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.

• Abdul Sattar vs The State2018 YLR 1690 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-06
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryhatchet injuryItlaf-e-Salahiyat-e-Udwdelay in FIRcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Sattar, who was charged under sections 324, 336, 504, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing hatchet injuries to the complainant, PW Kelash. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry, considering the delay in the FIR, the alleged false implication, and the grant of bail to a co-accused. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant's case was distinguishable from the co-accused, who had only been attributed an ineffective firing role. The Court emphasized that the applicant was specifically named in the FIR with a direct role in causing a serious injury, classified as 'Itlaf-e-Salahiyat-e-Udw' (impairment of organs), which constitutes an offense under section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court established that delay in lodging an FIR is not, per se, a sufficient ground for bail if the accused is otherwise linked to the offense, and that bail proceedings do not permit a definitive determination of guilt or innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Is the grant of bail to a co-accused with a different role sufficient grounds for the grant of bail to the principal accused?
  • Can the court determine the innocence or guilt of an accused during the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs State2019 PLD Sindh 418, 2018 SHC 1210 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Rind and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and 9 others2018 CLC 472 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Fed. of Pakistan and Ors2018 SHC 450 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Mandokhel through Attorney and Executive Director vs Messrs Karachi Municipal Corporation through Administrator2018 PLD Sindh 122 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and others vs The State and others2018 YLR 370 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-16
  murderbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidence contradictionprinciple of siftingindependent corroborationland dispute motivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder and causing hurt following an incident involving the fatal shooting of two brothers by their brother and nephew over a land dispute. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given inconsistencies in the medical and ocular evidence, the exoneration of co-accused during investigation, and the application of the principle of sifting. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution case was fraught with serious doubts and contradictions, and that the conviction could not be sustained in the absence of reliable independent corroboration, particularly where co-accused had been exonerated and the medical evidence conflicted with the ocular account. The court laid down the principle that the doctrine of sifting cannot be invoked to rescue a case plagued by systemic falsity or where the remaining evidence lacks independent corroboration, and that an accused must be given the benefit of the doubt when the prosecution's foundational narrative collapses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on an ocular account that contradicts the medical evidence and where co-accused assigned active roles have been exonerated?
  • Can the principle of sifting be applied to uphold a conviction in the absence of independent corroboration when the prosecution case is found to be fraught with serious doubts?
  • Does the exoneration of several co-accused during investigation cast a shadow of doubt on the remaining accused requiring independent corroboration?
  • Is a vague and general motive sufficient to corroborate an otherwise doubtful ocular account against an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and another vs The State and 3 others2018 YLR 977 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sami Khan etc vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. 819 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad and another vs The State and another2018 YLR 922 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-01-16
  circumstantial evidencejudicial confessionpolice disclosurebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurderrobberyadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence handed down by the trial court for murder and robbery under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency and admissibility of circumstantial evidence, including alleged police disclosures, a judicial confession, and recovery of articles, to sustain a conviction in an unseen occurrence. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, noting that police disclosures were inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, the judicial confession was deemed involuntary due to unexplained delays, allegations of torture, and procedural lapses by the magistrate. The court reiterated that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted, as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of the defense's inability to prove its plea of alibi.

  Questions settled

  • Are disclosures made by an accused to police officers during investigation admissible as evidence?
  • What are the essential requirements for a judicial confession to be considered voluntary and admissible?
  • Does the failure of an accused to prove a plea of alibi shift the burden of proof onto the accused?
  • Can pointation of a crime scene by an accused be considered incriminating evidence in the absence of any recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad and 3 others vs The State and others2018 YLR 2053 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-31
  murderbenefit of doubteyewitness testimonycriminal appealmaterial contradictionsunnatural conductacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Quetta, which convicted the appellants under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given the reliance on eyewitness testimony. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, omissions, and improvements regarding weapon usage, the number of vehicles involved, and the timing of the incident. Furthermore, the court found the conduct of the eyewitnesses—who allegedly stood by while their brother was killed without intervening—to be unnatural. Emphasizing that the prosecution must establish a coherent chain of evidence, the court ruled that the defense had successfully created serious doubts. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, reiterating the established principle that if a single reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's case, the benefit must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of eyewitnesses to intervene when a close relative is being attacked render their testimony unreliable?
  • Are material contradictions and improvements in eyewitness statements sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does the withholding of evidence by the prosecution attract the application of Article 29 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad and 3 others vs Habib Bank Limited through President and another2018 CLD 1203 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-02
  ex parte decreenullity of decreesuit against dead personbanking courtlegal heirsexecution proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order of the Banking Court dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The core legal question was whether a suit and subsequent decree passed against a party who was deceased at the time of the suit's institution are valid. The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased principal borrower, provided a death certificate proving the borrower died prior to the filing of the suit. The respondent bank failed to rebut this evidence. The Court held that a suit instituted against a dead person is a nullity, and consequently, any judgment or decree passed against such a person is void ab initio. The Court emphasized that a suit can only be maintained against a living person. Finding that the Banking Court failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the deceased's status and erroneously upheld the decree, the High Court set aside the impugned order and the ex parte decree against the deceased defendant, declaring the suit against him a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit filed against a person who is already deceased maintainable?
  • Does a decree passed against a person who was dead at the time of the institution of the suit constitute a nullity?
  • Is a court required to hold an inquiry when a party challenges a decree on the ground that the defendant was deceased at the time of the suit's filing?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad & others vs State & others2018 PLJ FSC 49 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-01-16
  circumstantial evidencejudicial confessionextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtpolice torturecriminal appealadmissibility of evidenceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence handed down by the Sessions Judge, Lasbela, for offences under Section 17(4) of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979 and Section 302 of The Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility and evidentiary value of extra-judicial disclosures made to police, the voluntariness of a judicial confession, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, noting that the investigating agency fabricated evidence. The court ruled that disclosures made to police while in custody are inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the judicial confession was unreliable due to unexplained delays, allegations of torture, and procedural lapses. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution regardless of the accused's failure to prove a defense. The principle established is that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive, consistent with guilt, and exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Are disclosures made to police officers by an accused while in custody admissible as evidence?
  • Does the failure of an accused to prove a plea of alibi relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • What factors determine the voluntariness and reliability of a judicial confession?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of evidence is incomplete?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam and 3 others vs Ghulam Sarwar and another2018 KLR Civil Cases 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The Chairman, Pakistan National Shipping Corporation &2018 SHC 1116 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Sadiq and others vs Government of Punjab and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-04-11
  service lawpolice cadrepromotion quotaservice rulesadministrative practiceaudi alteram partemPunjab Highway Patrol
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the exclusion of police personnel from the Punjab Highway Patrol, Traffic Police Wardens, and Police Constabulary from applying for Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) positions within the Punjab Police under the 25% quota reserved for graduate constables/head constables. The core legal question was whether personnel from these specialized wings, which have distinct service rules and promotion tracks, are entitled to compete for promotion within the general Punjab Police cadre. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Punjab Highway Patrol, Traffic Police Wardens, and Police Constabulary constitute separate cadres with distinct recruitment and promotion criteria. The Court affirmed that administrative practice contrary to established rules confers no enforceable legal right. Furthermore, the Court held that the enforcement of service rules is not contingent upon their notification date, and that the principle of audi alteram partem does not invalidate rules simply because they were not notified prior to their application. Consequently, the Court upheld the separation of these police wings.

  Questions settled

  • Does administrative practice that violates established service rules confer an enforceable legal right?
  • Are the Punjab Highway Patrol, Traffic Police Wardens, and Police Constabulary considered separate cadres from the Punjab Police for promotion purposes?
  • Is the enforcement of service rules contingent upon the date of their notification?
  • Does the application of rules prior to their notification violate the principle of audi alteram partem?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman etc vs Khalid Iqbal, Adc(G), Khushab2018 LHC 852 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-24
  contempt of courtstate land allotmentforgeryadministrative discretionproprietary rightscompliance with court orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a Criminal Original petition seeking contempt proceedings against a government official for failing to implement previous court orders regarding the allotment of State land. The petitioners, who had previously been found to have obtained entitlement certificates through forgery, sought to enforce administrative orders that allowed them to purchase the land at market price despite their initial disqualification. The core legal question was whether the respondent could be held in contempt for failing to grant proprietary rights in light of prior directions, and whether the court should enforce an administrative order that granted leniency to individuals who committed fraud. The Court held that the contempt petition was meritless because the respondent had complied with the previous court directions by having the matter decided by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, who ultimately declined the petitioners' request. The Court affirmed that public authorities must act strictly according to law, particularly regarding State property, and that leniency cannot be extended to those who commit fraud. The legality of the subsequent adverse order must be challenged through independent legal remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court initiate contempt proceedings against an official when the underlying administrative direction has been complied with by a competent authority?
  • Does an administrative authority have the discretion to grant leniency and sell State land to individuals who obtained entitlement certificates through fraud?
  • Is a contempt petition the appropriate legal remedy to challenge the merits of an adverse administrative order passed in compliance with a previous court direction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and 3 others vs The State and another2018 MLD 663 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-01
  murder trialocular evidencemedical evidencecommon intentionsifting grain from chaffmotivecriminal appealballistic report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of four appellants for the murder of the complainant's son under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony in the face of alleged discrepancies between medical and eyewitness accounts, the impact of the prosecution's failure to prove motive, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the specific roles of the accused. The Court upheld the conviction of the primary appellant, Abdul Rehman, finding his guilt established through consistent eyewitness testimony, recovery of the murder weapon, and a positive ballistic report. However, the Court acquitted the remaining three appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to prove their specific roles beyond a reasonable doubt, as no weapons were recovered from them and the alleged firing was unsupported by physical evidence. The Court affirmed the principle that a failure to prove motive does not invalidate the entire prosecution case if other evidence is credible, and emphasized the judicial duty to "sift grain from chaff" by separating reliable evidence from dubious portions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive in a murder case automatically result in the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can a court rely on the testimony of eyewitnesses against one accused while rejecting it against co-accused in the same case?
  • Does a discrepancy between the estimated distance of firing provided by eyewitnesses and the medical evidence regarding blackening of the skin necessarily render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman alias Lalo and another vs Mst. Shani Qayyum and another2018 P Cr. L J 422 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-12
  criminal revisionjurisdictionAnti-Terrorism Courthonour killingtransfer of caseprivate motivesection 6 ATA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the order of the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Quetta, rejecting an application under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for the transfer of a murder case involving honour killing to an ordinary criminal court. The core legal question was whether an offence of honour killing committed with a private motive falls within the definition of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 so as to be triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court. The Balochistan High Court allowed the petition, holding that a private offence such as honour killing committed in the privacy of a home, lacking any design, purpose, or effect of creating terror or insecurity in the public as contemplated under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, does not fall within the ambit of anti-terrorism legislation. The court laid down the principle that while determining jurisdiction, the motivation, object, design, and purpose behind the act must be examined, and relying on precedent, ruled that honour killing cases must be tried by ordinary courts of criminal jurisdiction rather than special anti-terrorism courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence of honour killing fall within the ambit of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What factors must be examined to determine whether a particular act constitutes terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can a criminal case involving a private dispute or motive be tried by a Special Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • What is the proper forum for the trial of a murder committed in the name of honour without creating public terror or insecurity?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman alias Baan vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 145 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryextra-judicial confessionconfession of co-accusedchemical examiner reportpre-trial punishmentadmissibility of statement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of conspiracy to murder by administering sedatives. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the extra-judicial confession and a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 made by a co-accused, Mst. Fouzia. The Court observed that the petitioner had no opportunity to cross-examine the co-accused, rendering the admissibility of the Section 164 statement questionable under Section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that the chemical examiner's report, which found diazepam in the deceased's organs, contradicted the complainant's initial allegation of poisoning, as diazepam is a sedative, not a poison. Given that the petitioner had been incarcerated since 2014 without the prosecution examining any witnesses, the Court held that there was no sufficient incriminating evidence to deny bail. Consequently, the Court found a case for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and granted post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered conclusive proof against a co-accused without cross-examination?
  • Does the presence of diazepam in a deceased's body support an allegation of poisoning?
  • Is the confession of a co-accused sufficient to deny bail when there is no other incriminating evidence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine witnesses for a prolonged period justify the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaque Umrani vs Province of SIndh and Ors2018 SHC 997 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State2018 YLR 1805 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-25
  post-arrest bailexplosive substancespointationrecovery by policeanti-terrorismtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Abdul Razzak, who was implicated in case FIR No. 169 of 2016 registered under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station Bin Qasim, Karachi. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the recovery of dangerous explosive materials upon his pointation and positive forensic reports. The Sindh High Court held that prima facie, there are reasonable grounds to believe the applicant committed the offence, noting that police officials are competent witnesses for recoveries made pursuant to an accused's pointation under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that possession of explosive substances is a grave offence undermining public order. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused pointing out the place of concealment and recovery of explosive substances is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Are police personnel competent witnesses for a recovery made pursuant to an accused's pointation without independent private witnesses?
  • Does possession of homemade explosive materials constitute a grave offence sufficient to disentitle an accused from bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq and others vs Muhammad Ajmal Khan2018 PLD Lahore 491 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-26
  civil revisioninterlocutory ordercase decidedmaintainabilitycourt fee
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from an interim order passed by an appellate court restoring an appeal and issuing notices while directing the makeup of court fee deficiency. The core legal question is whether an interlocutory order of this nature constitutes 'a case decided' so as to be amenable to revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order is purely interim and interlocutory in nature and does not fall within the ambit of 'a case decided', thereby rendering the revision petition non-maintainable. The key principle laid down is that the High Court lacks revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 unless the impugned order amounts to 'a case decided', though parties are at liberty to raise their objections before the forum where the matter remains sub judice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an interim order restoring an appeal and directing the makeup of a court fee constitute a case decided under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can the High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against an interlocutory order that does not decide any substantive rights?
  • What is the remedy available to a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order passed by an appellate court when a revision petition is not maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq vs The State2018 MLD 552 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf and another vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 834 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconflict between ocular and medical evidencecommon intentionbenefit of doubtcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail concerns two petitioners charged under sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving a fatal shooting. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given conflicting investigation reports and the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the case against the petitioners constituted a matter of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that multiple investigations cast doubt on the specific role attributed to the first petitioner, noting a conflict between ocular and medical evidence regarding the fatal injury. Regarding the second petitioner, the Court noted the absence of specific allegations of firing. Emphasizing that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage should be extended to the accused and that further incarceration was unnecessary as the investigation was complete, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where investigations produce conflicting versions of events and medical evidence contradicts ocular testimony, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between ocular and medical evidence entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
  • Can the findings of police investigations be considered by a court when deciding a bail application?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution case presents two conflicting versions of the incident?
  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the crime scene without specific allegations of injury constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid & another vs The State, etcPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 754, 2018 PHC 1445 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed through LRs and others vs Muhammad Akhtar and another2018 PLJ Lahore 362 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed Malah vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 SHC 984 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-26
  constructive res judicataservice terminationconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitySAS examinationreinstatementfinality of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging an order that denied his request for reinstatement as an Assistant Audit Officer. The petitioner, whose services were terminated in 2005 for failing the SAS examination, had previously litigated the termination up to the Supreme Court of Pakistan without success. He subsequently sought relief by comparing his case to a colleague, Sultan Mahmood, who received benefits under a prior court order. The respondents contended that the petitioner’s case was distinct because he had declined an offer of fresh appointment that the colleague had accepted. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could initiate a fresh round of litigation on the same cause of action after the matter had been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The court held that the petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner was attempting to re-litigate issues already settled. Applying the principle of constructive res judicata, the court dismissed the petition, affirming that a party cannot seek similar relief through subsequent legal proceedings once the matter has reached finality before the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner initiate fresh litigation on the same cause of action after the matter has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the principle of constructive res judicata bar a party from seeking relief in a subsequent petition when the underlying service dispute has already been decided?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when the petitioner seeks to re-agitate a service termination issue that has previously reached finality before the apex court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim and another vs Chief Secretary Balochistan and 2 others2018 PLJ Quetta 128 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rab vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 632 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-14
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryrape allegationmedical reportDNA reportcriminal trespass
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 378 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of house trespass, wrongful confinement, and rape. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence to justify the grant of post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court observed that upon the police's arrival at the spot, the victim was fully clothed, no weapon was recovered from the petitioner at the time, and no immediate legal proceedings were initiated by the victim. Furthermore, the medical report revealed an intact hymen with no marks of violence, and the DNA report negated the commission of rape, indicating at most an attempt. The court held that the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, particularly considering the petitioner's period of incarceration and that further detention would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the petition was accepted and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case falls within the ambit of further inquiry for the grant of post-arrest bail when medical and DNA reports contradict the main charge of rape?
  • Does the absence of immediate legal proceedings by the victim at the time of the accused's apprehension at the spot affect the grant of bail?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when the accused has suffered a prolonged period of incarceration and is no longer required for investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs The State2018 MLD 1821 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-01
  criminal appealrobberystolen propertybenefit of doubtsearch and seizuremandatory provisionsindependent mashirsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, whether mandatory provisions regarding search and seizure were complied with, and whether the alleged recovery of stolen property was legally sustainable. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious flaws, including a delayed FIR, material contradictions in the complainant's statements, lack of independent public mashirs for the arrest and recovery in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and failure to link the recovered gold with the alleged stolen property. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that the mandatory requirements of Section 103, Cr.P.C. must be strictly observed during recoveries from public places, and any reasonable doubt arising from defective investigations or missing links must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-association of independent public witnesses during an arrest and recovery from a public place vitiates the search under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Whether the statement of a co-accused leading to the recovery of stolen property from a third party is admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2018 PHC 1482 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 PHC 1482, 2018 YLR 2069 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Akram vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan2018 CLD 856 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-09
  insurance claimInsurance Tribunal jurisdictionInsurance Ordinance 2000retrospective applicationreturn of plaintgroup insuranceInsurance Act 1938
  Summary & questions settled

  This insurance appeal challenges an order passed by the Insurance Tribunal, Lahore, which returned the appellant's claim for recovery of group insurance benefits under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the Insurance Tribunal, established under the Insurance Ordinance 2000, possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate insurance claims arising from policies issued prior to the commencement of said Ordinance. The Court, relying on the precedent set by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in Mst. Robina Bibi v. State Life Insurance and others (2013 CLD 477) and the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mst. Naseem Begum and others v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 655), held that the Insurance Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over claims originating before the Ordinance's commencement. The Court affirmed that Section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance 2000 restricts the Tribunal's authority exclusively to insurance policies issued after the Ordinance's commencement, necessitating that pre-Ordinance claims be adjudicated by courts of competent jurisdiction under the repealed Insurance Act 1938.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Insurance Tribunal established under the Insurance Ordinance 2000 have jurisdiction to adjudicate insurance claims arising from policies issued prior to the commencement of the Ordinance?
  • Under which law should insurance claims arising prior to the commencement of the Insurance Ordinance 2000 be adjudicated?
  • Does Section 115 of the Insurance Ordinance 2000 extend the jurisdiction of the Insurance Tribunal to policies issued before the Ordinance's commencement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum Khaskheli vs Government of Sindh and another2018 SHC 1176 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs Province of Sindh through Home Secretary and 3 others2018 MLD 284 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Memon vs Shahid Umar2018 PLD Sindh 163 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Farooqui vs The Federal Ministry of Finance through Secretary Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others2018 CLC 758 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-05
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitydisputed questions of factalternate remedyaggrieved personwrit jurisdictionExport Processing Zone
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed seeking directions against private respondents for alleged theft of taxes, revenues, forgeries, misappropriation, and corruption within the Export Processing Zone, Karachi, as well as seeking probes and registration of criminal cases. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition concerning disputed questions of fact requiring intricate inquiry and the recording of evidence, and whether a petition can be maintained when an adequate alternate remedy exists and the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to resolve disputed questions of fact requiring elaborate evidence, that the petitioner bypassed alternate statutory remedies and lacked locus standi as an aggrieved person, and that writ jurisdiction should not be used to settle private grievances or review matters better suited for regular trial or special forums.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact requiring intricate inquiry and recording of evidence in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when an adequate alternate legal remedy is available to the petitioner?
  • Is a person who has not made any prior complaint to the concerned authorities regarding the alleged wrongdoings considered an 'aggrieved person' for the purpose of maintaining a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid & others vs Mrs.Nida Irfan & others2018 SHC 632 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I and another2018 MLD 706 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Khan vs Federation of Province2018 SHC 1010 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Awan, Principal Government College of Commerce, Burewala District, Vehari vs District Coordination Officer, Vehari and 6 others2018 PLJ Lahore 117 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed and others vs Tassaduq Ali and others2018 CLC 245 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed and 3 others vs The State2018 YLR 763 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-02
  murderbenefit of doubtconflicting versionsfirst information reportmedical evidenceocular accountcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302(b) and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in death sentences and life imprisonments. The core legal question revolves around the reliability of the prosecution's case in the face of two diametrically opposed versions of the incident presented by the complainant, massive subsequent deviations in ocular testimony, and inconsistencies with medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that where a witness radically departs from their initial stance without a plausible explanation, and where the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions, delayed reporting, and forensic shortcomings, it is unsafe to maintain convictions. The court established the principle that an initial report protected under statutory presumption cannot be discarded on bald assertions of police fabrication, and massive deviations that change the complexion of a criminal case warrant the extension of the benefit of doubt and acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained when the prosecution presents two diametrically opposed versions of the same incident?
  • Whether massive and unexplained deviations from the initial police report render the ocular testimony unreliable?
  • Is an initial statement protected under statutory presumptions easily displaced by a bald assertion of police fabrication?
  • Does the presence of serious discrepancies between medical evidence and the ocular account warrant the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Election Commission of Pakistan and another2018 CLC 227 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Mughal vs Government of Sindh & others2018 SHC 867 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-16
  suspensiondisciplinary proceedingsconstitutional petitioncivil servantmisconductillegal appointments
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant working as an Education Officer (BS-19), challenged a suspension notification issued against him in connection with an inquiry into alleged illegal appointments in the Education and Literacy Department. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against an order of suspension and whether suspension can be struck down on technical grounds while departmental inquiry proceedings are pending. The Sindh High Court held that suspension is not a punishment but a temporary intervening arrangement to prevent a delinquent official from influencing an inquiry, and constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised to interfere with pending disciplinary proceedings where an adequate alternate remedy exists. The court established the principle that a civil servant cannot challenge a temporary suspension order as a void action when facing active charges of misconduct, and technical objections regarding suspension do not warrant judicial intervention to thwart an ongoing departmental inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a suspension order issued during pending disciplinary proceedings?
  • Is suspension considered a form of punishment or a temporary intervening arrangement under the law?
  • Can the High Court act as an executing court for the implementation of an administrative order of reinstatement passed by the Chief Minister?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Brohi vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2018 SHC 943 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Muhammad Younas and others2018 IHC 152 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-11-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Haq Nawaz2019 PLJ SC 253, 2018 P.S.C. 1650, 2018 PLD Supreme Court 729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-10-26
  court feedeficiency in court feefiscal statutefunctus officioexecution of decreetechnicality
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside concurrent lower court decrees in favor of the appellant due to an alleged failure to timely make up a minor deficiency in court fees. The appellant had deposited the entire court fee of Rs. 15,000, but a minor deficiency of Rs. 130 remained due to non-cancellation of stamps. The respondent argued that the trial court became functus officio after passing the decree and could not extend the time to deposit stamps. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while a trial court becomes functus officio after passing a decree, the Court Fees Act 1870 is a fiscal statute enacted to collect state revenue, not to arm litigants with technicalities to defeat substantive rights. The Court ruled that a failure to make up a minor deficiency in court fees cannot justify the dismissal of an entire suit. At most, a suit could only be dismissed in proportion to the unpaid fee, and the decree remains executable for the portion covered by the paid fee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court becomes functus officio after passing a decree and is thereby precluded from extending the time to make up a deficiency in court fees?
  • Can a minor deficiency in court fees be used as a technical ground to dismiss an entire suit where the substantive right has been established?
  • Is a decree executable in proportion to the amount of court fee actually paid if there is a minor unpaid deficiency?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and others vs Ms. Mah Noor and others2018 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 69, 2018 PLD Balochistan 44 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-22
  guardianshipminor custodyvisitation rightswelfare of the minorfamily court jurisdictioninterim custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several constitutional petitions concerning the visitation and interim custody rights of a father regarding his minor daughter, following the dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in restricting the father's visitation rights to court premises and denying him overnight or extended interim custody. The High Court held that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in guardianship matters, necessitating a shift away from restrictive, court-based visitation. The Court emphasized that the father, as the natural guardian, has an inherent right to develop a bond with the child, which cannot be fostered in the sterile, non-conducive environment of a court office. Consequently, the Court set aside the restrictive orders of the lower courts and established a more flexible, home-based visitation schedule, allowing the father interim custody on specific days, including weekends and holidays, to ensure the minor's emotional and intellectual development. The principle laid down is that courts must exercise quasi-parental jurisdiction to facilitate a congenial, homely environment for parental visitation, prioritizing the minor's welfare over rigid procedural constraints.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right of a father to seek visitation with his minor child an inherent right under the law?
  • Should visitation between a minor and a parent be conducted within court premises?
  • What is the primary consideration for courts when determining interim custody and visitation schedules in guardianship matters?
  • Can a court exercise quasi-parental jurisdiction to modify visitation arrangements for the welfare of a minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim alias Patni and another vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1358 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-02
  anti-terrorismunlicensed armsexplosive substancesbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalcontradictory evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were apprehended following an encounter and search where unlicensed pistols and hand grenades were recovered. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, material contradictions in witness depositions, the absence of independent public witnesses, and discrepancies regarding weapon and explosive identification numbers. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting significant investigative flaws, material contradictions, and the fact that the appellants had already been acquitted in the main connected case. The court laid down the principle that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, and any reasonable doubt arising from contradictions and flawed investigation must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions in police testimonies regarding the recovery of arms and explosives are sufficient to create reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of the accused?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to associate independent public witnesses from a populated crime scene affect the credibility of the investigation?
  • Whether discrepancies between initial arrest memos failing to record serial numbers and subsequent forensic reports identifying specific numbers undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim (deceased) through L.Rs, and another vs Naik Muhammad2018 PLJ Lahore 971 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Motiwala vs Ismail Abdul Shakoor Securities (Pvt.) Ltd. &2019 CLC 994, 2018 SHC 1159 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar and others vs General Manager (Personnel) Pakistan2018 SC MR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-11-16
  pensionary benefitsservice tribunalrecurring cause of actionfinancial reliefcivil servantslachespension fixation
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants, retired civil servants, challenged an order of the Service Tribunal that dismissed their appeals seeking the inclusion of a Rs. 300/- per month financial relief announced by the Prime Minister in 1997 into their pensionary emoluments, due to the absence of an impugned order under section 4(1)(a) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The core legal questions involved whether pension fixation notices or similar communications could constitute an appealable order regarding pension grievances, and whether the Rs. 300/- financial relief was reckonable towards pension calculations. The Supreme Court held that pension is a deferred part of pay and short payment creates a recurring cause of action, and further affirmed that the Rs. 300/- allowance was a permanent increase in pay, not an ad hoc relief, and must be included in pensionary benefits as previously established in jurisprudence. The Court laid down that civil servants aggrieved by short payment of pension can treat pension fixation notices as orders causing grievance to pursue departmental representations and approach the Service Tribunal, and public departments are bound to extend settled benefits to all similarly situated employees without forcing them into litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the monthly financial relief of Rs. 300/- announced by the Prime Minister in 1997 is reckonable towards the calculation of pensionary emoluments?
  • Can a pension fixation notice be treated as an order causing grievance to enable a civil servant to file a departmental representation and approach the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the non-payment or deficient payment of pension constitute a recurring cause of action overcoming the defense of laches?
  • Are government departments bound to extend the benefit of a settled judgment of the Supreme Court to all similarly situated employees without compelling them to litigate?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabar son of Gul Akber resident of Bazed Khel, District, Peshawar vs The State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 245, 2018 PHC 1835 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-12
  dying declarationmurder trialchance witnessbenefit of doubtacquittalfirearm injurycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment handed down by the trial court under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside connected matters concerning an enhancement revision and an acquittal appeal. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a statement treated as a dying declaration when the injured person was semi-conscious, the credibility of chance eyewitnesses without independent corroboration, and the sufficiency of unverified forensic and ballistic evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt because the dying declaration lacked credibility due to the injured party's semi-conscious state, the eyewitnesses were uncorroborated chance witnesses, and crucial ballistic items were not sent for forensic analysis. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed both the connected sentence-enhancement revision and the appeal against the co-accused's acquittal. The key principle laid down is that a statement recorded from a semi-conscious injured person cannot safely form the basis of a dying declaration, and weak ocular testimony uncorroborated by independent medical or ballistic evidence cannot sustain a murder conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded from an injured person who was semi-conscious be safely relied upon as a valid dying declaration?
  • Whether the testimony of close relatives can be accepted as eyewitness accounts without independent corroboration when they are classified as chance witnesses?
  • Does the failure to send recovered empty cartridge shells and spent bullets to the Forensic Science Laboratory weaken the prosecution's case?
  • What is the effect on an appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused charged with abetment when the main accused charged with the substantive offense is acquitted on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hussain (Abdul Rehman) vs Muhammad Yousaf and another2018 PLJ AJ&K 50 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kareem Etc vs Muhammad Saleem Etc2020 [M] C L R 119, 2019 PLJ Lahore 246, 2018 LHC 3076 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq alias Abdullah vs Muhammad Naseem Achakzai2018 YLR 1157 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-21
  criminal acquittal appealcheatingdouble presumption of innocencebenefit of doubtmens reacivil liabilityappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Quetta, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of evidence or misapplied the law, thereby necessitating interference by the appellate court. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the four-year delay in lodging the FIR and the underlying civil nature of the transaction rendered the prosecution's case incredible. The judgment established that for the offence of cheating, dishonest intention (mens rea) must exist at the time of the initial inducement, which was not proven here. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that an acquittal creates a double presumption of innocence, and appellate courts should only interfere if the findings are perverse or arbitrary. The accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of four years in lodging an FIR regarding a transaction render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Is dishonest intention (mens rea) at the time of inducement a necessary ingredient for the offence of cheating?
  • Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does the benefit of doubt in a criminal case accrue to the accused as a matter of right or grace?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. 811, 2018 KLR Criminal Cases 105 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-12-22
  criminal breach of trustembezzlementutility storeaudit reportbenefit of doubtappellate reviewcorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for allegedly embezzling government money and utility store items while posted as Incharge of a Utility Store. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges of criminal breach of trust and corruption beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of contradictions in the audit reports and testimonies. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish criminal liability due to serious doubts arising from admissions made by prosecution witnesses during cross-examination and the proper reconciliation of stock positions. The court laid down the principle that when material admissions by prosecution witnesses contradict the allegation of shortage and render the case doubtful, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused and the conviction cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of embezzlement beyond a reasonable doubt when material contradictions exist in the testimony of prosecution witnesses?
  • Can a conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when the stock position and bank deposits are tallied and reconciled during cross-examination?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to properly inventory missing items during the breaking of store locks create a fatal doubt in the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 620 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-16
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidenceasphyxiaforensic reportmurderrapevicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail in a case involving charges of murder, abduction, and rape under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given significant discrepancies between the prosecution's allegations and the medical evidence. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that the medical and forensic reports contradicted the prosecution's claims of strangulation and rape, suggesting instead death by asphyxia consistent with drowning. Consequently, the court determined that the case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court further established that questions regarding vicarious liability and common intention are matters for trial, and that the police's opinion on an accused's guilt is not binding upon the court during bail adjudication. The petitioner, being a first-time offender and no longer required for investigation, was granted bail subject to furnishing surety.

  Questions settled

  • Does medical evidence contradicting the prosecution's theory of death constitute grounds for 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the question of vicarious liability and common intention be definitively decided at the bail stage?
  • Is the police investigator's opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused binding on the court during bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Shahzad and another2018 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 1 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-10-28
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationzinamarried womanprohibitory clausehudoodrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was directed against an order passed by the Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, whereby post-arrest bail was granted to the respondent-accused in a case registered under Sections 10, 16, and 19 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether bail granted to an accused charged with Zina with a married woman should be recalled considering the facts and social/moral environment. The Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir accepted the petition, set aside the impugned order, and cancelled the bail. The court held that even if an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, an accused is not entitled to bail as a matter of course, and courts must consider all attending facts, circumstances, and societal moral values. The court laid down the principle that in heinous offences involving Zina and illicit relations, particularly where the victim implicates the accused under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the grant of bail would encourage illicit affairs and is thus unwarranted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail granted to an accused charged with Zina can be cancelled when the victim implicates the accused in a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail as a matter of course?
  • Should courts consider the moral and social environment of society when deciding bail petitions involving illicit relationships?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs National Accountability Bureau through Director2018 P Cr. L J 1380 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-12
  post-arrest bailsuspension of sentenceaccountability courtdelay in appealNational Accountability Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three writ petitions seeking post-arrest bail and suspension of sentence filed by petitioners convicted by an Accountability Court under Reference No. 40 of 2013 and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to suspension of their sentence and release on bail pending their appeals, given the delay in deciding their appeals beyond the statutory timeframe and the fact that they have already undergone a substantial portion of their imprisonment. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioners have undergone more than two-thirds of their sentence, their appeals have not been decided within the mandatory statutory period of thirty days as contemplated under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and hearing is not likely in the near future, they have made out a case for suspension of sentence. The key principle laid down is that undue delay in deciding statutory appeals against conviction coupled with the service of a major portion of the sentence warrants the suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does delay in deciding an appeal under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 entitle a convict to suspension of sentence?
  • Can a sentence be suspended when a convict has already undergone a substantial portion of the awarded imprisonment?
  • Whether failure to determine liabilities in a judgment of conviction constitutes a legal infirmity supporting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 61 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and 2 others2018 PLJ Lahore 61, 2018 P Cr. L J 54 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-20
  justice of peaceregistration of criminal casefirst information reportpreliminary inquiryconstitutional petitionalternative remedycognizable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 sought the reversal of an order passed by the Justice of Peace, which declined to direct the registration of a criminal case and dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions concerned the legality of police preliminary inquiries before registering a First Information Report and the scope of powers of the Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6). The Lahore High Court held that police officials may conduct informal preliminary inquiries upon receiving information from sources other than a formal FIR to ascertain the credibility of allegations, as supported by Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court further ruled that the Justice of Peace properly exercised discretion under Section 22-A(6) by considering police reports to prevent the misuse of legal processes, and that an aggrieved person retains an efficacious alternative remedy by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an officer incharge of a police station can conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering a criminal case upon receiving informal information?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace rely on police reports submitted pursuant to an inquiry when deciding an application under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an aggrieved person have an equally efficacious alternative remedy through a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if a police case is not registered?
  • Whether the High Court should interfere with factual controversies under constitutional jurisdiction pursuant to Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Solangi & others vs Government of Sindh & others2020 PLC (C.S.) 345, 2018 SHC 690 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-17
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityjurisdictionservice tribunalterms and conditions of servicesalary stoppagecivil servantsillegal appointments
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed as teaching and non-teaching staff in the Sindh Education Department, sought a declaration against an impugned notification issued by the School Education and Literacy Department that stopped their salaries following observations made by the Supreme Court regarding illegal appointments and ongoing National Accountability Bureau (NAB) references. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against actions taken in pursuance of Supreme Court directions and whether the Sindh Services Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the salaries of civil servants under Article 212. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was not maintainable under Article 199, as grievances against observations of the Supreme Court must be raised via review before the Supreme Court, and issues concerning salaries and terms and conditions of civil servants fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sindh Services Tribunal pursuant to the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against a notification issued in consequence of observations and directions made by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Does the Sindh Services Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution to decide disputes relating to the non-payment of salaries of civil servants?
  • Whether matters concerning the withholding of a civil servant's salary form part of their terms and conditions of service so as to attract the constitutional bar under Article 212?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Khan vs Kalsoom Bibi and 11 others2018 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 44 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-02-20
  restoration of appealwithdrawal of appealcounsel's authoritysufficient causereview petitionclerical mistakedismissal of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a High Court order dismissing an application for the restoration of an appeal that had been previously dismissed. The appellant sought to recall the dismissal order, claiming it was passed in default, while the High Court treated the application as a review petition and dismissed it. The core legal questions were whether the High Court erred in characterizing the restoration application as a review petition and whether the appellant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the restoration application. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that while the High Court technically erred in treating the application as a review petition rather than an application for re-admission under the Code of Civil Procedure, the error was immaterial because the appeal had been withdrawn by counsel, not dismissed in default. The Court affirmed that the knowledge of counsel is imputed to the party and that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the significant delay in filing the application. The principle established is that a party cannot seek restoration of an appeal withdrawn by their counsel; their remedy lies against the counsel, not the court.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application for the re-admission of an appeal dismissed as withdrawn be treated as a review petition?
  • Is the knowledge of a counsel regarding the dismissal of an appeal imputed to the client?
  • Does a court have the authority to restore an appeal that was explicitly withdrawn by the appellant's counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hadi and 9 others vs Abdul Hanan and 17 others2018 CLC 263 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-08-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Ist Judicial Magistrate, Tando Adam and 3 others2018 P Cr. L J 1455 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-15
  exhumation of dead bodyDNA testingterritorial jurisdictionunidentified corpsecriminal investigationpolice dutymissing persons
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the exhumation of an unidentified dead body, previously buried by authorities, to conduct DNA testing for identification purposes, as the family suspected the deceased was their relative involved in a pending murder case. Lower courts had repeatedly dismissed the application, citing a lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that the lower courts failed to exercise their vested legal powers, noting that the identity of a deceased person is crucial for both criminal prosecution and the satisfaction of the victim's family. The Court clarified that Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empowers Magistrates to order the disinterment of corpses to discover the cause of death, which includes establishing identity. Consequently, the Court directed the Judicial Magistrate, Tando Adam, to supervise the exhumation and ordered the District Health Officer to constitute a medical board for DNA analysis. Furthermore, the Court issued mandatory directives to the Inspector General of Police to ensure proper preservation of DNA samples, maintenance of records for unidentified bodies, and the implementation of a public-facing digital mechanism for missing persons and unidentified remains.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have the authority under Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order the exhumation of a body for DNA identification purposes?
  • Is the identity of an unknown dead body a material consideration for both criminal prosecution and the satisfaction of the deceased's family?
  • Are police officers legally obligated to preserve DNA samples when dealing with unidentified dead bodies?
  • Can a court decline an application for exhumation solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction when the statute provides the power to order such an examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, etc.2018 KLR Civil Cases 243 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Baha-Ud-Din Zakariya University and others2018 CLC 965 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor, Supervisor Grade-a, Aklasc, Mirpur vs Chairman2018 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Maqbool Ahmad and others2018 KLR Civil Cases 337, 2018 YLR 1432 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Ghairman Board of Director Aklasc Muzaffarabad2018 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 1, 2018 YLR 197 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and others vs The President National Bank of Pakistan2018 PLC (C.S.) 383, 2018 PLJ SC 458, 2018 SCMR 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-11-08
  Contract employmentRegularization of serviceRight to livelihoodFundamental rightsExploitation of workersConstitutional petitionJanitorial servicesContractor statusSocio-economic justiceEquality before law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a petition by cleaners and messengers seeking regularization of their services with the National Bank of Pakistan, following the termination of their contract employment and dismissal of their grievance petitions by lower forums. The core legal question was whether individuals providing manual janitorial services directly to the bank for several years under successive 11-month contracts could be denied permanent employment by being labeled "contractors," and if such a practice violated their fundamental rights. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and directed the bank to regularize the petitioners' services as permanent employees. The Court held that the work was of a permanent nature and the bank's arrangement was a "machination" to exploit workers and defeat the law's spirit. It reiterated that the right to livelihood, enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution, cannot be made susceptible to arbitrary actions, emphasizing socio-economic justice, equality before law (Article 4), and protection from discriminatory practices.

  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and others vs President National Bank of Pakistan. Etc.2018 PLJ SC 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-11-08
  regularization of servicescontract employeesright to livelihoodmaster and servantgood governanceNational Bank of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed by low-paid workers, including cleaners and messengers, who sought regularization of their services after being engaged by the respondent National Bank of Pakistan for several years under recurring eleven-month contracts. The core legal question was whether the bank could avoid regularizing the services of manual workers performing permanent nature jobs by labeling their direct employment as independent contracts. The Supreme Court held that the arrangement of engaging manual workers under the guise of independent contractors was an impermissible device to deny regular employment and livelihood. The Court ruled that workers performing continuous manual duties for the bank on a monthly compensation basis are entitled to regularization. The key principle laid down is that employers cannot circumvent labor standards and constitutional protections of livelihood by devising nominal independent service contracts for permanent nature jobs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer can deny regular employment to manual workers performing permanent nature jobs by labeling them as independent contractors?
  • Does the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include the right to livelihood?
  • Are workers engaged on recurring eleven-month service contracts entitled to regularization of their services after serving for more than a year?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Additional District Judge and others2018 YLR 1474 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basit vs The State and others2018 SCMR 1425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-26
  criminal appealreappraisal of evidencerecovery memonarcoticsbenefit of doubtacquittalControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which had been affirmed by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the recoveries of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt in light of procedural lapses and conflicting witness testimonies. Upon reappraisal of evidence, the Supreme Court observed that regarding the subsequent recoveries, a prosecution witness admitted they did not pertain to the appellant. Regarding the initial recovery of charas from the motorcycle, both the complainant and the recovery witness conceded that no recovery memorandum was prepared at the spot, and all recovery memos were drafted at a later location. The court held that such a failure created a risk of tampering, interpolation, or inaccuracy regarding the weight of the seized substance. Extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prepare a recovery memo at the spot of seizure entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can an accused be convicted for recovered narcotics when prosecution recovery witnesses state that the recovery pertained to another person?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari vs The State2018 YLR 376 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-16
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther statementprohibitory clausetentative assessmentcolumn 2 of challancriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Bari, who is charged with offences under sections 302, 506, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that he was initially placed in column 2 of the police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that co-accused had been granted bail. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application. The court held that the applicant was specifically attributed with the role of causing fatal knife injuries to the deceased, which was supported by medical evidence and witness statements. The court emphasized that the magistrate had rejected the police's initial recommendation to exclude the applicant from the charge sheet. Consequently, the court ruled that there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was involved in the offence, bringing the case within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court affirmed that tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage does not support the applicant's release.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inclusion of an accused in column 2 of a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle the accused to bail?
  • Can a court grant bail when the accused is specifically attributed with a fatal role in a murder case supported by medical evidence?
  • Is the plea of previous enmity sufficient ground to grant bail in a non-bailable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Mithu and others2018 PHC 1588 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-15
  adverse possessionrevenue recordLimitation Actcivil revisionIslamic Injunctionscutoff dateownership rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged concurrent judgments of the lower courts that dismissed the petitioner's suit for declaration regarding revenue record entries. The core legal question concerned the validity of a claim of adverse possession in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Maqbool Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 2063), which declared Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908, repugnant to Islamic Injunctions, setting a cutoff date of August 31, 1991. The High Court examined whether a claim of adverse possession could be sustained if it had not matured into a court decree prior to this cutoff date. The Court held that the respondent's claim of adverse possession, which had not been solidified by a decree before August 31, 1991, was legally ineffective. Consequently, the Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the respondent could not claim ownership based on adverse possession. The principle established is that claims of adverse possession are only valid if they matured into a final court decree before the August 31, 1991, cutoff date; otherwise, they are treated as past and closed transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the judgment in Maqbool Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 2063) invalidate claims of adverse possession that had not matured into a court decree before August 31, 1991?
  • Can a party claim ownership of land based on adverse possession if no court decree confirming such title was obtained prior to the cutoff date of August 31, 1991?
  • Is a claim of adverse possession considered a past and closed transaction if it was not conclusively determined by a court decree before the August 31, 1991 cutoff date?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Raza and others vs The State through Director General and others2019 KLR Criminal Cases 288, 2019 PLJ Quetta 11, 2018 MLD 2066 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-04-30Read full judgment →
• Abbas Khan vs Inspector General of Police KPK, Peshawar and others2019 P Cr. L J 259, 2018 PHC 1672 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-26
  writ petitioncognizable offencepolice investigationcancellation of FIRdischarge of accusedjudicial oversightcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the police's administrative decision to cancel an FIR (No. 533/2015) registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which accused police officials of murder. The petitioner alleged that the police investigation was biased, leading to the wrongful discharge of the accused police officials while simultaneously pursuing a counter-FIR against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the police, during an investigation, possess the authority to unilaterally discharge accused persons in a serious cognizable offence and effectively quash an FIR without judicial oversight. The Court held that the police cannot simply quash an FIR in a cognizable offence, particularly when police officials themselves are the accused. The Court found the discharge of the accused to be a circumvention of the law that defeated the ends of justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned police report and directed the respondents to submit a challan before the competent court within 14 days to initiate a trial in both FIRs.

  Questions settled

  • Can police officials unilaterally discharge an accused person in a cognizable offence and effectively quash an FIR?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 to set aside a police report that improperly discharges an accused in a criminal case?
  • Is the police required to submit a challan to the court within a specific timeframe under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali, etc. vs Director General, Lahore Development Authority, etc.2018 [M] C.L.R. 655 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-04Read full judgment →
• Abaidullah Baig vs Prince Saleem Khan2018 YLR 1393 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2018-04-09Read full judgment →
• Aamir Tufail Chaudhary vs Government of Punjab and 2 others.2018 PLJ Lahore 434, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 493, 2018 LHC 158 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-03
  disabled quotavested rightlocus poenitentiaejudicial estoppelconstitutional petitionpublic employmentmedical board
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, by a visually impaired advocate seeking directions for the respondents to issue an appointment letter for the post of Deputy District Public Prosecutor (DDPP) under the disabled quota, having successfully cleared all tests, interviews, and a medical examination by a Special Medical Board. The core legal question was whether the respondents could subsequently deny appointment or demand repeated medical examinations after a valid offer letter had been issued and a vested right had accrued. The Lahore High Court held that once a candidate is recommended, an offer letter is issued, and codal formalities including medical clearance are fulfilled, a valuable vested right is created, and the authorities cannot retract under the principle of locus poenitentiae or subject the candidate to delayed, repetitive medical verifications as a counter-blast to litigation. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to submit his joining into service.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offer letter and fulfillment of codal formalities create a vested right of appointment that cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn?
  • Can public authorities demand repeated medical examinations after a candidate has already been cleared by a duly constituted Special Medical Board?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent authorities from retracting a decisive step taken in favor of a candidate?
  • Are state institutions under a constitutional obligation to mainstream persons with disabilities and provide reasonable accommodation?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Tufail Chaudhary vs Government of Punjab and 2 others2018 PLJ Lahore 434 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-03Read full judgment →
• Aamir Shehzad vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 165 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-26
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesrecovery of charaschemical analysisprocedural irregularityweighing of contraband
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner, Aamir Shehzad, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 1250 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the procedural ambiguities in the police report. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to clarify whether the recovered substance was weighed including its packaging or separately, creating uncertainty regarding the actual quantity of the contraband. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of evidence in the FIR regarding the preparation of a sealed parcel for chemical analysis to confirm the nature of the recovered substance. Emphasizing that the petitioner had been incarcerated since his arrest and was no longer required for investigation, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing that procedural discrepancies regarding the weighing and sampling of narcotics constitute valid grounds for the grant of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to clarify whether the weight of narcotics included packaging material constitute a ground for bail?
  • Is the absence of a sealed sample for chemical analysis a relevant factor in considering post-arrest bail in narcotics cases?
  • Can a petitioner be granted bail when the quantity of recovered narcotics is disputed due to procedural ambiguities in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Muhammad Shah Khan and another vs Haji Abdur Rehman and 62018 PHC 1297, 2018 PLJ Peshawar 154, 2018 YLR 2134 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-10Read full judgment →
• Aamir Bashir and another vs State and another2018 PLJ SC 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-09-19
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationtentative assessmentmala fidesupplementary statementillegal investigation by intelligence agencycriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the Islamabad High Court's judgment recalling their pre-arrest bail in a case involving offenses under sections 302, 324, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The FIR was initially registered regarding an attempted burglary resulting in murder, but after seven months, the complainant named the petitioners via a supplementary statement based on Call Data Records allegedly traced by the ISI. The Supreme Court examined the tentative assessment of the material, the seven-month delay in implicating the petitioners, the prior matrimonial dispute between the female petitioner and the complainant's family, and the unauthorized involvement of the ISI in the investigation. The Court held that the High Court erred in deeply appreciating the merits while recalling bail, that mala fide on the part of the complainant was evident due to previous litigation and hostility, and that the ISI has no legal mandate to conduct criminal investigations. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can undertake a deeper appreciation of the evidence on merits while deciding a petition for the recall of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does an intelligence agency like the ISI have the legal mandate and authority to conduct or control criminal investigations in ordinary criminal cases?
  • Can a delay of seven months in recording a supplementary statement implicating accused persons constitute a ground for considering pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether the inability to recover a crime weapon during interrogation while on bail is a sufficient ground for refusing pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• A.H.K.D. Securities (Pvt.) Limited vs Commissioner (SMD), SECP, Islamabad2018 CLD 1501 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2018-07-03Read full judgment →
• 5 Adoro alias Khursheed and another vs The State2018 MLD 614 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryattempt to commit murdermedico-legal reportdelay in FIRtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application concerns the request for post-arrest bail by two applicants charged under sections 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii)/504, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the applicability of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court reasoned that the injuries were not on vital parts of the body, casting doubt on the intent to kill required for section 324, and noted that the injuries sustained were punishable by terms that rendered them bailable. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's evidence regarding the intent to commit murder is questionable due to the location of injuries and the overall circumstances, the case warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of injuries on vital parts of the body negate the application of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the purpose of bail?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when the injuries sustained are punishable by terms that are bailable under the schedule of offences?
  Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) R.I. Steel Hattar vs The Cir, Rto, Abbottabad2018 PTD (Trib.) 2114, 2018 P.C.T.L.R. 755 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2017-04-12Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Prime Traders, Islamabad vs The Cir, R.T.O., Islamabad2019 PTD (Trib.) 1108, 2018 P.C.T.L.R. 1074 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2017-01-09Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Pakistan Telecom Employees Trust, Islamabad vs The Cir, Rto,2018 P.C.T.L.R. 768 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Kubra Amjad vs (Mst.) Yasmeen Tariq and others2018 KLR Supreme Court Cases 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-08-07
  specific performancelimitation periodreasonable timesale agreementtenancyejectment proceedingsplaint rejection
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an alleged oral sale agreement, later reduced to writing, concerning a tenanted property. The appellant, a tenant, claimed an oral agreement from 1999, formalized in 2001, but filed the suit in 2008 only after the respondents initiated rent proceedings. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the appellant acted within a reasonable time to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was time-barred and the appellant's delay was inexcusable. The Court affirmed that even where time is not of the essence, a party seeking specific performance must act within a reasonable time. The phrase "very soon" in a contract cannot be interpreted to cover an indefinite period or years of inaction. The Court emphasized that a plaintiff cannot benefit from their own indolence, and a suit filed after an inordinate delay, particularly when initiated as a counter-blast to ejectment proceedings, is unsustainable under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for a suit for specific performance commence only upon the refusal of the vendor to perform?
  • Can a party who remains indolent for years and fails to seek specific performance within a reasonable time maintain a suit for specific performance?
  • Does the phrase "very soon" in a contract allow for an indefinite period for the performance of contractual obligations?
  • Is a suit for specific performance filed as a counter-blast to rent proceedings maintainable when there is an inordinate delay in seeking enforcement?
  Read full judgment →
• (Malik) Wali Muhammad, etc. vs Acisdm and Collector Saddar Sub-2018 [M] C.L.R.27, 2018 KLR Revenue Cases 28 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Malik) Ameer Haider Sangha and another vs (Mrs.) Sumaira Malik, etc.2018 PSC 1191, 2018 KLR Supreme Court Cases 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-19
  election commission powersre-pollballot secrecylocal government electionselectoral integrityconstitutional mandatejudicial review of election orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the District Council, Khushab, where allegations of compromised ballot secrecy were raised. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had ordered a re-poll, but the High Court set aside this order, ruling that the ECP lacked the jurisdiction to order a re-poll and that the matter should be adjudicated by an Election Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the ECP possesses the authority to order a re-poll before the official notification of election results. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the ECP holds broad constitutional and statutory powers to ensure elections are conducted honestly, justly, and fairly. The Court determined that the ECP’s mandate to maintain electoral integrity, particularly regarding the constitutional requirement of a secret ballot, empowers it to order a re-poll when malpractices are established, provided such intervention occurs before the final notification of results. The principle laid down is that the ECP’s authority to ensure fair elections is inherent and not restricted by the absence of specific statutory language, as it is constitutionally obligated to protect the democratic process from electoral tampering.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the power to order a re-poll before the issuance of the official notification of returned candidates?
  • Is the Election Commission of Pakistan constitutionally mandated to ensure that elections are conducted honestly, justly, and fairly?
  • Can the Election Commission of Pakistan exercise its powers to order a re-poll in the absence of specific statutory language, provided it acts before the final notification of results?
  • Does the violation of the secrecy of the ballot constitute sufficient grounds for the Election Commission of Pakistan to order a re-poll?
  Read full judgment →
• (Engr) Muhammad Hashim Khan vs Chairman(SUPARCO) & Others2018 SHC 1060 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-23Read full judgment →
• (Dr.) Sajid Nazir Bhatti, C/o. Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad vs The Cir,2019 PTD (Trib.) 334, 2018 P.C.T.L.R. 808 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2017-08-15Read full judgment →
• (Ch.) Ahsan Ali Ahmad vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Islamabad2019 PTD (Trib.) 78, 2018 P.C.T.L.R. 1086 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2017-11-14
  appellate tribunal inland revenuefederal tax ombudsmanjurisdiction of commissioner appealsamended assessmentunexplained incometax refundremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue against an order of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) summarily rejecting the taxpayer's appeal as not maintainable under Section 18 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, due to prior proceedings before the Federal Tax Ombudsman regarding a tax refund. The core legal questions involved whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law by refusing to exercise jurisdiction over an assessment order passed under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and whether the bar under the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 applies to independent income tax assessment appeals. The Tribunal held that the Federal Tax Ombudsman's jurisdiction over refund claims is distinct from statutory tax assessment and appellate proceedings, and that an amendment order under Section 122(5A) is appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) can refuse to entertain an appeal against an assessment order under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on the ground that the taxpayer previously approached the Federal Tax Ombudsman regarding a tax refund?
  • Does Section 18 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 bar statutory income tax appeals arising from assessment proceedings merely because a related refund claim was addressed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman?
  • Whether an assessment order amended under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is appealable as a judicial order before the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals)?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta (2) Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed (3) All Pakistan Aam2018 SCP 1100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-03-02
  party head disqualificationElection Act 2017Article 62(1)(f)Article 63Adefectionpolitical party office-bearersub-constitutional legislationperson specific legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 were filed challenging Sections 203 and 232 of the Election Act 2017. The petitioners contended that removing the statutory restriction preventing a disqualified person from becoming an office-bearer of a political party allowed a person disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution to act as Party Head and direct parliamentarians under Article 63A. The core legal question was whether a person disqualified from being a Member of Parliament under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution can hold office as a Party Head and exercise powers connected with parliamentary affairs and electoral processes.

  The Supreme Court held that statutory election provisions must be read harmoniously with the Constitution. Because a Party Head exercises controlling powers under Article 63A and statutory provisions over elected members who must meet constitutional standards, a person disqualified under Articles 62 or 63 is debarred from holding the office of Party Head. The Court ruled that sub-constitutional legislation cannot bypass constitutional disqualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person disqualified under Article 62 or Article 63 of the Constitution hold the position of Party Head of a political party?
  • Can ordinary sub-constitutional legislation override or dilute constitutional qualifications and disqualifications laid down in Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution?
  • Does the repeal of an earlier law wash away a disqualification already incurred under that repealed law in the absence of explicit retrospective legislative intent?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Zavison (2) Muhammad Mohsin (3) The State vs (1) The State & another2018 LHC 2604 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-14
  murderhouse trespassapprehension at the spotcommon intentiondeath penaltycriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants for the murder of a woman in her home and for house trespass. The prosecution alleged that the appellants barged into the deceased's house, where one appellant stabbed her to death while the other held her, and both were apprehended at the scene. The defense argued false implication, citing the substitution of one co-accused for another and suggesting the family murdered the deceased. The Court held that the prosecution evidence, particularly the apprehension of the appellants at the crime scene and the prompt reporting of the incident, was consistent and reliable. The Court affirmed that the acquittal of a co-accused does not undermine the case against the appellants when their participation is independently established. The Court upheld the convictions and sentences, including the death penalty for the principal offender, emphasizing the brutal nature of the crime and the forensic evidence confirming the victim's virtue. The principle laid down is that the acquittal of one co-accused does not necessarily cast doubt on the entire prosecution case if the evidence against the remaining accused is robust and corroborated by circumstances like apprehension at the spot.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically invalidate the prosecution case against the remaining accused?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses are partially disbelieved regarding the identity of one co-accused?
  • Is the apprehension of an accused at the crime scene a sufficient circumstance to establish guilt in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →