial court delegate its duty to conduct a local inspection under Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the defense counsel?
  • Does the refusal of a trial court to inspect physical evidence that is central to the defense's case constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Jaffar Khan vs Syed Moead Ahmed2018 MLD 355 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-30Read full judgment →
• Jadeed Education Services through authorized person and 5 others vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, School Education Department and others2018 YLR 1371 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-13Read full judgment →
• Jacob's Bakery Limited through Attorney vs English Biscuits2018 CLC 1357 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-12
  trademark disputeres subjudicestay of suitinherent powersCode of Civil Procedureconflicting decisionsrevision applicationintellectual property
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges an order dismissing an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which sought to stay a suit concerning trademark proprietorship. The core legal question was whether a suit could be stayed pending the outcome of a related statutory appeal regarding the same trademark to avoid conflicting decisions. The Court held that even if the strict requirements of Section 10 are not met, the Court possesses inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to stay proceedings to prevent the abuse of process and the possibility of conflicting adjudications. The Court emphasized that the substance of the litigation, rather than its technical form, dictates whether a stay is necessary to secure the ends of justice. Consequently, the Court directed the trial court to proceed with recording evidence but prohibited the pronouncement of a final judgment until the pending appeal is resolved, thereby balancing the need for expeditious trial proceedings with the necessity of avoiding contradictory judicial outcomes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court stay a suit under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the strict requirements of Section 10 are not met?
  • Does the pendency of a statutory appeal regarding a trademark justify staying a subsequently instituted suit concerning the same trademark?
  • Is a revision application maintainable against an order dismissing an application for stay of proceedings under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the substance of litigation, rather than its form, determine the applicability of stay of proceedings to avoid conflicting decisions?
  Read full judgment →
• J.S. Bank through Authorized Officers vs Messrs Landhi Steel Mill through Managing Partner and 4 others2018 CLD 1016 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-09Read full judgment →
• Izhar alias Khani and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 153 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-14
  post-arrest bailrobberyunnamed accusedtest identification paradejuvenile offenderfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arising out of FIR No. 701 registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Muzaffarabad District Multan. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail where the FIR was lodged against unknown persons, identification parade yielded no specific role, and the petitioners are minors with no previous criminal record. The Lahore High Court held that the case of the petitioners calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting their status as minors, lack of criminal record, inconsequential identification parade, and prolonged incarceration without trial progress. The petition was consequently allowed, and the petitioners were admitted to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when an FIR is registered against unknown persons and identification parade fails to assign a specific role to the accused?
  • Does the detention of minor petitioners without substantial progress in the trial warrant further inquiry into their guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Isteftanosh vs Mst. Bibi Gul Badora and others2019 CLC 186, 2018 PHC 1627 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-14Read full judgment →
• Issa Khan vs The State2018 YLR 752 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-10-27Read full judgment →
• Israr Ahmed vs The State2018 MLD 1142 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-31
  post-arrest bailmurderstrangulationprohibitory clausefurther inquirycircumstantial evidencemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of his wife by strangulation. The core legal question was whether the applicant had made out a case for further inquiry and grant of bail given the incriminating material, medical evidence, and circumstantial proof connecting him to the crime. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that prima facie the prosecution had collected sufficient direct, medical, and circumstantial evidence, including a post-mortem report indicating death by strangulation and supporting recoveries, and that the case fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where tentative assessment of the record reveals sufficient incriminating and medical evidence connecting the accused to a heinous crime, and the trial is at an advanced stage, the concession of post-arrest bail is rightly declined.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the medical and circumstantial evidence prima facie connects the accused to the alleged murder?
  • Does a post-mortem report indicating strangulation bring the case within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the availability of incriminating recovery and supporting testimonies at trial disentitles an accused to bail at the pre-trial stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismat Iqbal vs Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, School Education2018 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 212 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  disciplinary proceedingsinquiry officerPEEDA Actservice tribunalquasi-judicial functionstoppage of incrementregular inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant, a Senior Headmistress, who served as an inquiry officer. The competent authority penalized the appellant for allegedly ignoring evidence and favoring an accused during her inquiry, dispensing with a regular inquiry under Section 5(1)(a) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The core legal question was whether the competent authority could dispense with a regular inquiry without recording specific reasons and substance, and whether an inquiry officer could be penalized for findings made in a quasi-judicial capacity. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the competent authority’s power to dispense with a regular inquiry is not unfettered and requires recorded reasoning and substance. Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that inquiry officers perform judicial functions under Section 11 of the Act, protected from disciplinary action for their independent findings absent mala fide. Finding no evidence of bias or misappreciation of facts, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, establishing that disciplinary action against an inquiry officer for their findings requires proof of extraneous considerations, not merely disagreement with the outcome.

  Questions settled

  • Can a competent authority dispense with a regular inquiry under Section 5(1)(a) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 without recording specific reasons and substance?
  • Does an inquiry officer perform judicial functions that protect them from disciplinary action for their findings absent evidence of mala fide?
  • Is the power of a competent authority to dispense with a regular inquiry under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 unfettered?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail Khan and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 31 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-19
  narcotic substancesrepresentative samplingchemical examiner reportpossession of narcoticsconviction reductionrecovery procedurecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by four appellants challenging their convictions and sentences under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of large quantities of charas and opium. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the recovery of the entire contraband substance when samples were not drawn from each individual slab or packet recovered. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove possession of the entire quantity because the complainant did not weigh each slab or packet separately, nor did they draw representative samples from each. Relying on the principle established in Ameer Zeb versus The State (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 380), the Court ruled that where narcotics are recovered in separate physical forms, a sample must be taken from every individual unit for chemical analysis. Failure to do so limits the conviction to only the quantity actually tested and proven positive. Consequently, the Court converted the appellants' convictions from Section 9-C to Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and reduced their sentences accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Is it necessary to take a separate sample from every individual packet or slab of a recovered narcotic substance to secure a conviction for the entire quantity?
  • What is the legal consequence if the prosecution fails to draw representative samples from each individual unit of recovered contraband?
  • Can a conviction under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be converted to Section 9-B if the prosecution fails to prove the weight of the entire recovered substance?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail Khan alias Ismail vs The State and another2018 PHC 1407, 2018 MLD 1393 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Law College vs Higher Education Commission through its2018 [M] C.L.R. 35 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Islam Hussain vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary2019 PLJ Quetta 83, 2018 CLC 820 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Ahmed vs Government of Sindh and others2018 SHC 1051 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-18Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Ahmad vs The State, etc.2018 P.S.C. (Crl.) 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-02-21
  polygamyMuslim family lawsArbitration Councilsecond marriagepermission of Arbitration Councilcriminal convictionIslam injunctions
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction under Section 6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, for contracting a second marriage without the prior written permission of the Arbitration Council. His conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions involved the constitutional vires of Section 6 of the Ordinance regarding Islamic injunctions, the procedural necessity of seeking permission from the Arbitration Council, and the locus standi or competence of the complainant. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 6 does not violate Islamic injunctions as it implements the Quranic precondition of justice in polygamy, that the absence of elected local government officials does not invalidate the requirement where an Administrator acts as Chairman, and that an aggrieved wife is competent to lodge a complaint. The Court laid down that contracting a secondary marriage without fulfilling statutory procedural prerequisites of prior permission and due process constitutes a punishable offense under the law, affirming the penal consequences for non-compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 violate the injunctions of Islam regarding polygamy?
  • Can a man contract a second marriage without the prior written permission of the Arbitration Council if local government elections have not been held?
  • Is an aggrieved wife competent to file a complaint under Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • Is a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 sufficient in itself to establish that a first wife granted permission for a second marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Ishrat Batool and another vs Govt. of Punjab and others2018 KLR Civil Cases 259 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-19Read full judgment →