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.

• Sheikh Arif Ur Rehman And Another vs Station House Officer, Police2017 PHC 783, 2017 MLD 2064 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-24Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Waheed and others vs Government of Punjab and others2017 PLC 50 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-15
  constitutional petitionspeaking orderregularizationlabour appellate tribunalover-ageremanddiscrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the judgment of the Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, which had accepted an appeal against the regularization of the petitioners and dismissed their grievance petitions on the ground of being over-age. The core legal question was whether the appellate tribunal passed a reasoned, speaking order addressing the factual and legal arguments, including the issues of over-age, applicable rules, and discrimination. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned judgment was non-speaking, perfunctory, and failed to discuss the relevant rules and precedents or address the issue of discrimination, rendering it infirm. The court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh through a comprehensive speaking order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate tribunal is required to pass a speaking order addressing all legal and factual contentions raised by the parties?
  • Does a judgment that fails to discuss applicable service rules and pleas of discrimination suffer from legal infirmity?
  • Can a high court remand a matter to an appellate tribunal for a fresh decision when the original order is found to be non-speaking?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehzada Amanerome and others vs The Federation of Pakistan and others2017 YLR 481 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-07Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Nisar vs Federation of Pakistan & others2017 SHC 128 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-31Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Anwar & 8 others vs Azad Govt. & 7 others2017 SCR 1541 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-10-20
  independence of judiciaryappointment of civil judgespublic service commissiontrichotomy of powersazad jammu and kashmir interim constitution act 1974civil servantsselection process
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court passed in a writ petition, which sought to declare notifications regarding the appointment of Civil Judges through the Public Service Commission as unconstitutional and violative of the independence of the judiciary. The core legal questions involved whether the induction of judicial officers through the Public Service Commission violates the principle of separation and independence of the judiciary under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, and whether Civil Judges can be equated with civil servants. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission is a constitutional body empowered to conduct selections, and that judicial officers are civil servants regulated by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976. However, to ensure complete transparency, fairness, and uphold judicial independence, the Court partly accepted the appeal with directions that a High Court or Shariat Court Judge nominated by the Chief Justice must chair or participate as an expert in the interview committees for selecting Civil Judges and Qazis.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of Civil Judges through the Public Service Commission violates the principle of independence of the judiciary in Azad Jammu and Kashmir?
  • Are judicial officers in the district judiciary considered civil servants under the applicable statutory framework of Azad Jammu and Kashmir?
  • Does the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 contain provisions guaranteeing the separation of powers and independence of the judiciary akin to the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can the High Court be directed to prescribe a specific syllabus for the competitive examination of Civil Judges?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Ali Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Chairman and 3 others2017 MLD 1931 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-16Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Ali Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan etc.2017 LHC 428 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-16Read full judgment →
• Shehriyar vs (1) Zahirullah (2) State2017 PHC 884 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-26
  murder appealbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceabscondenceeyewitness reliabilitycriminal procedureacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court against the appellant for the murder of Inamullah and ineffective firing at the complainant and eyewitnesses. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction, the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the impact of procedural irregularities during the investigation. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted significant discrepancies, including the absence of bloodstains on the clothes of the alleged eyewitnesses, the failure to produce independent witnesses who identified the body, and the lack of evidence establishing the presence of the complainant and eyewitnesses at the scene. Furthermore, the court observed that the medical evidence regarding entry and exit wounds suggested the use of multiple weapons, contradicting the forensic report attributing the crime to a single rifle. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that abscondence alone cannot substitute for substantive evidence and that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution's case is riddled with significant contradictions.

  Questions settled

  • Can abscondence of an accused serve as a substitute for substantive evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to put incriminating evidence, such as motive, to an accused during a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 weaken the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries contradicts the forensic evidence regarding the weapon used?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehnaz Mairaj vs The LESCO through Chief Executive and 5 others2017 PLJ Lahore 627 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-31Read full judgment →
• Sheema Akhtar vs Govt. of KPK2017 PHC 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-08Read full judgment →
• Shazia Noreen vs Sajid Mehmood2017 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 65 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-03-25Read full judgment →
• Shazia Kousar etc vs Divisional Director Education Schools (Female)2017 PLJ AJ&K 164 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Usman Bin Mehmood vs The State & another2017 LHC 3339 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-13
  post-arrest bailcyber crimeelectronic crimesprivacy intrusiondiscretionary jurisdictionnon-bailable offences
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, involving allegations of cyberstalking, unauthorized dissemination of intimate images, and coercion. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the allegations and the existence of technical evidence linking him to the offense. The Lahore High Court held that while bail in offenses punishable by less than ten years imprisonment is generally the rule, it remains a discretionary concession that courts may deny based on the specific facts and circumstances of a case. The Court determined that the petitioner's actions—betraying trust, exposing the prosecutrix to public ridicule through the internet, and engaging in flagrant intrusion of privacy—constituted sufficient grounds to deny bail. The Court emphasized that the argument regarding the non-bailable nature of the offenses did not mandate bail as a matter of right. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, with a directive for the trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously within four months.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail in offenses punishable by less than ten years imprisonment an absolute right or a discretionary concession?
  • Can a court deny bail in a non-bailable offense despite the statutory framework?
  • Does the existence of technical evidence linking an accused to cyber-related offenses justify the denial of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shazad Arshad vs State through Police Station Dudyal and another2017 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 70 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-03-16Read full judgment →
• Shayo vs Ghulam Muhammad2017 YLR 1502 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-05-24Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Saleem Akhund vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited2017 PLC (C.S.) 659 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-22
  Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000disciplinary inquirynatural justiceenhancement of penaltycompetent authoritydue processback benefitsservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of removal from service issued against the petitioner by Pakistan Steel Mills under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The core legal questions concerned whether the disciplinary inquiry complied with the timeframes and procedural directions set by the Federal Service Tribunal and whether the competent authority could enhance the penalty recommended by the Inquiry Officer without providing specific reasons or notice. The Court held that while the inquiry was completed within the stipulated timeframe and the petitioner was generally afforded access to documents, the removal order was unsustainable. The Court ruled that a competent authority cannot arbitrarily enhance a penalty recommended by an Inquiry Officer without confronting the employee with the reasons for such departure and providing a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Court set aside the removal order, directing the respondents to either provide a reasoned justification and hearing for the enhanced penalty or grant the petitioner back benefits based on the original inquiry recommendation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a competent authority enhance a penalty recommended by an Inquiry Officer without providing reasons to the employee?
  • Does the failure to allow the cross-examination of a witness in a disciplinary inquiry constitute a violation of due process?
  • Is the competent authority bound by the recommendations of an Inquiry Officer in a disciplinary proceeding?
  • Does the issuance of a second show-cause notice require the competent authority to specify the intent to depart from the Inquiry Officer's recommendations?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hayat vs Makhmal Jan and 3 others2017 P.S.C. 1299, 2017 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 133 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-14Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hayat vs Makhmal Jan and 2 others2017 P.S.C. 1299 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-14
  right of prior purchasepre-emptionwaiverconcurrent findingssecond appealmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises out of a judgment of the High Court upholding concurrent findings of the lower courts in a suit for declaration and possession based on the right of prior purchase. The core legal question revolved around the plea of waiver raised by the defendant-appellant and whether the courts below misread or failed to consider the evidence regarding waiver. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right which must be proved by strong, cogent evidence, and that concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts on the question of waiver cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless vitiated by misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Court laid down that waiver cannot be established on mere assumptions or conjectures, and that a pre-emptor's conduct must clearly indicate voluntary abandonment of a vested right of pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes waiver in the context of a right of prior purchase?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the plea of waiver be disturbed in second appeal?
  • Is waiver established on the basis of assumptions, presumptions, and conjectures?
  • What kind of evidence is required to prove the plea of waiver against a pre-emptor?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs The State through Prosecutor-General Punjab and another2017 P Cr. L J 1221 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-28
  grave and sudden provocationdual version caseappreciation of evidencemurder referencequantum of sentenceconversion of death sentence to life imprisonmentbenefit of doubtmedical evidencedefense plea
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Shaukat Ali, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of Asif Javed and Surriya Bibi, sentencing him to death on two counts. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the evaluation of conflicting versions of the incident, and whether the plea of sudden provocation and grave and sudden provocation due to human frailty warranted a reduction in the sentence or conviction under a lesser provision. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its set-up motive and that the defense version, supported by medical evidence and surrounding circumstances, was more plausible, establishing that the appellant acted under grave and sudden provocation upon finding the deceased in a compromising position. However, because the appellant took undue advantage by firing repeatedly, the conviction under section 302(b) was maintained. The High Court laid down the principle that while death is not the mandatory or normal penalty under section 302(b), imprisonment for life is a viable legal alternative depending on the facts and circumstances, and accordingly converted the death sentence into imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution is bound to suffer the consequences when it sets up a specific motive but fails to establish the same during trial?
  • Can the testimony of an eye-witness whose statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is recorded with an inordinate and unexplained delay be safely relied upon?
  • When competing prosecution and defense versions of an incident exist, which version should be preferred by the court?
  • Does a killing committed in the heat of passion upon seeing close relatives in an objectionable or compromising position attract the doctrine of provocation to mitigate the sentence?
  • Is death sentence the mandatory or normal penalty under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or can imprisonment for life be awarded as an alternative depending on the circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs The State and others2017 P Cr. L J 1020 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-10
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsfurther inquirytentative assessmentrecoveryco-accusedcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Shaukat Ali, sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of Charas. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was apprehended while accompanying a co-accused from whom narcotics were recovered. The core legal question was whether mere presence in the company of a co-accused, without personal recovery or evidence of active participation, constitutes sufficient grounds to deny bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Upon tentative assessment, the Lahore High Court observed that no recovery was effected from the petitioner's person, and the prosecution failed to provide tangible material connecting him to the alleged crime. The Court held that mere presence at a thoroughfare with a co-accused does not establish guilt at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner's involvement required further inquiry and probe. Emphasizing that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage and noting the delay in trial, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing that mere association without evidence of active assistance is insufficient to deny liberty pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere presence in the company of a co-accused from whom narcotics are recovered constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  • When does a case against an accused in a narcotics matter fall within the ambit of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs State, etcPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 846 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-10
  post-arrest bailtrap proceedingstainted moneyillegal gratificationfurther inquiryprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application was filed by the petitioner accused under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 following a trap raid. The core legal question was whether the mere recovery of tainted money during a trap raid, without independent witnesses hearing the demand or conversation regarding illegal gratification, suffices to disentitle the accused to post-arrest bail. The High Court granted bail, holding that mere recovery of money from an accused is insufficient to establish guilt without proof that he knowingly accepted it as bribe money, making his guilt a matter of further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and the trial court possesses discretion to award fine only, refusing bail and keeping the accused incarcerated prior to trial would amount to double jeopardy.

  Questions settled

  • Is mere recovery of tainted money during a trap raid sufficient to prove acceptance of illegal gratification without evidence of conversation or demand?
  • Does an offence carrying a maximum penalty where a court can impose fine alone fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Whether refusal of bail in cases where the trial court has discretion to punish with fine alone amounts to double jeopardy?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 541 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Sheikh Muhammad Bashir through L.Rs, and another2017 CLC 158 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-06
  ejectment petitionlandlord and tenant relationshiphandwriting expert opinionburden of proofconstitutional jurisdictionrent tribunaldenial of tenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges concurrent findings of the lower courts which dismissed an ejectment petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents. The core legal question was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, given the respondents' denial of the tenancy agreement despite not disputing the petitioner's title to the premises. The courts below had relied heavily on a forensic report regarding the disputed signatures on the tenancy agreement to dismiss the petition. The High Court held that the lower courts erred by failing to consider the broader evidence and by relying exclusively on a limited forensic comparison of signatures that were easily manipulated. The Court emphasized that in rent matters, a mere denial of tenancy by an occupant who does not claim ownership is insufficient and often a dilatory tactic. The Court established that where a landlord's title is not disputed, the burden lies on the occupant to provide a credible basis for their possession. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere in concurrent findings of fact in rent matters when the lower courts have misread evidence or failed to consider material documents?
  • Is a mere denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant by an occupant sufficient to defeat an ejectment petition when the occupant does not dispute the landlord's title?
  • Does the opinion of a handwriting expert constitute conclusive proof, or can it be rebutted by other overwhelming evidence?
  • Are the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 strictly applicable to proceedings before a Rent Tribunal under the Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Shaikh Muhammad Umar Shafique & others2017 SHC 92 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-06Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Hayat vs Government of Punjab through Secretary2017 PLC (C.S.) 1325 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-10
  age relaxationaffirmative actiongender discriminationpublic service recruitmentfundamental rightsequal protectionwomen's participation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an advertisement for the recruitment of Educators in District Okara, which granted a three-year age relaxation to female candidates in addition to the general five-year relaxation provided to all candidates. The petitioner contended that this differential age limit discriminated against male candidates, violating the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether providing age relaxation to female candidates in public service recruitment constitutes unconstitutional discrimination against male candidates. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the age relaxation for women is a permissible affirmative action protected under Article 25(3) of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that such measures do not violate Article 27(1) but rather promote the full participation of women in national life as contemplated by Article 34. The Court established that affirmative action to address systemic societal disparities and barriers faced by women in education and employment is a valid exercise of state policy and does not infringe upon the fundamental rights of male candidates.

  Questions settled

  • Does providing age relaxation to female candidates in public service recruitment violate the constitutional right to equality?
  • Is age relaxation for female candidates a permissible form of affirmative action under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does granting preferential age limits to women in employment violate the prohibition against discrimination in public service?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali and 2 others vs The State2017 YLR 724 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-16
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencedishonest improvementbelated statementacquittalmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hafizabad, which convicted the appellants under sections 302(b), 324, 449, and 337-A(i) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment and other terms. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the ocular account, medical evidence, and alleged improvements in testimony. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the appellants. The Court found significant discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence, noting that the witnesses made dishonest improvements, the FIR was registered with unexplained delay, and the injured witness's statement was recorded after an inordinate delay. Furthermore, the Court observed that the fatal injury was attributed to an accused who had been compromised out of the case. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Can the evidence of an injured witness be relied upon if their statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was recorded after an inordinate and unexplained delay?
  • Does the presence of an injury on a prosecution witness automatically guarantee the truthfulness of their testimony?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to corroborate the identity of an accused person in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharma and another vs Province of Sindh, through Secretary Home2017 MLD 1460 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-17Read full judgment →
• Sharjeel Inam vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 YLR 2423 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-03-20
  protective bailtransitory bailaccess to justiceabscondancefugitive from lawArticle 199National Accountability Bureausurrender before court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an elected member of the Provincial Assembly of Sindh residing abroad since 2015 with pending warrants issued under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking protective/transitory bail upon surrendering before the Court, in order to approach the competent court in Sindh. The prosecution opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner was a proclaimed offender and fugitive disentitled to relief. The High Court granted protective bail for fifteen days subject to surety bonds, holding that protective bail is granted without assessing case merits under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, solely to enable an accused to surrender and reach the competent court. The Court established that access to justice is an integral constitutional right under the rule of law, and surrendering before the Court demonstrates bona fides, rendering abscondance a matter for the trial court rather than an absolute bar to transitory protection.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 can grant protective bail to an accused person to enable them to approach the competent court of another province?
  • Does alleged abscondance or status as a fugitive operate as an absolute bar to the grant of protective or transitory bail when the accused surrenders before the High Court?
  • Whether the merits or demerits of the underlying criminal case under Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 are to be evaluated when considering a petition for protective bail?
  • Is the right of access to a competent court a fundamental right that warrants the grant of transitory protection to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharifan Bibi through her mother Khurshid Bibi vs Govemment of Khyber2017 PHC 1083 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-22Read full judgment →
• Sharbat Hussain and another vs State through Advocate General A.K.2017 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 90 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-12-29
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquirytentative assessmentmurdercircumstantial evidencecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the order of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Haveli, Kahuta, which rejected the post-arrest bail application of the accused-petitioners in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were alleged to have only assisted in moving the deceased's body rather than committing the murder, were entitled to bail, especially considering that co-accused with identical roles had already been granted bail. The Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the case against the petitioners required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of evidence is permissible, and deeper appreciation is prohibited. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to the same treatment as their co-accused. The Court further affirmed the principle that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment and that the benefit of doubt may be extended to the accused even at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule of consistency applies to co-accused persons seeking bail in a criminal case?
  • Is deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage of a criminal proceeding?
  • Does the role of merely moving a dead body constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in a murder case?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment for an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Khan vs The State2017 YLR 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-10Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Ali and anothers vs The State and another2017 MLD 399 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-19
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayspeedy trialjuvenile offenderprolonged incarcerationcriminal trial delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated petitions for post-arrest bail filed by Sharafat Ali, Muhammad Khan, Jaffar Ali Zafar, and a juvenile, Muhammad Tayyab Raza, in connection with FIR No. 383/2013 registered at Police Station Chak Baidi. The petitioners sought bail primarily on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of their trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail due to the prolonged incarceration without the trial reaching a conclusion, despite being indicted on July 1, 2015. The Court observed that the petitioners had been in custody for a significant period—some since January 2014 and the juvenile since March 2015—and that no prosecution witnesses had been examined, with the delay not being attributable to the petitioners. Holding that the statutory right to a speedy trial had been violated, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to conclude the trial within a reasonable time and the delay is not caused by the accused, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail under the statutory provisions regarding delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in the conclusion of a trial, not attributable to the accused, entitle the accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Is a juvenile offender entitled to bail when the trial has not concluded within a reasonable timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Shapes (Pvt) Limited vs Cantonment Board Clifton and another2017 SHC 241 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-12Read full judgment →
• Shan vs State2017 PHC 891 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-27Read full judgment →
• Shan Muhammad vs State2017 PHC 853 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
• Shamsheer Khan through L.Rs, and others vs Gul Khan and 2 others2017 MLD 1174 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-19Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Bibi vs Riyasat Ali and others2017 CLC 1199 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-22
  DNA testpaternity disputeinheritanceexpert opinioncivil revisiondirect evidenceappellate court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged an appellate court order directing a DNA test to determine the paternity of the petitioner in an inheritance dispute. The petitioner had successfully obtained a decree from the trial court declaring her entitlement to her father's estate. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent filed an application for a DNA test, which the appellate court granted. The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the appellate order. The Court held that parties must prove their cases through their own evidence and cannot use the court's process to create new evidence or fill gaps in their case after a trial has concluded. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that when sufficient direct oral and documentary evidence is available, there is no necessity to rely on expert opinion, which constitutes third-party evidence that cannot override direct proof. The Court also highlighted the danger of using DNA testing to stigmatize individuals and noted that the appellate court failed to obtain the necessary consent from the parties involved before ordering the test.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party seek a DNA test during the appellate stage to fill evidentiary gaps left during the trial?
  • Does an appellate court have the authority to order a DNA test without the consent of the parties involved?
  • Can expert opinion via DNA testing override direct oral and documentary evidence in inheritance and paternity cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Shams vs Zulfiqar Hussain and another2017 YLR 2468 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-26Read full judgment →
• Shams Shahzad vs WAPDA & 2 others2017 SCR 893 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-04-27
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuelimitation perioddate of knowledgepower of attorneyreplacement cost
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from appeals against the judgment and decrees of the High Court, which had dismissed cross-appeals regarding the enhancement of compensation for a house acquired for the Mangla Dam Raising Project. The core legal questions involved whether the reference application was barred by limitation when notice under the Land Acquisition Act was not served, whether the power-of-attorney authorized the filing of the reference, and what the correct market value for compensation of the built-up property was. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that limitation runs from the date of knowledge when no statutory notice of the award is served, that the attorney was duly empowered, and that landowners are entitled to compensation based on the actual market value/replacement cost of construction. The Court laid down the principle that the right to property is constitutionally protected, and lack of funds with the acquiring agency or arbitrary personal estimates by the Collector cannot justify paying below the proven market construction cost.

  Questions settled

  • Does limitation for filing a reference application start from the date of the award when no notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is served upon the landowner?
  • Whether an attorney authorized to pursue legal and administrative actions is competent to file a reference application and subsequent appeals on behalf of the property owner?
  • Can an acquiring agency deny compensation based on the actual market replacement cost of construction on the ground of insufficient funds?
  • Are concurrent findings of lower courts based on misreading and non-reading of evidence liable to be set aside by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shams Khan vs State through A.G., AJK, Muzaffarabad and another2017 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 100 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-01-10
  murder convictiondeath sentence commutationunexplained injuriesmotive in criminal casespurgation of witnessescriminal appealShariat Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and reference arise from a judgment of the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Rawalakot, which convicted the appellant, Shams Khan, for the murder of Muhammad Akram and sentenced him to death. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence regarding the murder, the validity of the motive set up by the prosecution, and the appropriateness of the death penalty given the suppression of the accused's injuries by prosecution witnesses. The Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that while the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, the motive remained shrouded in mystery and was not satisfactorily proven. Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the appellant during the occurrence. Applying the principle that the extreme penalty of death is generally avoided when the motive is unproven and the accused's injuries are unexplained, the court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, extending the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive for a murder warrant the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is the extreme penalty of death appropriate when the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused during the occurrence?
  • Can a trial court conduct a second purgation of witnesses if a valid purgation report already exists on the record?
  • Does the relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamim Akhter and 6 others vs Chairman Eva.Cuee Trust Property2017 YLR 851 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-11Read full judgment →
• Shamim Akhtar vs Arshad Mehmood2017 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 40 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-03-15Read full judgment →
• Shameem Khan & others vs State & others2017 PLJ FSC 117 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Shakir Ali Siddiqui vs The Province of Sindh through Home Secretary2017 CLC 1484 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-28Read full judgment →
• Shakeela Bibi vs The State and another2017 MLD 1091 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-27
  pre-arrest bailabductionlack of evidencecall data recordfemale accusedcriminal investigationsuspicion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Mst. Shakeela Bibi, who was accused in an FIR for the alleged abduction and murder of the complainant's son. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the lack of incriminating evidence and the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the prosecution's case rested entirely on suspicion, as the Investigating Officer failed to collect any substantial evidence linking the petitioner to the crime, noting that the call data record (CDR) did not establish ownership of the phone number in question. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the complainant's inconsistent supplementary statements and the lack of progress in the investigation. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principles laid down are that mere suspicion or naming an accused in an FIR without corroborative evidence does not preclude the grant of bail, and that a female accused is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere naming of an accused in an FIR based on suspicion constitute sufficient grounds to deny pre-arrest bail?
  • Is a female accused entitled to special consideration under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the investigation has failed to produce incriminating evidence beyond mere suspicion after a significant passage of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Shah---Applicant vs The State---Respondent2017 P Cr. L J 1658 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-25
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausefirearm injurynon-vital partdelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Shakeel Shah challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze, whereby his bail was declined in a case arising from FIR relating to firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, considering that the injury was caused to a non-vital part of the body, no repetition of fire was made, and the offence prima facie fell under section 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than section 324. The Sindh High Court held that the case called for further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the injured sustained a single injury on a non-vital part, the applicant had not misused concession of bail earlier, and the trial had been delayed without examination of witnesses. The court laid down the principle that where an injury is sustained on a non-vital part without repetition of fire and falls outside the prohibitory clause, and the accused has spent a considerable period behind bars without progress in the trial, the case warrants the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence falling under section 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a single injury on a non-vital part of the body without repetition of fire warrant further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted on the ground of statutory delay when the prosecution fails to examine witnesses for several months?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Khan and 30 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 PLJ Peshawar 139 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-25Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed vs Abdul Jalil and others2017 CLC 347 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-11-08Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed Shaikh vs Aga Khan University through Board of Governors and another2017 PLC (C.S.) 1080 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-18
  probationary employmentspecific performancepersonal service contractprivate employmenttermination of serviceinjunctiondamagesmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and damages filed by an employee against a private university following his termination during a probationary period. The core legal question was whether the termination of a probationary employee by a private organization without a show-cause notice is actionable, and whether such an employment contract can be specifically enforced. The High Court dismissed the application for an injunction, holding that the employer acted within the express terms of the employment contract, which permitted termination during probation upon payment of salary in lieu of notice. The court established that a contract for personal service cannot be specifically enforced under Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as a servant cannot be forced upon an unwilling master. Furthermore, the court distinguished private employment from statutory or government employment, ruling that public law principles, such as the requirement for due process or the maxim 'audi alteram partem,' do not apply to private probationary employment. The only available remedy for such a breach is a claim for damages.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract for personal service be specifically enforced against an employer?
  • Does the principle of 'audi alteram partem' apply to the termination of a private employee during a probationary period?
  • Is an employee of a private organization entitled to a show-cause notice before termination during probation?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for an employee whose contract of personal service is terminated in breach of contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed and another vs The State2017 YLR 936 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-04-14
  anti-terrorism court jurisdictionrapede novo trialprocedural irregularitycriminal appealordinary criminal courtstransfer of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by an Anti-Terrorism Court regarding offences including rape, abduction, and robbery. The core legal questions were whether the Anti-Terrorism Court possessed jurisdiction to try these offences and whether the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was valid despite the absence of a formal charge for those specific provisions. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the offences were of an ordinary nature, falling outside the purview of special anti-terrorism courts, and that the trial court committed a procedural irregularity by convicting the appellants under the Anti-Terrorism Act without framing specific charges. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgment and sentence, directing the transfer of the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Skardu, for a de novo trial. The key principle laid down is that ordinary criminal offences, such as rape and abduction, must be tried by ordinary criminal courts, and special courts established under the Anti-Terrorism Act should not assume jurisdiction over matters lacking a nexus to terrorism.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Anti-Terrorism Court have jurisdiction to try cases involving ordinary offences like rape and abduction?
  • Is it legally permissible for a trial court to convict an accused under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, without framing a specific charge for the relevant offence?
  • Should cases involving ordinary criminal offences be transferred from special anti-terrorism courts to ordinary courts of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad vs Administration Department through Secretary and 32017 PLC (C.S.) 560 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-07
  government accommodationallotment rulesmarried daughterdependent statusout-of-turn allotmentcivil servant retirementpossession of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to hand over vacant possession of a government quarter that had been allotted to him. The core legal question was whether the married daughter of a retired government servant is entitled to the out-of-turn allotment of her father's residential accommodation under the Residential Accommodation (Procedure for Allotment) Rules, 1980. The Court held that the petition should be allowed, directing the respondents to vacate the quarter and hand over possession to the petitioner. The ratio of the decision is that while a daughter has inheritance rights under Sharia, the rules for residential accommodation are beneficial and remedial in nature, distinct from inheritance law. The Court established the principle that upon marriage, a daughter ceases to be a dependent of her father and becomes dependent on her husband, thereby rendering her ineligible for the out-of-turn allotment of residential accommodation previously held by her father, regardless of whether she resides with him or not.

  Questions settled

  • Is a married daughter entitled to the out-of-turn allotment of residential accommodation previously held by her retired or deceased father?
  • Does the status of a daughter as a dependent change upon her marriage for the purpose of government accommodation allotment?
  • Are rules governing the allotment of residential accommodation to be interpreted as laws of inheritance?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Shakeel Ahmad (2) The State vs (1) The State) (2) Shakeel Ahmad2017 LHC 1336 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-11
  Qatl-e-Amdbenefit of doubtocular accountacquittal of co-accusedcorroborationcriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge at Sheikhupura convicting the appellant, Shakeel Ahmad, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, while acquitting co-accused. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular account, the unnatural presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene, the sustainability of a conviction based on testimony disbelieved regarding co-accused, and the proof of motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution case was fraught with patent doubts, inconsistencies, and improbable circumstances regarding the presence and arrival of eyewitnesses, and that evidence disbelieved against the majority of identically placed co-accused could not sustain the conviction of the appellant without independent corroboration. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that when the prosecution's ocular account is unnatural and co-accused attributed heavier roles are acquitted, a conviction based on the same discredited testimony cannot be sustained against a remaining accused without strong and independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on testimony that has been disbelieved regarding the majority of co-accused?
  • Does the unnatural and coincidental presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene render the prosecution's ocular account unreliable?
  • Whether the benefit of the doubt must be extended to an accused when the prosecution case is fraught with patent inconsistencies and improbabilities?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakar Khan and 17 others vs The State2017 MLD 965 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-11-04
  pre-arrest bailad-interim bailbail cancellationprohibitory clauseulterior motivestentative assessmentmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 whereby the applicants sought pre-arrest bail in respect of a case registered under Sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicants had made out a case for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, considering the parameters and extraordinary nature of pre-arrest bail established by superior courts. The Balochistan High Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of mala fides or ulterior motives for arrest, particularly on the part of the police, and that reasonable grounds existed connecting the applicants to heinous offences falling within the prohibitory clause. The court recalled the ad-interim pre-arrest bail and dismissed the application, laying down that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a substitute for post-arrest bail and that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential conditions and parameters for the grant of pre-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the offence falls within the prohibitory clause and reasonable grounds connect the accused to the crime?
  • Is a detailed evaluation of evidence permissible at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • What is the effect of failing to allege specific mala fides or collusion on the part of the investigating agency in a pre-arrest bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Ayub vs Mst. Nasira Mushtaq and 5 others2017 MLD 1796 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-27Read full judgment →
• Shahzeb vs The State2017 PHC 1070 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shahzaibul Hassan Khan vs Mian Muhammad Ahmed and 2 others2017 CLC 1539 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-27Read full judgment →
• Shahzadi Umerzadi Tiwana vs Province of Punjab and others2017 LHC 4389 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-15Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Aslam and others vs Ch. Muhammad Akram and others2017 PLD Supreme Court 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-20
  constitution of benchesreview petitionprerogative of Chief JusticeSupreme Court Rulessame bench rulejudicial administration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from civil miscellaneous applications seeking the constitution of a larger bench and objecting to the formation of the bench hearing a review petition, on the ground that the review should be heard by the exact same bench that delivered the original judgment pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The core legal questions revolved around whether litigants have a right to demand a specific bench or a full court, and the proper interpretation of the requirement that a review petition be heard by the same bench as far as practicable. The Supreme Court held that the constitution of benches is the exclusive domain and prerogative of the Chief Justice of Pakistan under Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and that the phrase 'as far as practicable' in Order XXVI, Rule 8 provides flexibility, meaning that a review petition is sufficiently constituted if placed before a bench including the author judge, subject to availability. The key principles laid down are that procedural rules do not confer a right on parties to choose a bench, and the Chief Justice's administrative power to constitute benches overrides litigant objections regarding bench composition.

  Questions settled

  • Is the constitution of benches the exclusive prerogative of the Chief Justice of Pakistan?
  • Does a litigant have a right to demand that a review petition be heard by the exact same bench under Order XXVI Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
  • What is the legal effect of the expression 'as far as practicable' regarding the hearing of a review petition by the same bench?
  • Does a failure to comply with procedural rules regarding bench formation nullify the proceedings or the judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Rauf s_o Sardar Abdul Rauf Khan caste Sudhan r_o Gorah Dewan_1ffdc9762017 SC AJK 373 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Shahzad Qamer Abbas vs Province of Sindh and others2017 SHC 316 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-02
  Deputy Prosecutor GeneralSindh Public Service Commissionpublic recruitmentage limit relaxationact of court prejudices no oneconstitutional petitionmoulding of relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges Consolidated Advertisement No. 1 of 2017 issued by the Sindh Public Service Commission for recruitment to various posts, specifically seeking to incorporate and give preference to the previous merit list and examination results from Advertisement No. 05 of 2011 for the post of Deputy Prosecutor General in which the petitioner had previously qualified the written test before the process was stalled due to litigation. The core legal question is whether a candidate who successfully cleared a written test under a prior advertisement, which was delayed due to court proceedings and subsequent age bar, is entitled to participate in the fresh recruitment process without being penalized by the intervening delay and age limits. The Sindh High Court held that while the impugned advertisement and ongoing selection process are lawful and contain no illegality, the petitioner cannot be prejudiced by acts of the court or delays beyond his control, invoking the legal maxims lex non cogit ad impossibilia and actus curiae neminem gravabit. The court accordingly moulded the relief, directing that the petitioner be permitted to participate in the current recruitment process from the stage of the interview onwards, having already cleared the written test in the earlier process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate who qualified a written test under a previous advertisement stalled by litigation can claim direct entry to interviews in a subsequent recruitment process?
  • Does the delay caused by court proceedings in a public recruitment process prejudice the accrued rights of a candidate regarding age limits?
  • Can the High Court mould the relief in a constitutional petition to allow a qualified candidate to participate in a restarted recruitment process?
  • Are appointments to posts in the Sindh Criminal Prosecution Service governed by the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Khan vs The State2017 PHC 804 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-30Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Khan Khakwani vs Begum Shamim M.K. Khakwani through Muhammad Younus Durrani and another2017 YLR 1005 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-28Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Hussain & others vs State & anothersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 718 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-08
  murderbenefit of doubtsifting of evidenceblood feudinjured witnessescriminal appealacquittaldeath reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, along with a connected murder reference and a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal, arises from a double murder and murderous assault incident resulting from an ongoing blood feud. The core legal question revolves around whether the convictions of the appellants could be sustained through the sifting of prosecution evidence, given that the complainant party had cast a wider net, exaggerated the incident, deviated substantially from the initial police report through a belated private complaint, and implicated multiple accused who were subsequently acquitted by the trial court. The Lahore High Court held that where witnesses engage in blanket perjury, falsity, and the hounding of opponents with indivisible roles, the principle of sifting evidence cannot be applied without independent corroboration. The Court ruled that the prosecution's case was fraught with serious doubts, contradictions, and improbabilities, making it unsafe to maintain the convictions. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellants, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal against the acquittals, laying down that injured witnesses must still qualify on the touchstone of probability and that sifting requires safe independent corroboration which was lacking here.

  Questions settled

  • Can the principle of sifting prosecution evidence be applied to convict an accused when witnesses are found to have engaged in blanket perjury and exaggerated the incident?
  • Does the presence of injuries on the person of an eye-witness automatically sanctify their statement as truthful without testing it on the touchstone of probability?
  • Whether a conviction can be sustained in the absence of independent corroborania when the prosecution has cast a wider net to implicate multiple opponents in a blood feud?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Shahzad Hussain & 2 others (2) Hashim Khan (3) The State vs (1) ThePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 718, 2017 LHC 1327 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-08
  murderbenefit of the doubtinjured witnessesprinciple of siftingblood feudacquittalappellants
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder and murderous assault following a double homicide arising from a blood feud. The core legal question revolves around whether the conviction of the appellants could be sustained through the application of the principle of sifting evidence, given that the complainant party cast a wide net, exaggerated allegations, and that co-accused were acquitted. The Lahore High Court held that where witnesses indulge in blanket perjury and attempt to rope in multiple adversaries by casting a wider net, and where the evidence is fraught with material contradictions and lacks independent corroboration, the principle of sifting cannot be safely applied. The court laid down the principle that the presence of injured witnesses does not automatically guarantee truthfulness, and where the prosecution case is deeply compromised by exaggerations, political influence, and false implications, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, resulting in their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of injured witnesses can be accepted without independent corroboration when the ocular account is found to be exaggerated and suffering from material contradictions?
  • Can the principle of sifting of evidence be applied to sustain a conviction when the prosecution witnesses have cast a wide net to falsely implicate multiple adversaries?
  • Does the presence of injuries on prosecution witnesses automatically sanctify their statements as truthful without passing the touchstone of probability?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Gohar vs Government of Punjab and Aitchison College through its Board of Governor2017 LHC 4318 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-26
  contractual employmentregularization of servicewrit jurisdictionmaster and servantintra court appealvested rightnon-renewal of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges a Single Bench order that dismissed the appellant’s writ petition seeking regularization of his services as a Mathematics Teacher at Aitchison College, Lahore. The core legal questions concern whether a contractual employee possesses a vested right to regularization or contract extension, and whether contractual terms are enforceable through the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the appeal was meritless, affirming that the appellant, having accepted the terms of his employment contract, had no vested right to regularization or extension. The Court emphasized that the non-renewal of a contract upon its natural expiry does not constitute termination or removal from service. The key principle laid down is that contractual employees are strictly bound by the terms of their engagement, and such contractual obligations cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, particularly where no statutory service rules govern the employment relationship. Consequently, the decision to extend or terminate a contract remains the sole prerogative of the employer.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contractual employee have a vested right to the regularization or extension of their employment contract?
  • Are contractual terms of service enforceable through the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the non-renewal of a contract upon its expiry constitute termination or removal from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Aslam and others vs Province of Punjab and others2017 YLR 337 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-29
  civil revisionclosing of evidenceOrder XVII Rule 3adjournmentsabuse of processsuit for declarationprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which dismissed the petitioners' suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court acted lawfully in closing the petitioners' right to produce evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, following their failure to do so over a five-year period. The High Court held that the trial court's decision was justified, noting that the petitioners had been granted more than sufficient opportunities to adduce evidence but failed to comply. The Court emphasized that unnecessary adjournments undermine the efficiency of the judicial process and that litigants have no right to protract litigation through such delays. The ratio established is that where a party fails to produce evidence despite repeated opportunities, the trial court is empowered and obligated to close the evidence and decide the matter to prevent the abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, finding no legal infirmity in the lower courts' judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court close the right to produce evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if a party fails to produce evidence after multiple opportunities?
  • Does the failure of a party to produce evidence for an extended period justify the dismissal of a suit for declaration?
  • Is a revision petition maintainable against concurrent findings of lower courts where the trial court exercised its discretion to close evidence due to the plaintiff's failure to produce it?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Ashraf vs Rauf Aiimad2017 PLJ Lahore 388 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-26Read full judgment →
• Shahrukh Shakeel Khan and 2 others vs Province of Sindh through Chief2017 PLD Sindh 198 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-07
  Private school feesFee hike regulationConstitutional petitionVires of legislationFreedom of commerceRight to educationRegulatory mechanismEnforcement of rulesWrit jurisdictionEducation department
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved multiple petitions concerning private schools' fee hikes and the provincial government's regulatory mechanism. The core legal questions revolved around the vires of sub-rule 7(3) of the Sindh Private Education Institutions (Regulations and Control) Rules, 2002, which limits annual fee increases to 5%, challenged under Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution, and the alleged failure of the Department of Education to enforce existing regulations. The Court dismissed petitions challenging the vires of sub-rule 7(3), holding that the grievance was about the quantum of increase (5%) rather than the mechanism itself, which requires factual determination beyond writ jurisdiction, and found no inherent violation of Article 25. Petitions by parents/students were allowed. The Court directed the Department of Education to strictly enforce the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulations and Control) Ordinance, 2001, and its Rules, ensuring compliance with the 5% annual fee increase limit and submitting quarterly audit reports. Schools are permitted to increase tuition fees by no more than 5% per annum from their registration date for three years, with no further increase permitted until re-registration if the period expires. Schools that exceeded the 5% increase in the last three years are barred from further enhancement until re-registration, after which increases must strictly comply with sub-rule 7(3).

  Read full judgment →
• Shahrukh Aamir Ubaid vs National Highway and Motorway Police2017 PLJ Lahore 258, 2017 PLC (C.S.) 368 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-05
  territorial jurisdictionconstitutional petitiondominant object principlewrit of mandamusrecruitment quotamaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two writ petitions seeking directions against the National Highway and Motorway Police, Islamabad, for the appointment of the petitioners as Junior Patrol Officers on the Punjab Minority Quota. The core legal question revolved around whether the Lahore High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petitions where the testing service responsible for the grievance was located in Quetta, Balochistan, and the recruitment process concerned a vacancy outside the court's territorial limits. The court held that the Lahore High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ as neither the respondent authority nor the testing service functioned within its geographical limits, and the dominant object of the petitions related to acts and appointments outside its jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan must strictly adhere to territorial limitations, requiring courts to determine the 'dominant object' or primary grievance to establish jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Lahore High Court have territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ against a federal authority located in Islamabad regarding recruitment processes handled in Quetta?
  • How is the principle of dominant object applied in determining the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained before a High Court when the person or authority against whom the writ is sought is neither resident nor located within its territorial limits?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahrukh Aamir Ubaid vs National Highway & Motorway Police2017 PLJ Lahore 258 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-05Read full judgment →
• Shahnaz vs State2017 PHC 560 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-02Read full judgment →
• Shahnaz Bibi vs Appellate Authority, etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 263 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-16Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz, Proprietor Tooba Traders vs Appellate Tribunal Inland2017 PLJ Lahore 806 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-15
  appellate tribunalinterim reliefstay of proceedingsancillary powersincome taxconstitutional petitionmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue refusing to grant a stay against re-adjudication proceedings on the ground that the Tribunal lacked express power to do so. The core legal question was whether an appellate tribunal possesses the incidental or ancillary power to grant interim relief or stay proceedings when the governing statute does not explicitly provide for it. The Lahore High Court held that the constitutional petition was maintainable under Article 199 because no reference application lay against an interim order under Section 131(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. On the merits, the Court held that a tribunal with appellate jurisdiction possesses the inherent, incidental, and ancillary power to suspend the operation of an impugned order or stay proceedings to ensure the effectiveness of the main appeal. The key principle laid down is that the power to grant interim relief is an ancillary and incidental attribute of any substantive appellate jurisdiction, even in the absence of an express statutory provision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a reference application under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is maintainable against an interim order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 131(5)?
  • Does the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue possess the power to grant interim relief or stay proceedings when the statute contains no express provision for such relief?
  • Is the power to suspend the operation of an impugned order an ancillary and incidental part of appellate jurisdiction?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable against an interlocutory order of the Appellate Tribunal refusing a stay?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Proprietor Tooba, Traders vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue2017 PLJ Lahore 806, 2017 PTD 1134, 2017 LHC 1199 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-15
  Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenueinterim reliefancillary jurisdictionstay of proceedingsappellate jurisdictionwrit jurisdictionIncome Tax Ordinance 2001
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which refused to grant a stay of re-adjudication proceedings on the grounds that it lacked the statutory authority to do so. The core legal question was whether the Appellate Tribunal possesses the ancillary or incidental power to grant interim relief, such as a stay of proceedings, when the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 only explicitly provides for the stay of tax recovery. The High Court held that the Tribunal possesses such power. It reasoned that the authority to grant interim relief is reasonably incidental to the main appellate jurisdiction, as the right of appeal is a matter of substance rather than mere procedure. Denying such power would frustrate the appellate process and lead to a multiplicity of litigation. The key principle laid down is that an appellate body, even in the absence of an express statutory provision, has the inherent, incidental, or ancillary power to grant interim relief to preserve the subject matter of the appeal and ensure the effectiveness of its appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue have the power to grant interim relief in the absence of an express statutory provision?
  • Is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable against an order of the Appellate Tribunal refusing to grant a stay of proceedings?
  • Can an appellate court grant interim relief as an ancillary power to its main appellate jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Proprietor Tooba Traders vs Appellate Tribunal Inland2017 PTD 1134 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-15
  Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenueinterim reliefancillary jurisdictionwrit jurisdictionstay of proceedingstax assessmentincome tax appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue refusing to grant a stay on re-adjudication proceedings pending an appeal. The core legal question was whether the Appellate Tribunal possesses the inherent, ancillary, or incidental power to grant interim relief (stay) when the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, does not explicitly provide for it, and whether a writ petition is maintainable against such an interlocutory order. The Court held that the Appellate Tribunal possesses the ancillary and incidental power to grant interim relief, as this is essential to the effective exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. It further held that a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is maintainable because no other adequate remedy, such as a Reference Application, exists for such interlocutory orders. The key principle laid down is that the power to grant interim relief is inherently incidental to the main appellate jurisdiction, and the right of appeal is a matter of substance, not mere procedure, which would be frustrated if re-assessment proceeded during the pendency of an appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue have the ancillary power to grant interim relief even when the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, does not explicitly provide for it?
  • Is a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, maintainable against an order of the Appellate Tribunal refusing interim relief?
  • Can a Reference Application under section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, be filed against an interlocutory order of the Appellate Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Fazil vs Mst. Hina Tahir and 2 others2017 YLR 622 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-22Read full judgment →
• Shahida Bibi etc. vs Habib Bank Limited etc_2017 PLJ SC 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  execution of decreebanking courtmortgaged propertyprivate treatypublic auctionconscious application of mindproportionalityspecial banking laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from execution proceedings originating under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984, which subsequently stood transferred to the Banking Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance 1997 and later the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997. The core legal question concerned whether an executing court, having once initiated property sales via public auction, could subsequently switch to a private treaty/negotiation, and what statutory provisions governed such sales. A larger bench was constituted to reconcile conflicting precedents. The Supreme Court held that while an executing court may deviate from an initially adopted mode of execution upon conscious application of mind and by assigning justifiable reasons, the sale in question violated mandatory statutory notice requirements and procedures under the applicable special laws. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and set aside the private sale, ordering the property to be put to open auction with safeguards for the auction purchaser's deposited funds and compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executing court deviate from an initially adopted mode of execution and switch to an alternative method such as a private treaty?
  • What is the applicable law regarding execution proceedings transferred upon the repeal of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 to the Banking Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997?
  • Does a failure to provide the mandatory statutory notice of option to purchase to the judgment debtor vitiate a private sale of mortgaged property?
  • Whether an executing court's departure from a preferred mode of execution requires a conscious application of mind and recorded reasons rather than tacit consent?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid vs The State and another2017 YLR 2486 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-02
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausedelay in FIRfirearm injurycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 148/16 registered under Sections 324, 337F(vi), 337F(iv), 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Rurala Road, District Faisalabad. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner makes out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the delay in the FIR, the nature of the firearm injury attributed to him, and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause to certain charged offences. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail as his case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497. The key principle laid down is that delay in lodging the FIR without plausible explanation, coupled with offences falling outside the prohibitory clause and completion of investigation with no progress in trial, warrants the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused be kept in jail for an indefinite period when the trial has not made fruitful progress?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Syed vs Total Parco Marketing Ltd. through Company Secretary2017 YLR 2006 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-18Read full judgment →
• Shahid Sharif and 22 others vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government, through Chief Secretary and 12 others2017 YLR 746 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-03-16
  state land transferpublic purposeland acquisitionconstitutional interpretationadministrative lawwrit jurisdictiondue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition regarding the transfer of state land. The land, originally acquired in 1966 for a Sericulture Nursery, was partially transferred to the Army Public School by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee without adhering to formal legal procedures. The core legal question was whether the government could transfer state-acquired land to an institution without following the prescribed statutory mode. The Supreme Court held that the transfer was illegal, as it was executed without lawful authority and bypassed mandatory procedures. The Court emphasized that state property vests in the President and must be transferred strictly in accordance with the law, specifically Section 52-A of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The Court established that where the law prescribes a specific mode for performing an act, it must be followed strictly; otherwise, the act is void. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, declaring the transfer illegal while noting the government may proceed lawfully if it determines the land is no longer required for its original purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Can state-acquired land be transferred to an institution without following the prescribed legal procedure?
  • Does the transfer of government property require compliance with specific statutory modes under Section 52-A of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974?
  • Is an administrative order transferring state land void if it bypasses established legal rules and regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Saeed Malik vs Khadim Hussain and 2 others2017 YLR 722 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-03-03Read full judgment →
• Shahid Nadeem Akram vs Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR, Karachi and another2017 PTD (Trib.) 1103 · Customs Appellate Tribunal
  customs smugglingsearch and seizureburden of proofconfiscation of goodscustoms adjudicationprocedural irregularitysmuggled goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an Order-in-Original that confiscated thirteen heavy-duty generators from the appellant’s workshop, alleging they were smuggled goods. The core legal question was whether the authorities had sufficient grounds to classify the generators as smuggled under the Customs Act, 1969, and whether the search and seizure procedures were legally compliant. The Customs Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the confiscation order. The Tribunal held that the seizing agency failed to provide reasonable grounds to suspect the generators were brought into Pakistan via unauthorized routes, particularly given their age and the appellant's documented business of repair and maintenance. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled the search conducted under Section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969 was unlawful, as there was no immediate danger of the goods being removed to justify bypassing the mandatory warrant requirement under Section 162. The judgment affirms that the burden of proof rests on the state to establish smuggling, and procedural irregularities, including factual contradictions in seizure reports, invalidate the resulting confiscation.

  Questions settled

  • Can customs authorities invoke the power to search without a warrant under Section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969, when there is no immediate danger of the goods being removed?
  • Does the burden of proof lie with the seizing agency to establish reasonable grounds for suspecting that goods are smuggled?
  • Does a failure to comply with the mandatory warrant requirements of Section 162 of the Customs Act, 1969, render a subsequent seizure illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mehmood CH. vs The State and another2017 YLR 1076 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-22
  post-arrest bailcircumstantial evidencecall data recordidentification paradeprohibitory clausemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Shahid Mehmood Ch. seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302/34, 379/411, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail based on circumstantial evidence, lack of direct eyewitnesses, and alleged planting of recoveries, despite being linked through Call Data Records and a successful test identification parade. The Lahore High Court held that the circumstantial evidence, including call data records, the petitioner's identification in an identification parade, and the subsequent recovery of the deceased's motorcycle, mobile phone, and the vehicle used to transport the dead body, prima facie connected the petitioner to the offense. The court established that where an accused is prima facie linked to a heinous crime falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and where the cause of death is established as poisoning through medical reports, bail cannot be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted in a murder case resting on circumstantial evidence where the accused is identified through a test identification parade and linked via call data records?
  • Does the recovery of stolen articles and the vehicle used in the crime during police investigation disentitle an accused from the concession of bail?
  • Whether an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrants the dismissal of a bail petition when prima facie connection is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Maqbool and 3 others vs The StateK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 67 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-19
  fund raising for terrorismproscribed organizationbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealanti-terrorismacquittalinsufficient evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants under Sections 11-N, 11-F(2), and 11-G(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, recorded by the Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges of fund raising for terrorism and possession of proscribed materials beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offenses, noting key lapses such as the failure to associate public witnesses, absence of evidence showing the issuance of receipts or collection of funds, lack of recovery of supporting items like pens or wooden rods for flags, and failure to prove that the organization involved was proscribed. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt, reaffirming the principle that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to produce public witnesses or recover instruments of the crime vitiates a conviction for fund raising under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does the absence of proof regarding an organization being proscribed weaken a charge under Section 11-G and Section 11-N of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case sufficient for the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Khan and others vs The State and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 354, 2017 YLR 2419, 2017 PHC 645 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-21Read full judgment →
• Shahid Khan and 3 others vs The State through Station House Officer2017 YLR 2419 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-21Read full judgment →
• Shahid Khan and 3 others vs State through Station House Officer and 22017 PLJ Peshawar 354 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shahid Karim, J. Faisalabad Electric Supply Company through Director2017 PLJ Lahore 309 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-31Read full judgment →
• Shahid Iftikhar and anothers vs Mst. Tasneem Rani and 4 others2017 CLC 264 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-03
  rejection of plaintcivil court jurisdictionrevenue recordfraudulent entriesdeclaratory suittemporary injunctionLand Revenue Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the District Judge Sialkot, which set aside the trial court's order rejecting the plaintiff's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 while hearing a temporary injunction application. The core legal question was whether a civil suit seeking a declaration against allegedly forged revenue entries is barred under Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act 1967, and whether a plaint can be rejected without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard on maintainability. The Lahore High Court held that while Section 172 excludes civil court jurisdiction for mere correction of revenue entries, a suit for declaration of proprietary rights affected by illegal entries remains maintainable under Section 53 of the Land Revenue Act 1967 read with the Specific Relief Act 1877. Furthermore, rejecting a plaint at the interlocutory stage of a temporary injunction application without notice or opportunity to explain is arbitrary and improper. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the remand of the case to the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred by Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act 1967 when a plaintiff challenges revenue entries on the ground of fraud affecting proprietary rights?
  • Can a trial court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 while deciding an application for temporary injunction without providing the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard?
  • Does a person aggrieved by an entry in a record-of-rights have the right to institute a declaratory suit under Section 53 of the Land Revenue Act 1967?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Idrees vs Govt. of the Punjab, etc.2017 LHC 4399 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-16Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs Mohammad Younus Gondal and 2 others2017 CLC 656 · Sindh High Court · 2016-07-29
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentchange of ownershiplandlord and tenantconstitutional jurisdictionconcurrent findingswilful defaultSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of twenty-six identical constitutional petitions filed by tenants against concurrent findings of lower forums ordering their ejectment on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether tenants who received a notice of change of ownership under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 could withhold rent or delay payment while demanding title documents. The Sindh High Court held that a tenant has no right to demand title documents upon receiving a notice under Section 18 and is bound to attorn to the new landlord upon receiving intimation through notice or reliable judicial proceedings, and failure to tender rent within the statutory period constitutes wilful default. The court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of rent courts based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 unless tainted by misreading or non-reading of evidence, and that the appellate authority under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 is the final forum whose decisions cannot be challenged through a substituted appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant have the right to demand title documents from a landlord upon receipt of a notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Whether failure to tender rent to a new landlord within the statutory period after receiving notice of transfer of ownership constitutes wilful default?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of two lower courts in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 without proof of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Does the institution of an ejectment application serve as substantial compliance with the notice requirement under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain Shahid vs The State2017 YLR 2493 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-13
  National Accountability Ordinancepublic-at-largecriminal breach of trustcheatingburden of proofinvestigation standardsacquittalhandwriting expert
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 9(a)(ix) and 9(a)(x) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for allegedly defrauding investors. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s actions constituted corruption and corrupt practices under the Ordinance, specifically whether the aggrieved investors constituted the "public-at-large" required for NAB jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, is a special law intended for large-scale corruption, not individual civil disputes. It established that a small number of complainants does not satisfy the statutory requirement of defrauding the "public-at-large." Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust, such as specific terms of entrustment, and that the investigation was deficient for failing to verify the appellant's defense regarding the actual business owner. Additionally, the Court affirmed that when an accused denies signatures on documents, the prosecution is legally obligated to obtain a handwriting expert's report to establish authenticity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'public-at-large' in the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, encompass a small group of individual investors?
  • Is the National Accountability Bureau authorized to take cognizance of individual cheating cases that do not involve the public at large?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offence of criminal breach of trust under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the prosecution legally obligated to obtain a handwriting expert's report when an accused specifically denies their signatures on incriminating documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain Shahid vs State2017 YLR 2493, 2017 LHC 1797 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-13
  accountability referencepublic-at-largecriminal breach of trustcheatingburden of proofinvestigation standardsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Sections 9(a)(ix) and 9(a)(x) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for alleged investment fraud. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the jurisdictional requirement of defrauding the 'public-at-large' and whether the evidence sufficiently proved the elements of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the 'public-at-large' element, noting that a small number of victims (eleven) does not satisfy this statutory requirement. Furthermore, the court found the investigation flawed due to the failure to probe the appellant's defense regarding the actual business ownership and the absence of handwriting expert analysis for disputed cheques. The court emphasized that the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, is a special law not intended for individual civil disputes or standard breach of contract cases. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the court observing that the matter was more appropriate for civil recovery proceedings or standard criminal law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the defrauding of a small number of individuals constitute defrauding the 'public-at-large' under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is the National Accountability Bureau authorized to take cognizance of individual cheating cases that do not involve the public-at-large?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offence of criminal breach of trust under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the failure of an investigating officer to probe a specific defense raised by an accused cause prejudice warranting acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Dada vs The State2017 MLD 288 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-09-08
  narcotics possessionbenefit of doubtrecovery proceedingsindependent witnesschemical examiner reportsampling procedurecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 3 kilograms of Charas. The core legal questions concerned the impact of failing to associate independent witnesses in a populated area, the consequences of inordinate delay in dispatching samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the validity of the sampling procedure employed by the police. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that while Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, excludes the mandatory application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the prosecution must still provide a plausible explanation for the absence of independent witnesses in populated areas. Furthermore, the Court established that an unexplained delay of over six months in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, violating the 72-hour requirement under Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, and the failure to draw separate samples from each packet, warrants acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 absolve the prosecution from explaining the absence of independent witnesses in populated areas?
  • What is the legal consequence of an unexplained, inordinate delay in sending narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Is it legally permissible to mix samples drawn from multiple packets of recovered narcotics into a single parcel for chemical analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Chanzaib vs C.D.A. and others2017 YLR 411 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-08-30Read full judgment →
• Shahid and another vs The State2017 YLR 1972 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-02
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessocular evidencemedical evidenceFIR delaycriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellants for the murder of the complainant's uncle. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in the evidence. The Court held that the convictions were unsustainable, setting them aside and acquitting the appellants, while dismissing the complainant's appeals for sentencing enhancement and against the acquittal of a co-accused. The Court established that an FIR recorded after a preliminary inquiry is inherently unreliable. Furthermore, it affirmed that ocular evidence must align with medical evidence; here, the presence of blackening on wounds contradicted the witnesses' claims regarding firing distance. The Court also categorized the eye-witnesses as 'chance witnesses' whose presence was unexplained and untrustworthy. Finally, the Court reiterated that when the prosecution alleges a motive but fails to prove it, the case suffers, and the 'golden rule' mandates that any reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt must be resolved in their favor to prevent the conviction of an innocent person.

  Questions settled

  • Does an FIR recorded after a preliminary inquiry lose its evidentiary value?
  • Can the testimony of a 'chance witness' be accepted without corroboration?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove an alleged motive?
  • Must ocular evidence be rejected if it contradicts medical evidence regarding the distance of the shot?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid alias Shahidi vs The StateK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 53 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-10
  murder convictiondeath sentence commutationocular evidencebenefit of doubtquantum of sentenceforensic evidence reliabilitycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the ocular account, the alleged motive, and the recovery of the weapon, and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the evidentiary gaps. The Court held that while the ocular account remained trustworthy and confidence-inspiring, the prosecution failed to prove the motive and the recovery of the weapon was rendered unreliable because the crime empties and the weapon were dispatched to the Forensic Science Laboratory simultaneously. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, citing the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as an extenuating circumstance regarding the quantum of sentence. The judgment reaffirms that while ocular evidence can sustain a conviction, the failure of corroborative evidence like motive and recovery necessitates a re-evaluation of the appropriate punishment to ensure justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the simultaneous dispatch of crime empties and the recovered weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the recovery evidence unreliable?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular evidence if the prosecution fails to prove the motive and weapon recovery?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as an extenuating circumstance when determining the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid alias Punjabi vs The State2017 PLD Sindh 717 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-24
  murderbenefit of doubtcriminal appealcontradictions in evidencestatement of accusedcross-examinationappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether material contradictions in prosecution witness testimonies, lack of an identification parade, delayed forensic reports, and flawed examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the conviction, and whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies, uncorroborated testimonies, and failure to put incriminating evidence to the accused during his statement. The court laid down the principle that the benefit of any substantial doubt in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, and that cross-examination is a vital and substantive right for testing witness veracity which cannot be treated as an empty formality. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to create reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of an accused?
  • Can a piece of evidence not put to the accused person at the time of recording his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered against him?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt in a criminal case is granted to an accused as a matter of grace or as a matter of right?
  • What is the legal evidentiary value of a confessional statement made before a police officer without production before a Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali vs The State & another2017 LHC 1754 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-13
  circumstantial evidencemurderbenefit of the doubtsupplementary statementrecovery from jewelerQanun-i-Shahadat Ordermedical jurisprudencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for committing the murder of an elderly woman and concealing evidence, which resulted in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including an uncorroborated eyewitness account of seeing the appellant with a suspicious package, inconsistent medical evidence regarding the time of death and putrefaction of a submerged body, and the admissibility and veracity of subsequent recoveries of gold ornaments based on a belated supplementary statement. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence leaving no hypothesis of the appellant's innocence, and that the alleged recoveries of ornaments from a jeweler did not satisfy the strict legal requirements of Article 40 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984. The court laid down the principle that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must conclusively connect the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt, and intermediate gaps or doubtful recoveries entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on weak circumstantial evidence and an uncorroborated eyewitness account?
  • Whether a belated supplementary statement can be treated as an extension of the First Information Report to cure initial omissions?
  • Does the recovery of incriminating articles from a third-party jeweler, rather than directly from the accused, satisfy the requirements of Article 40 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What is the evidentiary value of medical testimony concerning the time of death when it contradicts established principles of medical jurisprudence regarding submerged bodies?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Cloth Processing Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Secretary, Revenue2017 PTD 1556 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2017-04-24Read full judgment →