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.

• Ishrat Batool and another vs Government of Punjab through Secretary2018 PLJ Lahore 898 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Ishrat Ali Lohar vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2019 PLD Sindh 47, 2018 SHC 644 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-23Read full judgment →
• Isfandiyar vs The State2018 YLR R 201 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-12-22Read full judgment →
• Irrigation Labour Union Balochistan Through President vs Balochistan Irrigation Employees Union through President and another2018 PLC 205 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 2017-08-29
  trade union registrationcollective bargaining agentnumerical strength requirementlabour disputeinfructuous appealinquiry report
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a revision petition and an appeal filed against the common judgment of the Labour Court, which had set aside the registration of the appellant trade union. The core legal question revolved around the legality of the registration of a third trade union in an establishment where two unions already existed, specifically concerning the mandatory requirement of having one-fifth membership of the total workforce under the applicable law. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the appellant union failed to meet the mandatory numerical strength requirement of one-fifth of the total workmen employed in the establishment, and that the Registrar had issued the registration certificate in violation of the law and despite an adverse inquiry report. The Tribunal affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court, ruling that where the statutory requirement is clear and uncontverted on the record, further inquiry or evidence is unnecessary, and further noted that the appeal and revision had become infructuous as the registration stood cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the registration of a third trade union is valid without fulfilling the mandatory one-fifth membership requirement when two unions already exist?
  • Does the failure to lead evidence vitiate a trial court judgment when the legal point is already clear from the record and specific statutory provisions?
  • Whether an appeal and revision become infructuous if the impugned registration certificate is cancelled by the authority soon after the trial court judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Iroko Mercy Chimizie alias Jeff Jack More, etc vs The State2018 KLR Criminal Cases 335 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-16
  electronic transactionsviolation of privacy of informationcheating and dishonestycyber crimefraudulent email scampretended inheritance scampre-conviction detention benefit
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Prevention of Electronic Crime Court, Islamabad, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 36 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 and Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for committing an online legacy fraud ("black dollars" scam). The core legal questions involved whether sending an email constitutes an offence under Section 36 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, and whether the prosecution established the charges of cheating and unauthorized access to information systems. The Islamabad High Court held that the ingredients of Section 36 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, were not met as the appellants did not gain or attempt to gain unauthorized access to an information system, thereby setting aside that conviction, but maintained the conviction under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, while reducing the sentence. The key principles laid down include that mere transmission or receipt of a fraudulent email does not constitute a violation of privacy of information under Section 36 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, and that the extension of the benefit of pre-conviction detention under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is mandatory unless strong and convincing reasons are recorded for its refusal.

  Questions settled

  • Does sending a fraudulent email constitute an offence under Section 36 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002?
  • Whether an accused person can be convicted under Section 36 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, without evidence of unauthorized access to an information system?
  • Is the extension of the benefit of pre-conviction detention under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, mandatory for a convicted person?
  • Can a trial court deny the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, without recording cogent and convincing reasons for such refusal?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan vs Abdul Sattar and 6 others2018 MLD 1701 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-25
  murderdeath sentence reductionlife imprisonmentbenefit of doubtocular and medical discrepancycommon intentioncriminal appealacquittal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to death, while acquitting several co-accused. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular versus medical evidence, the sustainability of a death sentence when multiple assailants are implicated for a single or unspecified fatal injury, and the justification for converting a death sentence to life imprisonment under mitigating circumstances. The Sindh High Court held that while the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants regarding the murder and injuries through consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, the imposition of the death penalty was unwarranted because multiple accused fired and it remained unclear whose specific shot caused the fatal wound. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals regarding the convictions but partially allowed them by reducing the death sentences to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the acquittal of the co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a death sentence can be sustained when multiple accused are alleged to have fired and it is unclear whose shot caused the fatal injury?
  • Can the ocular testimony of related and injured witnesses be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence warrants the acquittal of the remaining convicted appellants?
  • Is reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life justified where the attribution of the fatal injury remains ambiguous?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan ullah vs The State2018 MLD 1383, 2018 PHC 1350 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-10
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsfurther inquiryprohibitory clausedisclosure statementcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Irfan Ullah, who was charged under Sections 279 and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following the recovery of 6224 grams of Chars from a vehicle driven by a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, implicated solely through the disclosure statement of the co-accused and not found in immediate possession of the contraband, was entitled to bail. The Court held that the petitioner’s case warranted the concession of bail, as the recovery was not effected from his immediate possession, rendering his involvement a matter of further inquiry to be determined at trial. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offences under Sections 279 and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the investigation was complete and the petitioner’s continued incarceration was unnecessary.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when implicated solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused without recovery from his immediate possession?
  • Do offences under Sections 279 and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the completion of investigation and the readiness of a case for trial constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ullah vs The State through A.G. Peshawar and another2018 MLD 1383 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirynarcotics recoverydisclosure of co-accusedprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Irfan Ullah seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 1153 dated 15.11.2017 registered under sections 279 and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 at Police Station Mingora, District Swat. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when named through a co-accused's disclosure statement regarding a narcotics recovery not made from his immediate possession, and when the other charged offences fell outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that since the contraband was recovered from a vehicle driven by a co-accused and the petitioner's implication rested on a disclosure statement requiring further scrutiny at trial, his case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of evidence pointing to further inquiry warrants the grant of post-arrest bail, especially where investigation is complete and offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused implicated solely through the disclosure statement of a co-accused for a narcotics offense is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the grant of bail when investigation is complete?
  • Are tentative observations made during a bail hearing binding on the trial court during the trial on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan and another vs The State and another2018 YLR 185 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-11
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytest identification paraderobbery-cum-murderprocedural irregularityidentification reportcontradictory statements
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case involving robbery and murder. The petitioners were not named in the FIR but were arrested on suspicion and subsequently identified in a test identification parade. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry given inconsistencies between the FIR, statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the test identification proceedings, alongside procedural irregularities in the identification report. The Court held that the discrepancies in the identification process—specifically regarding the numbering and positioning of the accused—and the conflicting accounts provided by eye-witnesses during the identification parade compared to their initial statements created sufficient doubt to warrant further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the petitioners' guilt required further investigation at trial. The key principle established is that significant procedural irregularities in a test identification parade and material contradictions in witness statements can constitute grounds for bail under the category of further inquiry, as the prosecution's case requires deeper scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy in the numbering and positioning of accused persons during a test identification parade constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can material contradictions between initial statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and subsequent statements during a test identification parade entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case relies on identification evidence that is procedurally flawed?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ali and another vs The State2018 YLR 2128 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-18
  trial in absentiaright to fair trialrecording evidence in presence of accusedcross-examinationremand for retrialAnti-Terrorism Courtamended charge
  Summary & questions settled

  The High Court of Sindh heard criminal appeals challenging the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Hyderabad, which had convicted and sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment along with other penalties. The primary legal issue was whether the conviction could be sustained when the trial court recorded the statements of several key prosecution witnesses in the absence of the accused prior to their arrest and framing of an amended charge, without affording them an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses. The High Court held that conducting proceedings in the absence of the accused and relying on such evidence violated Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to re-examine the concerned witnesses afresh in the presence of the accused with full opportunity for cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence recorded by a trial court in the absence of an accused be used to convict them without affording an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses?
  • Whether recording prosecution evidence in the absence of the accused violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a trial court mandated under Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to record all witness statements afresh in the presence of the accused once they are arrested and an amended charge is framed?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Z. Ahmed and others vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others2018 P Cr. L J 1694 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-22
  National Accountability Ordinancenon-bailable offensebond for appearancepre-arrest bailaccountability courtjurisdiction of Chairman NABCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several constitutional petitions filed by accused persons facing corruption references before accountability courts under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 (NAO). The core legal question is whether section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to NAB references, enabling an accountability court to accept a personal bond for the appearance of an accused upon the filing of a reference, or whether the court must issue non-bailable warrants of arrest since offenses under the NAO are non-bailable under section 9(b). The Sindh High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is inapplicable to NAB proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that because the NAO is a special law with an overriding effect and explicitly declares all offenses to be non-bailable with express statutory bars on regular bail by trial courts, an accountability court cannot circumvent these provisions by taking a appearance bond under section 91. The key principle laid down is that once a reference is filed under the NAO, an accused seeking to avoid arrest must approach the superior courts for pre-arrest bail under Article 199 of the Constitution, and accountability courts must secure attendance through warrants rather than standard criminal procedure appearance bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is applicable to proceedings and references filed under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Does an Accountability Court have the power to accept a bond for appearance under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 instead of issuing arrest warrants upon taking cognizance of a reference?
  • Are offenses under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 non-bailable, barring subordinate courts from granting bail or relief inconsistent with Section 9(b)?
  • What is the extent of the Chairman National Accountability Bureau's power of arrest after a reference has been formally filed in an Accountability Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Pervaiz vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Social2020 [M] C L R 49, 2019 PLJ Quetta 1, 2018 PLD Balochistan 107 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-04-19Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Pervaiz and others vs Harsan and others2018 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-11
  suit for possessionrevenue recordreview jurisdictionfunctus officiogrant of landmesne profitsrevision application
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants filed suits for possession and mesne profits against members of the Kolhi community, claiming ownership of a survey number based on a 1932 allotment to their predecessor-in-interest. The respondents contended that the land was Government land where their village had existed for over a century, and that the appellants' title documents were bogus. The trial court dismissed the suits, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The Sindh High Court then overturned the appellate court's decision in revision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants failed to prove a valid grant as the primary document (Form-A) did not list the disputed survey number. The Court also ruled that a Member of the Board of Revenue, in review proceedings, acted beyond the scope of review by declaring the appellants as owners without identifying any error apparent on the face of the record, thereby violating the doctrine of functus officio.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court or authority in review proceedings reverse its own final decision on merits without identifying an error apparent on the face of the record?
  • Does the doctrine of functus officio prevent a review forum from substituting its original findings with a completely new opinion?
  • Can a claim of land ownership be sustained if the primary grant document (Form-A) does not contain the disputed survey number?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Masih vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 320 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-18
  post-arrest bailprohibition orderjoint possessionprohibitory clausecriminal procedurerecovery of liquor
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Iqbal Masih, who was arrested in connection with FIR No. 283 dated 7.9.2017, registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 at Police Station Saddar Multan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the nature of the alleged offence. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the alleged recovery of liquor was from joint possession, the prosecution had failed to collect evidence regarding ownership of the place of occurrence, and the Chemical Examiner's report was still pending. Furthermore, the Court observed that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the conclusion of the trial is not in sight, continued incarceration of a first-time offender is not justified.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the absence of a Chemical Examiner's report a relevant factor in determining the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Should bail be granted when the alleged recovery is from joint possession and the trial is not likely to conclude soon?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 1368 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-24
  recall of witnessescross-examinationanti-corruptiondiscretionary powerscriminal revisionfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal revision applications challenge the orders of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption Sukkur dismissing the applicant's applications under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for recalling prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination after the prosecution side had been closed and the matters were fixed for the statement of the accused. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in refusing to recall witnesses for further cross-examination under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a protracted trial of over a decade. The Sindh High Court held that where the accused had been represented by counsel who thoroughly cross-examined the witnesses, discretionary powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall witnesses should not be exercised merely because some questions were inadvertently left out, as this would cause undue delay. However, where the accused had to conduct cross-examination in person without the assistance of counsel, the court held that an opportunity should be afforded to ensure a fair trial in accordance with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. The revision applications were accordingly partly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial court can refuse an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall witnesses for further cross-examination when no valid justification is shown?
  • Does the discretionary power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant recalling witnesses merely because certain questions were inadvertently left out during extensive cross-examination by counsel?
  • Should an accused who conducted cross-examination in person be afforded an opportunity to further cross-examine witnesses where the trial court failed to discharge its duty under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain and 4 others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others2018 YLR 884 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-19Read full judgment →
• Intikhab A. Syed and others vs Chairman, NAB and others2018 CLD 1505, 2019 MLD 127 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-07
  wilful defaultnational accountability ordinancefinancial institutions recovery of finances ordinanceimplied repealretrospectivityspecial lawsbeneficial interpretationbanking court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This common order disposes of several constitutional petitions filed before the Sindh High Court concerning inquiries, investigations, and references initiated by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against petitioners for the offense of wilful default under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal questions revolved around whether the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, as amended by Act No. XXXVIII of 2016, takes precedence over the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 regarding the offense of wilful default, and whether the said amending Act operates retrospectively or prospectively. The court held that the amending Act, being later in time and specific to banking and financial default, prevails over the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 through implied repeal for cases covered under its definition of wilful default, but that the amendment applies prospectively from 13 August 2016. Furthermore, the court held that pending proceedings prior to that date continue under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, subject to the rule of beneficial interpretation regarding lesser sentences provided in the amending Act. The key principles laid down relate to the harmonization of overlapping special laws, the doctrine of implied repeal, prospective application of substantive statutory amendments, and the application of beneficial interpretation to criminal sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, as amended by Act No. XXXVIII of 2016, overrides the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 in respect of the offense of wilful default?
  • Does the amendment introduced by Act No. XXXVIII of 2016 to the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 have retrospective or prospective effect?
  • Are pending inquiries, investigations, and references for wilful default initiated under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 prior to 13 August 2016 saved and required to continue under the same law?
  • Does the rule of beneficial interpretation entitle an accused person convicted of wilful default under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to the lesser sentence prescribed by the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• International Islamic University and others vs Dr. Shahim Tariq2018 IHC 23 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Intekhab Ahmad Abbasi and others vs The State and others2018 SCMR 495, 2018 P.S.C. (Crl.) 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-11-30
  judicial confessionconfessional statementanti-terrorism courtexplosive substances actbenefit of doubtcondonation of delayinterpreter appointmentchain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from criminal appeals against convictions and life sentences awarded under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 PPC, Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). The central legal questions addressed were whether judicial confessions obtained after prolonged unauthorized detention, without proper interpreter appointment, and under the influence of investigating officers are legally reliable, and whether independent witness association is essential in high-profile vehicle search and recovery operations. The Supreme Court converted the jail petitions into appeals and acquitted all appellants by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court held that the prosecution case suffered from irremediable defects, including non-production of key independent witnesses, unexplained alterations in registers and recovery memos, improper recording of confessional statements by Special Magistrates without necessary procedural safeguards, lack of certified interpreter, and unproven explosive composition of the seized materials. The judgment established guidelines and mandatory additional questions for Magistrates when recording judicial confessions in sensitive terrorism matters.

  Questions settled

  • What mandatory procedural safeguards and questions must a Magistrate observe when recording a judicial confession under the Cr.P.C.?
  • Does the failure to appoint an interpreter under Section 543 Cr.P.C. render a judicial confession invalid when the accused does not understand the court's language?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of a judicial confession recorded in the presence or under the influence of investigating officers?
  • Is the non-association of independent public witnesses during a search and seizure operation fatal to the prosecution's case in terrorism trials?
  • Can unsubstantiated chemical analysis reports of seized substances establish an offence under the Explosive Substances Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Intekhab Ahmad Abbasi and another vs The State, etc2018 P.S.C. (Crl.) 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  terrorismbenefit of doubtjudicial confessioncriminal appealexplosive substancesprocedural irregularityinvestigation standardsAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions of the appellants for terrorism-related offences, including conspiracy and possession of explosives. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence, specifically the recovery of explosive materials and the validity of judicial confessions. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing significant procedural flaws, including the absence of independent public witnesses during recovery, the failure to establish the explosive nature of the seized substances, and the coerced nature of the confessions. The Court emphasized that in high-profile cases, courts must exercise extreme caution to prevent being misled by investigating agencies. Furthermore, it laid down that confessions recorded after prolonged police custody, without adherence to strict judicial safeguards—such as the appointment of interpreters for non-native speakers and the exclusion of printed proforma—lack legal efficacy. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt and ordering their immediate acquittal, highlighting the necessity for modern forensic investigation techniques over reliance on forced confessions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent public witnesses during recovery proceedings render the recovery unreliable?
  • Are confessions recorded by a Special Magistrate after prolonged police custody legally valid if they lack proper judicial safeguards?
  • Is the use of printed proforma for recording judicial confessions legally permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to appoint an interpreter for an accused who does not understand the language of the court vitiate a confession?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspector Syed Rahim vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 640, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 208, 2018 PHC 1833 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-11
  defective investigationpolice accountabilityanti-terrorism courtmisconductcriminal appealkidnapping for ransomfabricated record
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of three police officers—an SHO, an Inspector, and a Sub-Inspector—under section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, by the Anti-Terrorism Court for defective investigation and professional misconduct in a high-profile kidnapping for ransom case that resulted in the acquittal of all original accused due to grave investigative flaws, fabricated records, and suppression of material evidence. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the appellants were rightly convicted under section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for acts of omission and commission constituting defective investigation. The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants demonstrated gross inefficiency, incompetence, and deliberate misconduct by failing to follow mandatory legal procedures, tampering with case property, and fabricating records, thereby undermining the administration of justice. The key principle laid down is that police officers wielding vast statutory powers of arrest and investigation are strictly accountable for negligence and misconduct, and where their dereliction of duty results in the miscarriage of justice, they are lawfully liable to summary penal consequences under the Anti-Terrorism Act to ensure institutional integrity and public accountability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether police officers can be prosecuted and convicted under section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for defective investigation and professional misconduct?
  • Does failure to follow mandatory legal procedures during a police inquiry and investigation constitute a criminal breach of duty?
  • Whether deliberate suppression of material evidence and fabrication of case records by investigating officers warrant summary penal consequences?
  • Are police officers accountable for negligence and dereliction of statutory duties that lead to the acquittal of accused persons in heinous cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Inquiry under Article 209 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against Mr. Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, Judge, Islamabad High Court, Islamabad vs N/A2018 SCP 1315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-16
  Supreme Judicial Counciljudicial misconductcode of conductremoval of judgefreedom of speechcontempt of judiciaryIslamabad High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an inquiry conducted by the Supreme Judicial Council under Article 209 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, regarding a public speech delivered by Mr. Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, a Judge of the Islamabad High Court, before the District Bar Association, Rawalpindi. The core legal question was whether the respondent judge's public statements—which leveled serious allegations against the superior judiciary, intelligence agencies, and other state institutions, and criticized judicial verdicts and fellow judges—constituted judicial misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a judge. The Supreme Judicial Council unanimously held that the judge had failed to substantiate his wide-ranging allegations, violated express provisions and the Preamble of the Code of Conduct, and displayed conduct unbecoming of a judge. The Council concluded that the respondent was guilty of misconduct and recommended his removal from office under Article 209(6) of the Constitution, laying down the principle that judges must maintain strict restraint, avoid public controversy, and adhere to traditional requirements of judicial behavior.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judge's public denunciation of the judiciary and state institutions constitute judicial misconduct under Article 209 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution be invoked by a superior court judge to justify public criticism of the judiciary and judicial officers?
  • Is the Code of Conduct issued for judges exhaustive, or does it incorporate broader traditional requirements of judicial behavior?
  • What is the scope of the Supreme Judicial Council's inquiry powers regarding extra-judicial public speeches made by serving judges?
  Read full judgment →
• Inna Yatullah vs The State2018 PLD Balochistan 11 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-07-20
  compromisemurderfasad fil ardcoercionremandappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected acquittal appeal arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kharan, convicting the accused under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for fasad-fil-ard and sentencing him to fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment after recording an acquittal under Section 302/324/34 based on a compromise, while the complainant sought full trial on merits alleging the compromise was procured through duress. The core legal questions revolved around the validity of a compromise in a murder case tainted by coercion, and the propriety of convicting the accused under Section 311 P.P.C. while ignoring allegations of pressure. The Balochistan High Court held that a compromise in criminal matters must be entirely voluntary, genuine, and free from coercion, pressure, or threats, and any doubt regarding free will must be resolved against its acceptance. The Court laid down that trial courts must scrupulously examine the voluntariness of a compromise and the demeanor of parties before acting upon it, setting aside the flawed judgment and remanding the matter for a de novo decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a compromise in a murder case entered into under pressure, coercion, or threats is legally valid?
  • Can a trial court accept a compromise without verifying the free consent and demeanor of the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • What is the effect of a tainted compromise on the acquittal of an accused under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When is an appellate court justified in setting aside a conviction under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and remanding the case for trial on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited vs M/s. Deccan Chronicle2018 SCInd 11 · Supreme Court of India · 2018-02-23
  SARFAESI Actmerger and amalgamationsuccessor-in-interestarbitration proceedingsdebt recoveryfinancial institutionretroactive operationsecurity interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that quashed proceedings initiated by the appellant under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The core legal questions were whether a successor-in-interest, following a merger, could invoke the SARFAESI Act against a borrower when the original lender was not a financial institution at the time of the loan, and whether parallel arbitration proceedings barred the invocation of the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant, as a successor-in-interest, stepped into the shoes of the original lender and could invoke the SARFAESI Act. The Court affirmed that the SARFAESI Act is a special enactment providing a procedural remedy for debt recovery that is retroactive in nature, applying to existing debts. Furthermore, it held that parallel proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 do not preclude the invocation of the SARFAESI Act, as these remedies are complementary and not mutually exclusive. The doctrine of election is inapplicable in such circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can a successor-in-interest invoke the SARFAESI Act against a borrower if the original lender was not a financial institution at the time of the loan?
  • Does the initiation of proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 bar the invocation of the SARFAESI Act?
  • Is the SARFAESI Act retroactive in nature regarding the recovery of existing debts?
  • Does the doctrine of election apply to remedies under the SARFAESI Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
  Read full judgment →
• Independent Thought vs Union of India and another2018 P.S.C. (Crl.) 417 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-10-11Read full judgment →
• Income Tax Officer vs Akbar Gul2018 PCTLR 495, 2018 PSC 844, 2018 PTD 1664, 2018 SCMR 1126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-09
  income taxtax exemptionpoultry farmingunregistered partnership firmindependent assesseesecond recipientshare of profit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh allowing an income tax reference in favor of the respondent-assessee. The core legal question was whether a partner of an unregistered partnership firm could claim tax exemption on his share of profits derived from poultry farming when the firm itself had already availed the exemption under the relevant tax law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that an unregistered partnership firm is an independent assessee and a distinct legal entity under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Consequently, the firm is the original recipient of the exempt income, and a partner receiving a share of profits from the firm is a second recipient. The Court laid down the principle that under section 151 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, tax exemptions are strictly limited to the original recipient and do not extend to any person receiving payments wholly or in part out of that exempt income.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unregistered partnership firm is an independent assessee for the purposes of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a tax exemption available to a partnership firm extend to its partners receiving a share of profits from the firm?
  • Whether section 151 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 prohibits extending the benefit of a tax exemption to a second recipient of income?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1488 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-17
  pre-arrest bailsodomyabsconsionwrongful confinementkidnappingcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged with kidnapping a ten-year-old boy, keeping him in wrongful confinement, and subjecting him to unnatural lust. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of sodomy, the medical evidence, and the applicant's subsequent absconsion. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant was specifically nominated in the FIR with serious allegations supported by a medical certificate confirming sodomy. The Court determined that the delay in lodging the FIR was natural and did not favor the accused, and that the applicant failed to provide a plausible explanation for his absconsion. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant had previously absconded during trial court proceedings. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is not a right where there is a specific, credible allegation of a heinous offense supported by medical evidence, and where the accused has demonstrated conduct inconsistent with innocence, such as willful absconsion and lack of evidence regarding mala fide intent by the complainant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of one day in lodging an FIR automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the accused has absconded during the proceedings?
  • Is the absence of physical violence marks on a victim sufficient to grant bail in a case involving allegations of sodomy?
  Read full judgment →
• Inam-Ul-Rahiem vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad and another2018 PLD Islamabad 251 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-02-08
  National Accountability Bureauaccountabilityjurisdictionholder of public officestatutory interpretationcorruptionimmunitypenal statute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) refusal to investigate a complaint against General (Rtd) Pervez Musharraf, a former President and retired military officer, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, grants the Bureau jurisdiction to investigate a former President and retired military officer for alleged corruption. The Court held that the Bureau erred in its interpretation, ruling that it possesses the requisite jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the definition of "Holder of public office" under Section 5(m) of the Ordinance of 1999 explicitly includes persons who have served as President and those who have retired or resigned from the Armed Forces. Consequently, such individuals are not immune from accountability. The Court established the principle that statutory provisions must be interpreted to give effect to every word, avoiding redundancy, and that penal statutes require strict construction. It further affirmed that the Bureau has a mandatory statutory obligation to consider complaints and proceed in a fair, transparent manner, ensuring across-the-board accountability without fear or favor.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Accountability Bureau have the jurisdiction to investigate a former President of Pakistan under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Are retired members of the Armed Forces of Pakistan amenable to the jurisdiction of the National Accountability Bureau under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can the National Accountability Bureau refuse to entertain a complaint on the grounds of immunity for a former public office holder?
  • Does the definition of 'Holder of public office' in the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, include persons who have resigned or retired from the Armed Forces?
  Read full judgment →
• Inam-Ul-Haq, ASI, District P.S. Layyah vs Inspector General of Police;2018 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 27 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  service appealdeferment of promotionseniority-cum-fitnesspolice serviceback benefitsdeputation experiencefield experience
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed by Inam-ul-Haq, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, challenging his deferment from promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector by the Departmental Promotion Committee due to a lack of required field and deputation experience. The core legal question was whether a civil servant can be denied or deferred from promotion for failing to meet criteria (such as field or unit deputation experience) when such lack of experience was due to being restricted to a specific specialized assignment by competent superior authorities through binding orders, and through no fault of his own. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that if the promotion of an official is deferred without any fault on their part, they are entitled to promotion from the date their juniors were promoted. The Tribunal laid down the principle that failure of the administration to rotate an employee or post them to required units due to specific departmental restrictions placed upon them cannot be used to penalize the employee by denying or deferring their promotion, and directed that the appellant be considered for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted with all back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant's promotion be deferred for lacking mandatory field or deputation experience when such lack of experience results from being restricted to a specialized assignment by superior authorities?
  • Whether an employee is entitled to ante-dated promotion from the date their juniors were promoted when their own promotion was deferred without any fault on their part?
  • Does an administrative lapse in posting an official to required units for promotion criteria affect the civil servant's vested right to be considered for promotion based on seniority-cum-fitness?
  Read full judgment →
• Inam-Ul-Haq vs Allied Bank Limited and 4 others2018 PLC 215 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-01
  constitutional petitionmaster and servantgross misconductunauthorized absencebank employeedismissal from servicedomestic inquiryconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner challenged the orders of the lower forums dismissing his grievance petition and subsequent appeal against his termination from service. The petitioner, employed as a security guard/gunman by a commercial bank, was dismissed following a domestic inquiry for gross misconduct after leaving his duty post unauthorizedly, resulting in a burglary and theft of bank equipment. The core legal question revolved around the validity of the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding the legality of the domestic inquiry and whether unauthorized absence amounting to gross misconduct warrants dismissal from service in a sensitive banking institution. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's absence from a locker-holding branch without leave constituted gross misconduct and breach of trust, and that concurrent findings of fact by lower tribunals based on proper inquiry proceedings cannot be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction. The court reaffirmed that banking institutions involve public trust, and absence from duty causing major loss constitutes misconduct justifying dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether absence from duty without leave in a sensitive banking institution constitutes gross misconduct justifying dismissal?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact rendered by lower labor forums be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction without showing legal or procedural flaw?
  • Whether procedural requirements of a domestic inquiry are satisfied when an employee participates, signs proceedings, and fails to raise timely objections?
  • Does leaving a locker-holding branch unguarded during night duty amount to a breach of public trust warranting strict disciplinary action?
  Read full judgment →
• Inam Shah vs Public-at-Large and anthers2018 PLD Peshawar 30 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-04Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of Letter of Administrator, Shoukat Ali Bhojani2018 PLJ Karachi 65 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-07Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Hussain vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 750 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-03
  blind FIRjudicial confessionretracted confessiondoubtful recoverypolice tortureidentification paradebenefit of the doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder and concealment of evidence under sections 302(b) and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the credibility of a blind FIR, the legality and reliability of a retracted judicial confession, and the authenticity of alleged weapon and article recoveries. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the FIR was unlabelled, no identification parade was conducted, the complainant failed to identify the accused, the recoveries were highly improbable and foisted, and the judicial confession was recorded in blatant violation of statutory mandates under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that a judicial confession vitiates where the magistrate fails to remove police influence, fails to assure the accused of protection from police custody upon refusal, and where recoveries are riddled with absurdities and dishonest investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on the basis of a judicial confession that fails to comply with the mandatory safeguards against police influence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of recoveries made simultaneously on the day of arrest when the timing and circumstances appear absurd and fabricated?
  • Does the absence of an identification parade in a blind FIR where the accused is known to the locality cast serious doubt on the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction be upheld when the prosecution witnesses and complainant fail to identify the accused during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Hussain and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 564 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-04
  sodomyunnatural offencebenefit of doubtmedical evidenceprivate complaintcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants, Imtiaz Hussain and Muhammad Azhar, under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the offence of unnatural intercourse, following a private complaint. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the alleged discrepancies in ocular evidence, the lack of corroborative medical evidence, and the failure of the investigation to conduct essential tests. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court noted that the medical evidence did not confirm penetration, the Chemical Examiner's report was negative for semen, and the investigating officer failed to conduct potency tests on the accused or DNA analysis. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Is a potency test of the accused essential to prove the charge of sodomy?
  • Does the failure of medical evidence to confirm penetration create a reasonable doubt in a prosecution for unnatural offences?
  • Can an accused be acquitted if the prosecution fails to conduct DNA or semen grouping analysis in a case of alleged sodomy?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz alias Taj vs The State and others2018 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-26
  Criminal appealMurderReappraisal of evidenceEyewitness testimonyIndependent corroborationBenefit of doubtAcquittalSection 342 Cr.P.C.Co-convict acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence of the appellant and his co-convict for murder under Section 302(b) PPC read with Section 34 PPC. The core legal questions involved the reappraisal of evidence, specifically the credibility of eyewitnesses when co-accused with similar roles were acquitted without independent corroboration, the impact of medical evidence contradicting the prosecution's timeline, the inadmissibility of evidence not put to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C., and the validity of the alleged motive. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences of both the appellant and his co-convict, acquitting them by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court held that eyewitnesses disbelieved against some accused cannot be relied upon against others with similar roles without independent corroboration. It further reiterated that evidence not put to an accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against them, and the benefit of acquittal can be extended to a non-appealing co-convict if warranted by the case circumstances.

  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ali vs The State2018 YLR 911 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-07Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ali vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 350 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-13
  narcotics recoverysafe custody of samplesdoubtful recoverycriminal appealheroineacquittalCNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to six years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a narcotics recovery made inside a police station rather than at the spot where the vehicle was stopped, the failure to produce material eyewitnesses, the lack of proof regarding safe custody of samples sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory with a delay, and the absence of established nexus between the appellant and the recovered contraband. The Peshawar High Court held that questionable recovery circumstances, non-production of material witnesses, unexplained delay in sending samples to the FSL without proof of safe custody, and failure to prove ownership or driving of the vehicle render the prosecution case doubtful. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does a recovery of narcotics made inside a police station rather than at the initial spot of interception cast a doubt on the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending forensic samples to the laboratory without proof of safe custody?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the accused's nexus with the vehicle or contraband?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmed vs The State thr. Special Prosecutor, ANF2018 SCP 1115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-03-21
  statutory delaypost-arrest bailcontrol of narcotic substancesfundamental rightsspeedy trialsickness of accusedspecial court
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses an appeal against the dismissal of a bail petition sought on the statutory ground of delay in concluding the trial under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the ouster or restrictive clauses regarding bail in special statutes, such as section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, exclude the beneficial provisos of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly regarding statutory delay and serious sickness. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the petitioner, holding that the superior courts' constitutional jurisdiction and duty to protect personal liberty and ensure a speedy trial remain intact despite restrictive provisions in special laws, and that unreasonable or shocking delay in trial proceedings entitles an accused to bail. The key principle laid down is that the beneficial provisos of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—such as those addressing statutory delay or grave illness—are not entirely displaced by special legislation and can be invoked in appropriate circumstances to protect fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the bar on the grant of bail under section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excludes the beneficial provisos of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does an unreasonable or shocking delay in the conclusion of a trial before a Special Court entitle an accused person to the concession of bail?
  • Can the superior courts grant bail on statutory delay or medical grounds despite restrictive clauses in special statutes ousting the jurisdiction of courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmed Dev vs National Accountability Bureau2018 MLD 1998 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-12Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmed Barakzai vs Federal Tax Ombudsman and others2018 SHC 457 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-08
  contractual employmentmaster and servanttermination of servicevested rightFederal Tax Ombudsmanmaintainability of petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Advisor appointed on a contract basis by the Federal Tax Ombudsman, challenged the termination of his contractual employment before the expiry of his term. The core legal question was whether a contractual employee, whose service is governed by the principle of master and servant, has a vested right to complete the full term of a contract or to be heard prior to termination under the terms of that contract. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, dismissing the challenge. It reasoned that the petitioner’s employment was purely contractual and governed by the principle of master and servant, meaning he possessed no vested right to reinstatement or to complete the remaining term of his service. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Federal Tax Ombudsman possesses the statutory discretion to appoint and dispense with the services of advisors under the governing Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that a contractual employee cannot claim a vested right to remain in service or to regularization, and the termination of such temporary employment is permissible in accordance with the terms of the contract.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contractual employee have a vested right to complete the full term of their contract?
  • Is the principle of master and servant applicable to the termination of a contractual employee appointed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman?
  • Can a contractual employee claim a right to regularization or reinstatement after termination?
  • Does the Federal Tax Ombudsman have the discretion to terminate the services of an advisor under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Afzal etc vs Ghulam Fatima etc2018 PLJ Lahore 1063, 2018 LHC 909 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-19Read full judgment →
• Imran vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 716 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-09
  criminal appealmurderattempted murdereyewitness testimonyreasonable doubtabscondenceinterested witnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences awarded by the Sessions Judge, Nowshera, for offenses under sections 302, 324, and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court observed that the complainant, despite sustaining injuries, was not necessarily a truthful witness, and his testimony lacked the required corroboration. Significant discrepancies regarding the site plan, the medical evidence, and the FIR's narrative created serious doubts. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive, and the abscondence of the accused, without corroborative ocular or circumstantial evidence, was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that the benefit of any doubt arising from inconsistencies in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a complainant automatically render their testimony truthful and sufficient for conviction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of the accused's abscondence without corroborative evidence?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove an alleged motive in a criminal case?
  • Does a site plan prepared without the pointation of the complainant or eyewitnesses lose its evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Mohsin vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman2018 PLD Islamabad 62 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-10-25Read full judgment →
• Imran Modi vs Mizhar Uddin (Farooqui) & 2 others2018 SHC 838 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-24Read full judgment →
• Imran Maqbool, President, MCB Bank Limited vs Federation of Pakistan2018 [M] C.L.R. 1783, 2019 PLD Lahore 17, 2019 PLJ Lahore 71, 2018 LHC 1960 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-06Read full judgment →
• Imran Malik vs The State2018 MLD 1116 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-04
  criminal intimidationanti-terrorismbenefit of the doubtanonymous communicationpolice witnessesrecovery of SIMcontradictions in evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 507 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for allegedly making anonymous threatening phone calls to the police '15' emergency helpline regarding suicide bomb attacks. The core legal questions involved whether the threatening calls were made, whether the appellant was the caller, and whether the content fell within the Anti-Terrorism Act. The Sindh High Court held that while the prosecution successfully established that threatening calls were made to the police, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was the person who made the calls, noting severe doubts regarding the recovery of the SIM card, glaring contradictions between police witnesses, failure to join independent observers, and lack of voice identification. The court laid down the principle that the cardinal standards of proof and the benefit of a reasonable doubt cannot be compromised due to societal urgency in combating terrorism, resulting in the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials regarding an unverified anonymous call is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of a recovered mobile SIM card when there are major contradictions regarding its seizure, sealing, and working condition?
  • Does the failure of investigating officers to associate independent observers during an arrest in a populated area vitiate the proof of recovery?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when subsequent threatening calls continue to occur after the arrest of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Khurshid Awan and others vs Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 41 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-07-20
  freedom of associationcivil servantsright to strikeconstitutional petitionadministrative disciplineservice associationsfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of the AJ&K Employees Service Associations (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2016. Petitioners, representing various government employee associations, contested provisions banning strikes, lock-outs, and go-slows, and mandating the re-registration of existing associations, arguing these violated the fundamental right to freedom of association under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The High Court addressed whether such restrictions on civil servants were permissible. The Court held that the impugned Act is constitutional and does not violate fundamental rights. It established that while the freedom of association is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and may be regulated by law in the interest of morality and public order. The Court affirmed that civil servants have no fundamental right to strike, as such actions paralyze public administration and infringe upon the rights of the public. Consequently, the Court upheld the Act, mandating compliance with registration requirements and emphasizing that strikes by public servants constitute misconduct subject to disciplinary action.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prohibition of strikes, lock-outs, and go-slows by government employees violate the fundamental right to freedom of association under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974?
  • Can the legislature impose reasonable restrictions on the formation and regulation of civil servant associations?
  • Do civil servants possess a fundamental right to resort to strikes or lock-outs to press their demands?
  • Is the requirement for existing service associations to re-register under the AJ&K Employees Service Associations (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2016, legally valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Khan vs The State2018 YLR 1648 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-25Read full judgment →
• Imran Khan Niazi vs Ayesha Gulalai2018 SCMR 1043 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-03-14
  defectiondisqualificationparliamentary partyshow cause noticeprocedural fairnessArticle 63AElection Commission of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan, which declined to disqualify the respondent, a Member of the National Assembly, for alleged defection from her political party. The core legal questions were whether the respondent had resigned from her party and whether she had violated party directions by abstaining from voting in the National Assembly. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent had not resigned, as no written resignation was submitted. Regarding the alleged failure to vote, the Court found that the appellant failed to produce evidence of written party directions, rendering the claim based on oral assertions insufficient. The Court further observed that the appellant failed to act against other members who were similarly absent, indicating selective enforcement. Additionally, the Court found the show-cause process procedurally flawed, as the respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend herself. The Court affirmed that disqualification under Article 63A requires strict adherence to procedural fairness and concrete evidence of defection, which was absent in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a public statement expressing an intention to leave a political party constitute a formal resignation under Article 63A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a Party Head required to provide written evidence of party directions to establish defection based on an abstention from voting?
  • Can a Party Head selectively apply disqualification proceedings to a member while ignoring similar conduct by other party members?
  • Does the failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to respond to a show-cause notice violate the requirements of Article 63A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Dilawar vs ANFPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 489 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-18
  narcotics possessionchemical analysissampling proceduresentencing proportionalityControl of Narcotic Substances Actcriminal appealrecovery of contraband
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Imran Dilawar, for the possession of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant was initially convicted for possessing 11 kilograms of narcotics (7 kg opium and 4 kg charas) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution sufficiently proved possession and whether the quantity of narcotics was accurately determined for sentencing purposes, given that samples were not taken from every individual slab (tikki) of opium. The Court held that while the appellant's possession of the vehicle and narcotics was established, the prosecution failed to prove the chemical composition of the entire 7 kilograms of opium because samples were not taken from each individual slab. Consequently, the Court reduced the quantity of opium considered for sentencing to 70 grams. Applying the principle that sentencing must be proportionate to the proven quantity of contraband, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a reduced fine.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to take samples from every individual slab of opium invalidate the prosecution's claim regarding the total quantity of narcotics?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act be maintained if the proven quantity of narcotics is less than the amount originally alleged?
  • Is a defendant's presence in a vehicle sufficient to establish possession of narcotics found within that vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran and another vs The State2018 MLD 1728 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-01-23Read full judgment →
• Imran Amjad Khan vs Islamic Investment Bank Limited (Iibl) through Official Liquidator and 4 others2018 CLD 218 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-03
  Exit Control ListECLwinding upfundamental rightsright to travelsurety bondscorporate insolvency
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, a former Chief Executive Officer of a company involved in transactions with the respondent bank, filed an application seeking the removal of his name from the Exit Control List (ECL). His name had been placed on the ECL following a winding-up order passed by the Peshawar High Court in 2009, which directed that individuals involved in shadowy transactions with the insolvent bank be placed on the list until they provided surety bonds. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who faced a pending criminal complaint but had not been proven to have committed the alleged financial irregularities, should remain on the ECL indefinitely. The Court held that the liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed solely by the registration of a criminal complaint. Applying the principle that the ECL is a regulatory tool rather than a punitive measure, the Court allowed the application, permitting the applicant's removal from the ECL upon furnishing surety bonds and an undertaking to appear before the Court when required, consistent with the original 2009 winding-up order.

  Questions settled

  • Can an individual's name be removed from the Exit Control List if they are willing to furnish surety bonds as required by a court order?
  • Does the mere registration of a criminal complaint justify the indefinite restriction of a citizen's right to travel via the Exit Control List?
  • Is a court empowered to modify the conditions of an Exit Control List placement if the underlying financial liability has been satisfied?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ali vs The State2018 SCMR 1372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-06-12
  plea of guiltyconfessional statementsection 412 Cr.P.C.DNA evidencedeath sentencecoercion and duressleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of the petitioner's conviction and death sentences for kidnapping, sodomizing, raping, and murdering a minor girl, aged 7/8 years, as well as concealing evidence and terrorism under the Pakistan Penal Code and Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved whether a conviction and sentence were maintainable where the accused voluntarily pleaded guilty, made a detailed confession corroborated by objective physical evidence, and later raised unproven allegations of coercion and duress on appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, noting that the confession was both voluntary and true as fully corroborated by CCTV footages, photographs, medical evidence, and DNA tests. Applying Section 412 Cr.P.C., the Court ruled that an accused who pleads guilty can challenge only the extent or legality of the sentence. Given the barbaric nature of the crimes against a minor victim and similar admissions regarding other minor victims, no leniency in sentencing was warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused who pleads guilty before the trial court challenge his conviction on appeal beyond the extent or legality of the sentence under Section 412 Cr.P.C.?
  • Whether an unproven claim of coercion made during appellate arguments invalidates a voluntary confessional statement corroborated by physical evidence?
  • Does corroborative evidence such as DNA tests, CCTV footage, and medical reports establish the voluntary and true nature of a confessional statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed vs Mst. Madiha Younus and 2 others2018 YLR 649 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-06Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan & others vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan and others2018 PLJ SC 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  disqualificationassets beyond meansconstitutional petitionaccountability referencedue processnomination papersunwithdrawn salaryjoint investigation team
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed against the Prime Minister of Pakistan and others, alleging the acquisition of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. Following an earlier order constituting a Joint Investigation Team (JIT), the Court reviewed the JIT's final report. The core legal questions were whether the respondents possessed assets beyond their known means, whether the Prime Minister failed to disclose unwithdrawn salary as an asset, and whether the Court could disqualify a member of Parliament based on JIT findings without a full trial. The Court held that while a prima facie case existed regarding various assets, it could not bypass the due process of a full trial in an Accountability Court for criminal liability. However, the Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s failure to disclose his unwithdrawn salary as an asset in his nomination papers constituted a false declaration. Consequently, the Court disqualified the Prime Minister from being a Member of Parliament under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and directed the National Accountability Bureau to file references against the respondents in the Accountability Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unwithdrawn salary receivable by a public office holder constitute an asset that must be disclosed in nomination papers?
  • Can the Supreme Court disqualify a member of Parliament under Article 62(1)(f) based on findings of a Joint Investigation Team without a full criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to disclose assets in nomination papers render a candidate not 'honest' and 'ameen' under the Constitution?
  • Is the Supreme Court empowered to direct the filing of references in an Accountability Court based on material collected by a court-constituted investigation team?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 IHC 73 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-06-21
  regularization of servicescontract employeesdaily wage employeescivil servantsproject employeesappointment procedurelegitimate expectation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns numerous Intra Court Appeals and writ petitions challenging a consolidated judgment regarding the regularization of contract, daily-wage, and project-based employees across various Federal Government departments. The core legal question was whether these employees possess an enforceable right to regularization based on government policies or length of service, despite not being appointed through the prescribed statutory selection process. The Court held that there is no inherent legal right to regularization outside the statutory framework provided by the Civil Servants Act, 1973. It emphasized that appointments to civil posts must strictly adhere to prescribed selection procedures, including advertisement and, for BPS-16 and above, processing through the Federal Public Service Commission. The Court established a framework for regularization: project employees may only be considered if their projects are converted to non-development status, and BPS-16 and above posts must be referred to the FPSC for fitness determination. It further mandated that future appointments must strictly comply with the law, prohibiting arbitrary contract or daily-wage hiring.

  Questions settled

  • Can contract or daily-wage employees claim a legal right to regularization without following the prescribed statutory recruitment process?
  • Are project-based employees entitled to regularization if their project is converted from development to non-development status?
  • Does the Federal Public Service Commission have the authority to determine the fitness of ad-hoc appointees for regularization under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can the High Court declare a post as permanent under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Imdad Hussain Mirani vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 SHC 902 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-05Read full judgment →
• Imdad Hussain alias Imtiaz and 2 others vs The State2018 YLR 2184 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-21
  dacoitydelayed FIRidentification paradeocular evidencerecovery of stolen propertycriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Matiari, which convicted the appellants for dacoity. The core legal questions concerned whether the one-month delay in lodging the FIR was fatal to the prosecution's case, whether the absence of an identification parade for certain appellants invalidated the conviction, and whether the ocular account, supported by recovery of stolen property, was sufficient for conviction. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The ratio held that a delay in lodging an FIR is not inherently fatal if the prosecution provides a natural explanation and the delay does not prejudice the accused or suggest fabrication. Furthermore, the Court established that identification parades are corroborative, not substantive, and are unnecessary if the ocular account is direct, natural, and confidence-inspiring. The Court emphasized that minor investigative irregularities or discrepancies in testimony do not undermine the prosecution's case when the evidence, read as a whole, proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the witnesses have no motive for false implication.

  Questions settled

  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR inherently fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does the absence of an identification parade automatically invalidate a conviction when the accused are identified in court?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence despite minor investigative irregularities?
  • Is the recovery of stolen property admissible when conducted under a joint mashirnama?
  Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ali S/o Bashiruddin vs The State & others2019 P Cr. L J 440, 2018 SHC 835 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-19
  quashment of proceedingsinherent powersalternative remedyabuse of processtrial court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking the straightaway quashment of criminal proceedings under Sections 465, 302, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, pending before the District and Sessions Judge, South, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings when the applicant had not first approached the trial court under Section 265-K of the same Code. The court held that criminal proceedings must be initiated from the lowest competent forum and that invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction without exhausting the remedy available before the trial court amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. The principle laid down is that a party cannot bypass the trial court's power to acquit or quash proceedings at any stage under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the High Court's inherent powers under Section 561-A should not be used to usurp the functions of subordinate courts or circumvent prescribed legal procedures where alternative remedies exist.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the applicant first approaching the trial court under Section 265-K?
  • Does the filing of a challan by itself constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Is the remedy under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 available to an accused person at any stage of the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikram Ullah vs The State2018 MLD 505 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-07-29Read full judgment →
• Ikhlaq Ahmed vs Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore, etc.2018 P.S.C. 1438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-22
  regularization of contract employeesrelaxation of rulesservice tribunallimitationcivil servantinitial appointmentsubordinate legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing appeals against the termination of the petitioners' employment. The petitioners were initially appointed on contract in the Chief Minister's Secretariat and subsequently regularized under an omnibus order invoking rule 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The core legal questions involved whether contract employment could be regularized without fulfilling initial appointment requirements and whether the ingredients for relaxing rules under rule 23 were fulfilled. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' appeals were rightly dismissed by the Tribunal as time-barred and that the purported regularization and relaxation of rules were illegal, as mandatory preconditions of rule 23 were completely flouted and subordinate legislation cannot contravene the parent statute. The key principle laid down is that rule relaxation powers cannot be abused to bypass statutory appointment procedures, and bureaucrats must act as servants of the State and law rather than showing abject subservience to political executives.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 permits changing the nature of employment from contract to regular without fulfilling legal requirements of initial appointments?
  • What are the ingredients and requirements for the relaxation of rules under rule 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  • Can an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal and a departmental appeal be dismissed on the ground of limitation?
  • Does subordinate legislation have the power to contravene the provisions of its parent statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikhlaq Ahmed and others vs Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and others2018 SCMR 1120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-23
  regularization of servicescontract appointmentrelaxation of rulescivil servantservice tribunallimitationtermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against the Punjab Service Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioners' appeals challenging their termination from service. The petitioners were initially appointed on contract in the Chief Minister's Secretariat, and their services were later regularized in purported relaxation of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The core legal questions concern whether the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 or its rules permit changing contract employment to regular initial appointment without fulfilling statutory requirements, and what the statutory ingredients and requirements for relaxing rules under rule 23 of the said rules are. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioners' appeals were rightly dismissed by the Tribunal as time-barred, and further ruled on merits that the regularization of the petitioners was carried out in blatant disregard of rule 23, as no individual case of hardship or special reasons were recorded by the competent authority. The key principle laid down is that subordinate legislation and rule relaxation powers cannot be abused to bypass statutory appointment procedures, and bureaucrats must act as faithful servants of the law rather than blindly complying with political directives.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 or its rules permit changing the nature of employment from contract to regular employment without fulfilling initial appointment requirements?
  • What are the mandatory ingredients and requirements for the valid relaxation of rules under rule 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  • Can a service appeal or departmental appeal be entertained when filed beyond the statutory period of limitation?
  • Does an omnibus order regularizing employees without recording individual cases of hardship satisfy the legal threshold of rule relaxation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmed and others vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 698 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-29
  murder referencedeath sentence confirmationchance witnessinterested witnessdying declarationbenefit of doubtacquittalfirearm recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal arising from a murder trial, alongside a murder reference for the confirmation of death sentences. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance and partisan eyewitnesses, the legal reliability of a dying declaration recorded by police without a magistrate or doctor, the proof of motive, and the application of corroborative evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses were chance and partisan witnesses whose testimony lacked independent corroboration, that the dying declaration suffered from procedural and physical infirmities rendering it dubious, and that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive or recover incriminating firearms through reliable, uncompromised means. Consequently, the court laid down that the uncorroborated testimony of chance and interested witnesses, coupled with a defective dying declaration, creates a reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of the convicts. The court accepted the appeal against conviction, answered the murder reference in the negative by declining to confirm the death sentences, and dismissed the connected appeal against the acquittal of co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of chance and partisan eyewitnesses can form the basis of a murder conviction?
  • What are the mandatory legal requirements and evidentiary value of a dying declaration recorded solely by police officers without the presence of a magistrate or medical officer?
  • Can the benefit of an acquittal in a murder appeal be extended to a non-appealing convict whose death sentence is before the High Court on a reference for confirmation under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the failure to prove the alleged motive weaken the prosecution's case when the ocular account is otherwise doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad Mirza vs Civil Judge and others2018 CLC 468 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-30Read full judgment →
• Igi Insurance Limited and 3 Others: In the matter of vs Not2018 CLD 572 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-17
  Scheme of AmalgamationScheme of ArrangementCorporate RestructuringCompanies Ordinance 1984Insurance Ordinance 2000Shareholder approvalCourt sanctionDemerger
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the sanction of the High Court for a Scheme of Amalgamation and a Scheme of Arrangement under sections 284 to 288 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The proposed restructuring involved the amalgamation of IGI Investment Bank with IGI Insurance, followed by the demerger of the insurance and investment segments of IGI Insurance into separate wholly-owned subsidiaries. The core legal question was whether the proposed schemes met the statutory requirements and were fair and reasonable for the shareholders and creditors. The Court held that the schemes were beneficial, legally compliant, and approved by the requisite majority of members and creditors. Emphasizing that its role is supervisory rather than appellate, the Court affirmed that it should not substitute its commercial judgment for the collective wisdom of the shareholders unless the scheme is fraudulent or illegal. The Court sanctioned the schemes, subject to compliance with the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, noting that the SECP had withdrawn its initial objections regarding the transfer of insurance licenses.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of the Court's jurisdiction when considering the sanction of a Scheme of Amalgamation or Arrangement?
  • Can the Court substitute its own commercial judgment for the collective wisdom of a company's shareholders and creditors regarding a proposed scheme?
  • Under what circumstances may a Court reject a Scheme of Amalgamation or Arrangement?
  • Does the Court have the authority to lift the corporate veil during the proceedings for the sanction of a scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Hussain vs Govt. of the Punjab, etc2018 [M] C.L.R. 386 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-28Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Gadar vs The State2018 YLR 672 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-04
  pre-arrest bailwhite-collar crimemisappropriation of fundsmala fidetentative assessmentcriminal conspiracybail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, who served as the Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary, in connection with an FIR alleging misappropriation, fraud, and forgery involving company funds. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who acted as a co-signatory for company cheques, was entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail despite allegations of connivance with the primary accused. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to pre-arrest bail, recalling the interim bail previously granted. The court reasoned that while the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the prosecution had presented sufficient incriminating material, including an audit report and recovered electronic devices, to prima facie connect the applicant to the alleged white-collar crime. The court affirmed the principle that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases demonstrating glaring mala fide by the prosecution, which was absent here, and that tentative assessment of the record did not support the applicant's innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the concession of pre-arrest bail available to an accused in a white-collar crime where sufficient incriminating material exists?
  • Does the absence of a case from the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • What is the standard for granting pre-arrest bail in cases involving allegations of financial fraud and forgery?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ali Khan vs Chairman, Punjab Provincial Transport Authority, etc2018 KLR Civil Cases 202 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-31Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 440 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-12
  post-arrest bailcontrolled substancesnarcotic drugsacetic anhydrideheroin productionprecursor chemicalscriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 4.5 kilograms of Acetic Anhydride from the petitioner's vehicle. The core legal question was whether Acetic Anhydride, a chemical substance, falls within the definition of a narcotic drug or controlled substance under the Act, thereby attracting criminal liability for its unauthorized possession. The Court held that Acetic Anhydride constitutes a controlled substance as it is a primary precursor used in the production of heroin, falling within the ambit of the Act's definitions and the relevant Schedules. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the substance was merely an industrial acid, noting that its possession without authorization violates Section 6 of the Act. Finding that the petitioner was caught red-handed with a significant quantity of the substance, and supported by a positive forensic report and witness statements, the Court determined that reasonable grounds existed to connect the petitioner to the offense. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of Acetic Anhydride constitute an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is Acetic Anhydride classified as a controlled substance under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Does the unauthorized possession of a precursor chemical used for heroin production violate Section 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs King Edward Medical University, etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 820 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-16Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs King Edward Medical University and others2017 LHC 3076, 2017 PLD Lahore 825 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-16
  quo warrantoVice-ChancellorPro-Vice-Chancellorstop-gap arrangementstatutory interpretationuniversity appointmentChancellor powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition seeks a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of an acting Vice-Chancellor on a stop-gap arrangement at the King Edward Medical University. The core legal question revolves around whether the Chancellor is empowered to make a temporary appointment to the office of the Vice-Chancellor when the Pro-Vice-Chancellor is available, in light of Section 13(9) of the King Edward Medical University, Lahore (Amendment) Act, 2012. The Lahore High Court held that under Section 13(9) of the Act, if the office of the Vice-Chancellor is vacant, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor automatically assumes the functions of the Vice-Chancellor by operation of law, and the Chancellor's power to make temporary arrangements arises only if the office of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor is also vacant. The court laid down the principle that general powers of appointment under Section 9(7) cannot override specific provisions governing stop-gap arrangements for the office of the Vice-Chancellor, and distinguished between the terms 'functions' and 'duties' in the context of temporary university leadership.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Pro-Vice-Chancellor automatically assume the functions of the Vice-Chancellor when the office of the Vice-Chancellor falls vacant under Section 13(9) of the King Edward Medical University, Lahore (Amendment) Act, 2012?
  • Can the Chancellor make a temporary arrangement for the performance of the duties of the Vice-Chancellor when the Pro-Vice-Chancellor is available?
  • Do the general powers of appointment enjoyed by the Chancellor under Section 9(7) override the specific provisions for stop-gap arrangements under Section 13(9) of the King Edward Medical University, Lahore (Amendment) Act, 2012?
  • What is the distinction between the terms 'functions' and 'duties' as used in Section 13(9) of the King Edward Medical University, Lahore (Amendment) Act, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• Iffat Ara Hassan and 13 others vs The President, National Bank of Pakistan2018 PLC (C.S.) 108 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-11
  constitutional petitionleave encashmentprivilege leavelachespast and closed transactionbank employeesretirement benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, retired employees and legal heirs of deceased employees of the National Bank of Pakistan, filed a constitutional petition seeking a direction to the respondent bank to pay frozen privilege leave balances under Instruction Circular No. 37/1999. The respondent bank contended that the circular had been modified by Circular No. 57/1999 and subsequently superseded by Circular No. 54/2002, which restricted leave encashment. The bank also raised the plea of laches, noting that the petitioners retired between 2003 and 2012 but only filed the petition in late 2012. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the petition, holding that the issue was a past and closed transaction as the petitioners had accepted their retirement benefits without timely objection. The Court ruled that the subsequent circulars superseded the original policy and that the petition was heavily barred by laches, as equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a policy circular that has been subsequently modified and superseded by later circulars can be enforced by retired employees after their retirement?
  • Does the acceptance of retirement benefits without timely objection render a subsequent claim for additional leave encashment a past and closed transaction?
  • Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the ground of laches if the petitioners failed to agitate their service benefits claims for several years after retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Hussain Shah vs (Syed) Intisar Hussain Gillani and 2 others2018 KLR Civil Cases 342 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-03-15Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Hameed vs Mst. Shazia Hassan2018 SC AJK 39 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-12-12Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Shah vs Pervez Rana2018 PLJ Quetta 19 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-30
  malicious prosecutionsuit for damagesreasonable and probable causebenefit of doubtacquittaldefamationcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the appellant's suit for recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 36,00,000/- on account of malicious prosecution. The core legal question concerns whether the mere acquittal of an accused in a criminal case is sufficient to establish a suit for damages for malicious prosecution without proving malice and the absence of reasonable and probable cause. The Balochistan High Court held that in a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove that the prosecution terminated in their favour, that the defendant was actuated by malice, and that the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause. The court ruled that acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt, without independent evidence establishing the want of reasonable and probable cause and malice, does not entitle the plaintiff to claim damages. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients a plaintiff must prove in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution?
  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case by itself relieve the plaintiff from proving the want of reasonable and probable cause in a subsequent civil suit for malicious prosecution?
  • Is an acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt sufficient to establish that a criminal prosecution was malicious?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Abdullah/Abdullah & Sons through Managing Director vs Abdul2018 PLC 20 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-27
  Payment of Wages Actmandatory depositmaintainability of appealLabour Court18th Constitutional Amendmentfair trialconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and Punjab Labour Court dismissing the petitioners' appeals against the allowance of wage claims by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The primary legal question was whether the requirement under the proviso to Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, requiring the deposit of the payable amount and submission of a certificate thereof along with the memorandum of appeal, is mandatory, and whether the 18th Constitutional Amendment rendered this provision or the Act inapplicable. The Lahore High Court held that the proviso is mandatory in nature, and an appeal filed without complying with this pre-condition is not maintainable. The Court further ruled that existing laws like the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 continued to remain in force under Article 270AA of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 following the 18th Amendment, and that the right to a fair trial under Article 10A is subject to fulfilling pre-conditions prescribed by law. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provision of a deposit certificate under the proviso to Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is a mandatory condition precedent for maintaining an appeal before the Labour Court?
  • Did the omission of the Concurrent Legislative List through the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 invalidate existing labour laws such as the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Does the right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 override statutory pre-conditions and procedural requirements for filing an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Gul vs Qeemat Gul2019 CLC 716, 2018 PHC 1859 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-19Read full judgment →
• Hussain Developers vs 1ST Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-South and 22018 PLD Sindh 274 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-26Read full judgment →
• Husnain Cotex Ltd. etc vs Waseem Sana etc2018 LHC 1434, 2022 PCTLR 126 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-28Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Cell vs Cantonment Boards2018 SCP 1190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-26
  Cantonment Boardseducational institutionsevictionhuman rightsjudicial stayadministrative action
  Summary & questions settled

  The Human Rights Cell of the Supreme Court of Pakistan initiated proceedings regarding directives issued to schools located within Cantonment areas across Pakistan, mandating their relocation within a fifteen-day period. This action appeared to contradict a previous order dated 24.10.2017, passed by a two-member bench of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 800/2012, which had stipulated that the removal of educational and commercial buildings from such areas should be conducted gradually. The Court observed that the abrupt nature of the current directives threatened the educational careers of a substantial number of students and indicated a failure to comply with the spirit of the earlier judicial mandate. Consequently, the Court issued notices to all Cantonment Boards in Pakistan, requiring them to justify the urgency and haste behind their actions. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the previous directive of 24.10.2017 be held in abeyance, effectively staying the eviction or transfer of any schools from Cantonment areas until further orders are passed by the Court, thereby prioritizing the stability of students' education over immediate relocation.

  Questions settled

  • Can Cantonment Boards unilaterally order the immediate removal of schools from Cantonment areas in contravention of prior judicial directives?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to stay administrative actions of Cantonment Boards regarding the relocation of schools?
  • Is a gradual approach required for the removal of educational institutions from Cantonment areas?
  Read full judgment →
• Human Help Welfar Association vs Province of Sindh & Others2018 SHC 1012 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-01Read full judgment →
• Humair Altaf vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and 3 others2018 CLC 1632 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-06
  res judicataconstitutional petitiondismissal from servicemaintainabilityservice matterfinality of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of dismissal from service issued by Pakistan State Oil, seeking reinstatement and back benefits. The petitioner had previously challenged the same dismissal through a constitutional petition, which was dismissed on merits in 2012, followed by unsuccessful appeals to the Supreme Court and a civil suit where the plaint was returned. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could re-agitate the same cause of action in a fresh constitutional petition after previous litigation had attained finality. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, applying the principle of res judicata. It observed that the previous constitutional petition had been decided on merits and the petitioner had exhausted legal remedies up to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner could not re-open the matter or rely on subsequent judicial precedents to circumvent the finality of the earlier judgment. The key principle laid down is that where a cause of action has been adjudicated upon and attained finality, it cannot be re-litigated in a fresh petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of res judicata bar a fresh constitutional petition when the previous petition on the same cause of action was dismissed on merits?
  • Can a petitioner re-agitate a service matter in a new constitutional petition after the previous petition was dismissed and the order attained finality?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a private limited company regarding service matters where the issue has already been adjudicated upon?
  Read full judgment →
• Housing Officer, Bannu and another vs Aziz-Ur-Rehman through L.Rs2018 MLD 365 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-31Read full judgment →
• Hotel Galaxy (Pvt.) Ltd. (Days Inn) vs Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd.2018 SCMR 1468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-05-03
  captive power generationgas connectiongovernment policydiscriminationexport-oriented industryregulatory authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the refusal of the respondent, Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd., to provide a gas connection for captive power generation to the appellant, a hotel operator. The core legal questions were whether the appellant met the criteria for such a connection under the prevailing government policies and whether the denial constituted discriminatory treatment in violation of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to satisfy the requisite criteria, as it was neither an export-oriented unit nor possessed the requisite sizable foreign investment as defined by the applicable government policies. Furthermore, the Court found that the appellant's application, having been rejected prior to the issuance of subsequent policies, did not qualify as a 'backlog' matter. Regarding the allegation of discrimination, the Court determined that the respondent provided sufficient justification for the gas connections granted to other entities, demonstrating that those connections complied with the relevant policies. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the principle that regulatory bodies must adhere strictly to government-mandated policies regarding the allocation of scarce resources like gas, and that claims of discrimination require evidence of arbitrary deviation from established criteria.

  Questions settled

  • Does a hotel qualify as an industrial unit entitled to a gas connection for captive power generation under government policies?
  • Can an applicant claim the benefit of a government policy regarding 'backlog' cases if their application was rejected prior to the policy's issuance?
  • Is a regulatory body's refusal to provide a gas connection discriminatory if the applicant fails to meet the established criteria applicable to other entities?
  Read full judgment →
• Hilton Pharma (Pvt.) Limited through Authorized Officer and others vs Ucb, Sa., (a Belgian Company) and others2018 CLD 557 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-31
  patent oppositionController of Patentslimitation periodextension of timepatent rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a set of miscellaneous appeals filed against the order of the Controller of Patents dismissing the appellants' patent oppositions for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements. The core legal question was whether the Controller of Patents has the power to extend the statutory period of four months for filing patent oppositions or to accept the mandatory statement under Rule 18(1)(c) of the Patent Rules, 2003 after the expiry of that period. The Sindh High Court held that the statutory limitation of four months prescribed under the Patents Ordinance, 2000 cannot be enlarged by the Controller under the general power to extend time provided in the Patent Rules, as subordinate legislation cannot override substantive statutory provisions and patent laws are strictly time-sensitive. The court laid down the principle that rights of a patent applicant become cemented upon the expiry of the four-month opposition window, and failure to accompany Form P-7 with the mandatory statement under Rule 18(1)(c) within this timeframe renders the opposition a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Controller of Patents can extend the statutory four-month period prescribed for filing an opposition under the Patents Ordinance, 2000?
  • Can a notice of opposition filed on Form P-7 without the mandatory statement under Rule 18(1)(c) of the Patent Rules, 2003 be cured after the expiry of the statutory limitation period?
  • Do the general powers to enlarge time under Rule 62 of the Patent Rules, 2003 apply to time limits prescribed by the Patents Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Hikmatullah vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 595 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-24
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailtrial delaynon-compliance with court directionscriminal procedurebail on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition sought the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the trial court. The respondent, accused in a case under sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, had previously been denied bail by the High Court on merits, with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within five months. When the trial remained unconcluded within that timeframe, the trial court granted bail solely based on this delay. The core legal question was whether the failure of a trial court to conclude proceedings within a time-bound directive from the High Court constitutes a valid ground for bail when the accused's bail had previously been refused on merits. The High Court held that the trial court's order was illegal, ruling that non-compliance with a time-bound directive for trial completion is not a valid ground for bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, especially when prior bail refusal on merits has attained finality. Consequently, the High Court cancelled the bail and ordered the respondent to be taken into custody.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to conclude a trial within a time-bound directive from the High Court constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  • Can an accused be granted bail on the sole ground of trial delay when a previous bail application was dismissed on merits?
  • Is the non-compliance of a trial court with a High Court's directive to conclude a trial within a specified period a valid ground for bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Hikmat Shah vs Bakhtiar Khan and another2018 YLR 1168 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-16
  criminal appealmurdercircumstantial evidenceabscondencemitigating circumstancedeath sentence reductionFSL reportQanun-e-Shahadat Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Charsadda, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the murder of his wife. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence, including abscondence, weapon recovery, forensic ballistics report, and a false plea of suicide, was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and whether the existence of minor children constituted a mitigating circumstance for altering the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through reliable circumstantial evidence, maintaining the conviction. However, the court held that the deprivation of minor children of both parents acts as a mitigating circumstance. The court laid down the principle that a husband's prolonged abscondence following the murder of his wife, coupled with matching forensic ballistic evidence and an unexplained false plea of suicide, forms an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence warranting conviction, while leaving minor children shelterless can serve as a mitigating ground to reduce the death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether abscondence of an accused husband after the murder of his wife is a relevant fact leading to his guilt?
  • Can a conviction for qatl-i-amd be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence in the absence of any eye-witness?
  • Does the presence of minor children who would be left shelterless constitute a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether a positive FSL report matching a crime empty with a recovered weapon corroborates circumstantial evidence against an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Ullah vs The State2018 MLD 1210 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-16Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Ullah vs Govt. of KPK etc2019 CLC 427, 2018 PHC 1801 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-25
  contempt of courtdepartmental proceedingsviolation of court ordervoluntary returnpublic functionariesconstitutional petitionsuspension of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a contempt petition filed by petitioner Hidayat Ullah seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against respondents for failing to comply with an order passed in a constitutional petition, which directed respondents not to pass a final order in departmental proceedings against the petitioner until the final disposal of a review petition pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question is whether the respondents committed contempt of court by passing a final adverse order imposing a major penalty in violation of the express directions of the High Court. The Peshawar High Court held that the respondents acted in violation of the court's order by imposing the penalty before the disposal of the Supreme Court review petition. The Court suspended the operation of the impugned departmental order till the final disposal of the said review petition, while taking a lenient view and refraining from punishing the respondents for contempt due to their expression of regret and assurance of future care. The key principle laid down is that orders of the court must be strictly obeyed by public functionaries, and nobody should be penalized by the inaction or defiance of authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether public functionaries are bound to obey the orders and commands of the High Court under the Constitution?
  • Can a court suspend the operation of an adverse departmental order passed in violation of its earlier interim directions?
  • What is the effect of passing a final departmental order when express restraint orders are operating from a superior court?
  Read full judgment →
• HG Markets (Pvt.) Limited vs Muhammad Asif Jalal Bhatti, Executive2018 CLD 1362 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2018-07-13Read full judgment →
• Headmaster GHS Reshun and others vs Akbaruddin2018 MLD 543 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-03Read full judgment →
• Headmaster G.H.S. Reshun and others vs Akbar-Ud-Din2018 MLD 543, 2018 PLJ Peshawar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-03Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Khan vs Mohammad Ghulam Abbas2018 YLR 442 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-09-30Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Jamal vs Muhammad Ishaq and others2018 YLR 265 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-30Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Ali vs The State through Additional Advocate General, Khyber2018 YLR 1592 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-24
  murder referencecriminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceeye-witness credibilitycommon intentioncapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Hazrat Ali, for the murder of Anwar Ali. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with two co-accused, opened fire in the casualty ward of Saidu Sharif Hospital. The trial court convicted the appellant, while the two co-accused were previously acquitted. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence, particularly regarding the motive, the presence of eyewitnesses, and the medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. The High Court held that the prosecution case was riddled with significant doubts and contradictions. Specifically, the court noted the lack of a fresh motive, the failure to explain how the accused entered a guarded hospital, the absence of corroborating testimony from hospital staff or police present at the scene, and medical evidence regarding the trajectory of the bullets that contradicted the prosecution's version of events. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the medical evidence regarding bullet trajectories contradicts the prosecution's version of the incident?
  • Is the presence of a witness in a public hospital credible when they remain unhurt during a shooting and their presence is not corroborated by independent staff?
  • Does the absence of a fresh motive for a second, separate incident involving the same parties cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Ali vs Muhammad Ali2019 P Cr. L J 11, PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 827, 2018 YLR 1592, 2018 PHC 1314 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-24
  attempt to murderacquittal of co-accusedbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceabscondencecriminal appealSection 324 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, which found the appellant guilty of attempted murder and causing hurt under sections 324 and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained given that the prosecution’s evidence was inconsistent and that co-accused, charged with identical roles in the same incident, had previously been acquitted. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the evidence was riddled with material contradictions, improvements, and discrepancies regarding the weapons used and the visibility at the time of the occurrence. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that where co-accused charged with the same specific roles have been acquitted based on the same evidence, the conviction of the remaining accused cannot be maintained without independent, corroborative proof. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the mere fact of abscondence, absent other reliable evidence, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when co-accused charged with the same roles in the same incident have already been acquitted based on the same evidence?
  • Is the fact of abscondence sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other corroborative evidence?
  • Does a material improvement in witness testimony during trial undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Bux and another vs The State2018 MLD 1722 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-14
  kidnapping for ransomabductionextortioncall detail recordanti-terrorism appealtransposition of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentencing them to life imprisonment for kidnapping for ransom. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically the demand for ransom, or whether the offence fell within Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for simple abduction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the abduction and the subsequent demand for ransom through clear ocular testimony of the abductees' father, statements of the victims, and call detail records corroborating the phone calls made from the victims' and accused's mobile numbers. The court laid down the principle that once kidnapping and the demand for ransom are established by reliable evidence and corroboration, the offence squarely falls under Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and it is not necessary for the actual payment of ransom to materialize for the conviction to be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 as distinguished from Section 365?
  • Whether the unfulfilled demand for ransom is sufficient to maintain a conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 365 in the absence of evidence disproving the demand for ransom?
  • What is the evidentiary value of call detail records in corroborating ransom demands in kidnapping cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Hayatullah vs The StatePLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 50, 2018 P.S.C. (Crl.) 1070, 2018 SCMR 2092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-09-24
  police confessioninadmissible evidencediscovery of factsburden of proofappraisal of evidencecriminal appealmurder trialacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from an appeal by leave of the court against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which had partly allowed the appellant's appeal, converting his death sentence under section 302(b), P.P.C. into imprisonment for life for murder, while maintaining or altering other convictions. The core legal question revolves around the admissibility and evidentiary value of confessions made before police officers, memo of disclosures, pointing out of places already known to the police, and recoveries of weapons and stolen property without proper corroboration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that confessions made before police officers and pointing out of places already within the police's knowledge are completely inadmissible under Articles 38, 39, and 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that tainted evidence cannot corroborate other tainted evidence. Furthermore, the court held that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused to prove his innocence. Consequently, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Are confessions made before police officers admissible in evidence during a criminal trial?
  • Does the pointing out of a place of occurrence already known to the police qualify as a valid discovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can one tainted piece of evidence be used to corroborate another tainted piece of evidence?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to prove his innocence if the prosecution fails to establish its case?
  • What is the duty of a trial judge when inadmissible evidence is tendered during the recording of witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan through his legal heirs vs Ameer through his legal heirs etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 527 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-03Read full judgment →
• Hassan Jawed and another vs Punjab Education Foundation and 42018 PLC (C.S.) 580 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-30
  contractual employmentwrit jurisdictionstatutory rulestermination of serviceregularizationmaster and servant principlePunjab Education Foundation
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenge the termination of service contracts of employees of the Punjab Education Foundation (PEF). The core legal questions concern the maintainability of constitutional petitions against the PEF, whether the termination violated the Punjab Education Foundation Act, 2004 or the Punjab Education Foundation (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2005, and whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization or a right of hearing prior to dismissal. The Court held that while the PEF's rules are statutory, the petitioners were employed on a purely contractual basis. The Court found that the termination was conducted in accordance with the terms of the employment contracts, which permitted termination upon one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. As the termination was non-stigmatized and based on the expiry of contracts rather than misconduct, no prior hearing was required. The Court established that contract employees have no vested right to regularization or automatic extension, and in the absence of statutory violations, the principle of master and servant applies, rendering the petitions non-maintainable. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Are writ petitions maintainable against the Punjab Education Foundation regarding service matters?
  • Does the termination of a contract employee without allegations of misconduct require a prior opportunity of hearing?
  • Do contract employees of the Punjab Education Foundation have a vested right to regularization or extension of their contracts?
  • Is the termination of a contract employee in accordance with the terms of their contract valid under the Punjab Education Foundation (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2005?
  Read full judgment →