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.

• Shaheen Air International Limited (Sail) and another vs Civil Aviation2017 YLR 2442 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-04Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Khan vs Additional District Judge, Ferozewala and others2017 SCMR 2005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-09-08
  oral giftmutationres judicatawithdrawal of suitcause of actionrevenue ordercivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a civil suit challenging a revenue order. The petitioner claimed ownership of land via an oral gift mutation, which had been declared invalid by the Member Board of Revenue in 2003. This revenue order was previously upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The petitioner subsequently filed a civil suit for declaration challenging the same revenue order, which the trial court initially allowed to proceed but was later dismissed by the revisional court and the High Court. The core legal questions were whether the second suit was barred by the withdrawal of a previous suit without permission and whether it disclosed a valid cause of action. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2 and Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court affirmed that a party cannot re-litigate a matter already decided by a final revenue order and upheld the dismissal, emphasizing the procedural bars against filing fresh suits after withdrawal without leave.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a civil suit without seeking permission to file a fresh suit bar a subsequent suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Can a party challenge a revenue order in a civil suit after that order has already been affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court?
  • Is a suit that re-litigates a previously decided revenue matter barred by the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz alias Thatha vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 713 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-22
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaytrial adjournmentconduct of accusedcriminal proceduredacoity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Shahbaz alias Thatha, facing charges under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground of statutory delay, asserting that his trial remained unconcluded despite his incarceration since May 2014. The Court examined the trial court's record and a report from the trial judge, which revealed that numerous prosecution witnesses had appeared on multiple dates, but the proceedings were repeatedly adjourned at the request of the defence. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay when the delay in trial was attributable to the conduct of the accused rather than the prosecution. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, reasoning that the cumulative effect of adjournments sought by the defence disentitled him to relief. The Court affirmed the principle that statutory delay cannot be determined by simple mathematical calculation; rather, the court must assess the overall conduct of the accused and the cumulative impact of adjournments.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted bail on the ground of statutory delay when the delay is attributable to the defence?
  • Is the determination of statutory delay for bail purposes a matter of simple mathematical calculation of time spent in custody?
  • What is the effect of an accused seeking adjournments when prosecution witnesses are present in court on the right to claim statutory delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Akram vs Competent Authority & 3 others2017 SCR 1257 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-10-31
  misconductservice lawmisappropriation of fundssubordinate judiciarystatutory interpretationdepartmental inquirydismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of a service appeal by the Service Tribunal, which upheld the appellant's removal from service for misconduct. The appellant, a Stenographer in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Subordinate Judiciary, was found to have misappropriated public funds by retaining decretal amounts in his personal account for several years. The core legal questions were whether the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001, applies to employees of the subordinate judiciary, and whether the appellant's admission of retaining funds constituted sufficient proof of misconduct despite his plea of good faith. The Court held that the Act of 2001 is applicable to subordinate judiciary employees because their service terms are governed by the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, unlike High Court employees whose terms are governed by constitutional rules. The Court affirmed that the appellant's confession of retaining funds, combined with the failure to record entries in the judicial record, established gross misconduct, and that ignorance of the law or lack of intent does not excuse such actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001 apply to employees of the subordinate judiciary?
  • Can a civil servant claim ignorance of the law as a valid defense for the misappropriation of public funds?
  • Is a formal inquiry required when a civil servant has already confessed to the act of misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ahmed Chaudhry and others- vs The State and others2017 SCMR 1724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-22
  pre-arrest bailFIR delaymala fidecriminal petitionejectment orderinvestigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which refused pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case involving offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the FIR and the nature of the alleged offences. The Supreme Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of eleven days, contained collective allegations without specific roles, and involved offences that were largely bailable. Furthermore, police reports indicated that the petitioners were unarmed and no property was snatched, contradicting the FIR. Crucially, the occurrence took place while a court-appointed Bailiff was executing a lawful ejectment order. The Court held that the FIR appeared to contain exaggerations and that the petitioners had already joined the investigation. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, confirming the pre-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where an FIR is prima facie exaggerated, mala fide is evident, and the accused has joined the investigation, pre-arrest bail is appropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a lawful court ejectment order being executed at the time of an alleged offence support a claim of mala fide in the FIR?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the accused has already joined the investigation and no recovery is required?
  • Can a court grant pre-arrest bail when the FIR contains collective allegations without specific roles and is prima facie exaggerated?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahab Usto. vs Government of Sindh2017 SCP 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-16
  fundamental rightsright to lifedoctrine of public trustenvironmental protectionwater contaminationpublic interest litigationjudicial commissiongood governance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed by a practicing lawyer, addressed the systemic failure of the Government of Sindh and its agencies to provide clean drinking water, sanitation, and a hygienic environment, thereby violating citizens' fundamental rights. The core legal question concerned whether the state and its instrumentalities breached their constitutional and statutory obligations and the Doctrine of Public Trust. The Court held that the government and agencies, including the North Sindh Urban Services Corporation (NSUSC) and Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), failed to perform their mandated duties, resulting in severe water contamination and environmental hazards. Consequently, the Court ordered the establishment of a Commission and a Task Force to oversee the rehabilitation of water filtration and sewerage treatment infrastructure. It further directed the winding up of the NSUSC and Sindh Solid Waste Management Board due to gross mismanagement, transferring their functions to the Public Health Engineering Department. The judgment establishes that the provision of potable water and a healthy environment is a fundamental right subsumed under the right to life, and public authorities act as fiduciaries of the people.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the state to provide clean drinking water and sanitation constitute a violation of the fundamental right to life?
  • Can the Supreme Court constitute a judicial commission to probe into allegations of administrative failure regarding public utilities?
  • Are public agencies and government departments bound by the Doctrine of Public Trust in the management of natural resources and public services?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to restrain the government from transferring officials involved in a court-mandated task force?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahab Usto vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, etc2017 SCMR 732, 2017 SCP 18, 2017 P.S.C. 1667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-16
  public interest litigationfundamental rightsright to clean waterdoctrine of public trustenvironmental protectionjudicial commissionwater contaminationgood governance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed as public interest litigation, concerns the fundamental right of the citizens of Sindh to clean drinking water, sanitation, and a healthy environment. The core legal question was whether the Government of Sindh and its agencies failed to fulfill their constitutional and statutory duties, thereby violating the Doctrine of Public Trust and the fundamental rights to life and dignity. The Supreme Court held that the respondents failed to deliver essential services, mismanaged public funds, and allowed environmental degradation. Consequently, the Court established a Commission headed by a High Court Judge to probe these failures and monitor compliance. It further constituted a Task Force to rehabilitate water filtration and sewerage treatment plants, mandated the appointment of cadre officers to key positions, and ordered a forensic audit of the North Sindh Urban Services Corporation. The Court affirmed the principle that the State acts as a fiduciary under the Doctrine of Public Trust and is constitutionally obligated to ensure the provision of potable water and a safe environment for its citizens.

  Questions settled

  • Does the State have a constitutional obligation to provide clean drinking water and a healthy environment to its citizens?
  • Can the Supreme Court constitute a judicial commission to probe allegations of administrative failure and monitor the implementation of its orders in matters of public importance?
  • Does the Doctrine of Public Trust impose a fiduciary duty on the government to manage natural resources and public utilities for the benefit of the people?
  • Can the Court restrain the government from transferring officials who are part of a court-mandated task force to ensure continuity and compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahab Usto vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others2017 SCMR 732 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-16
  public interest litigationright to lifeclean drinking waterfundamental rightsjudicial commissionenvironmental protectionpublic trust doctrineservice delivery failure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed as a public interest matter, addressed the systemic failure of the Sindh government to provide clean drinking water, sanitation, and a healthy environment to its citizens. The core legal question concerned whether the state’s failure to manage water and sewerage infrastructure violated the fundamental rights of the people of Sindh. The Supreme Court held that the government’s negligence in providing potable water and managing waste constitutes a violation of fundamental rights, including the right to life and dignity under the Constitution of Pakistan. The Court invoked the Doctrine of Public Trust, affirming that the state acts as a fiduciary for its citizens. Consequently, the Court established a judicial Commission to conduct an in-depth probe, monitor compliance, and oversee a newly constituted Task Force on water and sewerage. The Court mandated the rehabilitation of filtration plants, ordered the appointment of cadre officers to key administrative positions, and restrained the government from transferring Task Force members without prior judicial approval, thereby asserting its jurisdiction to enforce these essential public duties.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction to monitor the performance of provincial government departments regarding the provision of clean water and sanitation?
  • Does the failure of the state to provide clean drinking water and sanitation constitute a violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can the Supreme Court restrain the provincial government from transferring specific administrative officers tasked with implementing court-ordered reforms?
  • Does the Doctrine of Public Trust impose a fiduciary duty on the state to provide basic public utilities like water and sanitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahab Usto and 8 Others vs (1) Govt. of Sindh thr. Chief Secy. & others (2)2017 SCP 961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-09-16
  review petitionwater supply schemeforensic auditproject executionSupreme Court procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition concerning directions for the continuation of work by the North Sindh Urban Services Corporation regarding the construction of the Sukkur Water Supply Intake Pump Station and allied works. The core legal question involves evaluating the physical progress and financial sanctioning for the project, alongside issues concerning forensic audits and the review of previous audit reports. The court observed that proper physical details and certification of executed work were lacking and directed that a certified report with photographs be placed on record before further funds are sanctioned. Additionally, the court addressed contentions regarding prior audit reports by chartered accounting firms and the Auditor General of Pakistan. The court held that matters concerning the urgent fixing of the case on a day-to-day basis fall within the domain of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, directing the office to place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate constitution of a bench, while issuing procedural directions for the exchange of documents and review applications among counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Can funds be sanctioned for a public development project without a certified report and physical details of the work executed?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can order day-to-day fixation of a case or if it lies within the domain of the Chief Justice of Pakistan?
  • How are previous audit reports conducted by independent auditors and the Auditor General of Pakistan to be addressed when disputed before the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahab Ali vs The State through Additional Advocate Genera, Peshawar2017 YLR 1014 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-17Read full judgment →
• Shah Zameen vs Govt.2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-24
  writ petitiontermination of serviceregularizationprinciples of natural justiceaudi alteram partemlocus poenitentiaeback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed as Class-IV employees (BPS-1 and BPS-4) by the competent authority and later regularized under a provincial government policy, had their services terminated via an impugned order following the refusal of ex-post facto ban relaxation and an anonymous resolution by the Tehsil Council. The core legal question was whether low-paid employees could have their appointment and regularization orders cancelled without a show-cause notice or personal hearing due to departmental irregularities regarding a ban on appointments. The Peshawar High Court held that mere departmental irregularities cannot be used to penalize low-paid employees, especially when terminated without observing the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. The Court established that an authority cannot punish employees for its own administrative lapses, and such termination orders violate the principles of natural justice, locus poenitentiae, and estoppel. The writ petition was allowed, reinstating the petitioners with all back benefits and wages.

  Questions settled

  • Whether low-paid employees can be penalized and terminated for administrative irregularities committed by the department during their appointment?
  • Can an appointment and regularization order be cancelled without issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity of personal hearing?
  • Does a department have the right to take advantage of its own lapses regarding a ban on appointments to terminate employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman vs Ashiq Hussain & another2017 SCR 415 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-01-27
  bail cancellationfurther inquirysodomyAzad Penal Codecriminal appealdelay in FIRpre-trial detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the Shariat Court’s order that cancelled the appellant’s bail in a case involving alleged sodomy under the Azad Penal Code and the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985. The core legal question concerned the criteria for cancelling bail once granted and whether the commencement of trial bars the grant of bail. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the Shariat Court erred in recalling the bail, as no extraordinary circumstances—such as misuse of bail or perversity in the trial court’s order—were established. The Court emphasized that bail cancellation requires strong, cogent, and overwhelming grounds, which were absent here. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the commencement of trial does not preclude the grant of bail if the case warrants further inquiry, particularly when significant factors like unexplained delay in FIR registration and negative medical reports exist. The Court restored the trial court's original bail order, reiterating that bail should not be withheld as a punitive measure, as that amounts to conviction without trial.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does the commencement of a trial automatically preclude an accused from being released on bail?
  • Can a bail order be cancelled in the absence of evidence showing misuse of the concession or perversity in the original order?
  • Is a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR a valid ground for considering a case as one of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Walt vs The State2017 YLR 428 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-09-28
  murder convictiondeath sentenceeyewitness testimonyinterested witnessabscondancecriminal appealappreciation of evidencechance witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Loralai, which convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced him to death. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony from related witnesses, the impact of alleged contradictions in evidence, the significance of the appellant's seven-month abscondance, and the effect of the prosecution's failure to establish a specific motive. The High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence. The court held that the eyewitnesses, despite being related to the deceased, were natural witnesses whose presence was reasonably explained, thereby negating the 'chance witness' argument. It further established that minor contradictions do not invalidate credible testimony, that abscondance serves as a valid corroborative factor, and that the failure to prove motive is not fatal to the prosecution's case when other evidence is confidence-inspiring. The court concluded that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and no mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a lesser sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship between eyewitnesses and the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can the testimony of a 'chance witness' be accepted if their presence at the scene is reasonably explained?
  • Is the failure to prove a motive for murder fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused's abscondance be considered a corroborative factor in a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Sons Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2017 PTD 1480 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Shah Sim Khan vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 505 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-13
  anti-terrorism actillegal arms and ammunitionsmugglingjurisdictionnexus with terrorismconviction set asidecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Peshawar, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 15 and 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, and section 7(2)(i) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for smuggling a huge quantity of arms and ammunition and sentenced to various terms of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the mere recovery and transportation of illegal arms and ammunition, without proof of their use for terrorist activities or nexus with banned outfits, attracts the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Peshawar High Court held that the mere recovery of illegal arms and ammunition on the basis of police assumption and without cogent evidence showing connectivity to terrorism does not constitute an act of terrorism under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The court laid down the principle that striking terror or creating fear in the public is a sine qua non for invoking the Anti-Terrorism Act, and mere ipse dixit of the police without concrete evidence of a terrorist nexus is insufficient to attract anti-terrorism provisions. Consequently, the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act was set aside and the case was remitted for trial before the proper forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere recovery and transportation of a huge quantity of arms and ammunition without proof of use for terrorist activities attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is the police's ipse dixit regarding the intended use of smuggled weapons sufficient to establish an offence under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What are the essential ingredients for the determination of an offence of terrorism under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Room vs Mst Nehar Begum etc2017 PHC 995 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz and another vs Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others2017 SCMR 1732 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-11
  murdermurderous assaultappreciation of evidencemedical corroborationforensic evidencesentence reductioncriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal petitions directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a murder and assault case. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, recovery of weapon, and the determination of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence and a positive forensic report regarding the recovered weapon, fully proved the prosecution's case against the convict beyond any shadow of doubt. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of guilt supported by consistent ocular testimony, corroborative medical evidence, and forensic reports are sufficient to sustain a conviction, although factors like tender age may be considered for leniency in sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular account supported by medical evidence and positive forensic report is sufficient to prove a murder charge beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can the tender age of a convict be considered as a mitigating circumstance to convert a death sentence into imprisonment for life?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon coupled with a positive forensic report corroborate the prosecution's case in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Karim Bakht and another vs Mst. Jehan Zeba and 4 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-18Read full judgment →
• Shah Izzat alias Shahzad vs Adnan, Constable No. 5355 and another2017 P Cr. L J 25 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-29
  criminal appealanti-terrorismbenefit of the doubtidentification paradecontradictory statementocular testimonyacquittalforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting and sentencing the appellant under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, the Arms Ordinance, and the Anti-Terrorism Act. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of a delayed and flawed identification parade, the reliability of weapon recoveries and forensic evidence, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution case was riddled with material contradictions, improvements, unexplained delays in conducting the identification parade while the appellant was hospitalized, and missing links in forensic and recovery evidence. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that multiple material contradictions in ocular accounts, delayed identification parades without proper safeguards, and compromised chain of custody for forensic evidence create fatal doubts in the prosecution case, entitling the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained and prolonged delay in conducting an identification parade after the arrest of an accused renders the identification process legally worthless?
  • Does a failure to maintain a proper chain of custody for crime empties and weapon recoveries destroy their corroborative value?
  • Whether material contradictions between the initial police report, statements recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., and depositions at trial are sufficient to discard eyewitness testimony?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt regardless of weaknesses or failures in the defense's plea?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Baig vs The State And Another2017 MLD 2072 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-02
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytwo versionsvicarious liabilitycommon intentioncancellation reportheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 17/16 registered under sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-F(v), 337-F(vi), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the heinous nature of the alleged offences, given the existence of conflicting versions of the incident and the lack of incriminating recoveries. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the injury attributed to the petitioner was not the cause of death, the investigating officer had initially declared the petitioner innocent, and the delay in FIR registration suggested deliberation. The key principle laid down is that the mere heinousness of an offence is not a sufficient ground to refuse bail when the case warrants further inquiry, particularly when the investigation is complete, the accused is a previous non-convict, and trial conclusion is not imminent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere heinousness of an offence constitute sufficient grounds to refuse bail to an accused?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when the investigating officer has prepared a cancellation report despite the trial court's disagreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Alam and another vs The State2017 MLD 1927 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-04-20
  criminal appealcircumstantial evidencemurderrecovery of dead bodyconfession before policeacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment and conviction order whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants based on circumstantial evidence and the alleged recovery of the dead body. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the recovery of the dead body, noting that the trial court wrongly relied upon Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, that recovery proceedings under Exhibit PW-2/A were fundamentally flawed, and that police testimony regarding confessions is inadmissible without independent corroboration. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a confession made before a police officer can be read against an accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply when the prosecution fails to prove the information allegedly obtained from the accused?
  • Can a conviction based on circumstantial evidence be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the recovery of the dead body?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiullah---Petitioner vs Saifullah Khan and 7 others---Respondents2017 PLD Peshawar 203 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-08Read full judgment →
• Shafiullah vs Saifullah Khan & others2017 PLD Peshawar 203, 2017 PHC 719 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-08Read full judgment →
• Shafique Sultan vs Mst. Asma Firdous and others2021 P SC 1197, 2017 SCMR 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-09
  dowry articlesfamily courtmaintenance allowanceappreciation of evidencecross-examinationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a constitutional petition and upheld the Family Court's decree directing the return of dowry articles to respondent No. 1. The core legal question revolved around the sufficiency of oral evidence and lack of purchase receipts for establishing a claim of dowry articles in family suits. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Family Court and High Court correctly appreciated the evidence, especially where a material witness's testimony regarding dowry remained un-cross-examined, and noted that the strict rules of evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 do not apply stricto sensu to family matters. The key principle laid down is that un-cross-examined oral testimony coupled with customary dowry lists can sufficiently prove a claim for dowry articles in family disputes without the necessity of producing purchase receipts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 are strictly applicable to family matters?
  • Does the failure to produce purchase receipts for dowry articles render a claim for their return unsustainable?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an un-cross-examined statement regarding the delivery of dowry articles in a family suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Shoq vs Sohail Nazir & 4 others2017 SCR 291 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-12-07Read full judgment →
• Shafique and Company, Hyderabad through Proprietor vs Federation of Islamic Re-Public of Pakistan through Ministry of Foreign Affairs Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others2017 MLD 272 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-16Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed vs The State and others2017 P Cr. L J 376 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-12-09
  inherent jurisdictioncancellation reportexecutive orderjudicial proceedingsSection 561-A Cr.P.C.Magistrate's powers
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order of the Illaqa Judicial Magistrate (FIA) which had accorded concurrence to a police cancellation report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding an FIR registered under the Passports Act 1974. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to set aside an order passed by a Magistrate in an executive or administrative capacity, specifically when concurring with a police cancellation report. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court reasoned that a Magistrate, when concurring with a police cancellation report, acts in an executive or administrative capacity rather than as a Court conducting judicial proceedings. Consequently, the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A are inapplicable to such executive actions, as those powers are strictly reserved for judicial proceedings and orders of a Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order of a Magistrate concurring with a police cancellation report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered a judicial or an executive order?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against an executive or administrative order passed by a Magistrate?
  • Does the definition of 'Court of Justice' under Section 20 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to a Magistrate discharging administrative duties?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed Qureshi vs Walait Khan and others2017 MLD 612 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-10-25
  leave to defendsummary suitdishonoured chequeaffidavit requirementsurety bondsconditional leavecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Islamabad, whereby an application for leave to appear and defend a recovery suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed subject to furnishing surety bonds. The core legal questions revolved around whether a brief supporting affidavit incorporating by reference the contents of the leave application satisfies Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the condition to furnish surety bonds constitutes valid security. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory requirement for an affidavit is satisfied when it is duly attested and expressly incorporates the facts stated in the leave application, rejecting objections regarding form over substance as hyper-technical. Furthermore, the Court held that the term 'security' in summary suits is comprehensive enough to include a surety or surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that substance prevails over form in leave to defend affidavits, and furnishing surety bonds is an acceptable form of conditional security under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Does an affidavit supporting an application for leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, satisfy legal requirements if it is brief and incorporates the facts of the application by reference?
  • Can a trial court condition the grant of leave to defend under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the furnishing of surety bonds?
  • Is the term 'security' under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, comprehensive enough to include a surety?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed Khan etc vs Learned Rent Controller, Islamabad (West2017 PLJ Islamabad 348 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed Khan and others vs Rent Controller Islamabad (West)2017 PLJ Islamabad 348, 2017 CLC 360 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-11-07Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs State And 2 Others2017 PLJ Lahore 288 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-26Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs Minister for Law, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1127 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-01Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs Minister for Law etc2017 PLC (C.S.) 1123, 2017 LHC 672 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-01
  appointment of legal advisorautonomous bodymerit-based selectionadministrative discretionjudicial reviewPunjab Privatization Boardselection committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of a Senior Legal Advisor by the Government of Punjab, arguing that the selection process ignored the merit-based recommendations of the Punjab Privatization Board. The core legal question was whether the Government, through its Selection Committee, could arbitrarily bypass the merit list prepared by the autonomous body (the Board) when appointing a legal advisor. The Court held that while the Government has a role in the selection process, the Selection Committee cannot ignore the Board's recommendations without providing well-founded, objective reasons. The Court set aside the appointment of the respondent, finding that the Committee failed to justify why it departed from the merit list. The key principle laid down is that where a selection process involves recommendations from an autonomous body, the appointing authority must follow an objective criteria; if it chooses to deviate from the merit list, it must record specific, valid reasons for doing so, rather than acting in a vacuum or ignoring the primary recommendation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government selection committee ignore the merit-based recommendations of an autonomous body for the appointment of a legal advisor without providing reasons?
  • Does the Punjab Privatization Board Act 2010 grant the Board the authority to determine terms and conditions for the appointment of legal advisors?
  • Is the government required to follow objective criteria when selecting a legal advisor from a list of candidates recommended by an autonomous body?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs Minister for Law and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 1123 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-01
  Constitutional petitionLegal Advisor appointmentAutonomous bodyMerit-based recommendationSelection committeeAdministrative discretionProcedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of a Legal Advisor by the Government of Punjab, which bypassed the merit-based recommendations of the Punjab Privatization Board. The core legal question was whether the Selection Committee, operating under the 2011 Policy, could disregard the Board's merit list without providing justification. The Court set aside the appointment, holding that while the statutory requirement to 'consider' recommendations does not mandate automatic appointment, it imposes a binding duty on the Selection Committee to act reasonably. The Court established that if a committee departs from the merit list prepared by an autonomous body, it must record well-founded reasons based on objective criteria. Furthermore, the selection process requires active participation and consultation with the autonomous body's representative. Because the record lacked evidence of such consultation and failed to provide reasons for ignoring the merit-based recommendations, the appointment was deemed procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement to 'consider' recommendations of an autonomous body imply a binding duty to provide reasons when departing from a merit list?
  • Can a government selection committee ignore the merit-based recommendations of an autonomous body without recording objective reasons?
  • Is the appointment of a legal advisor by a government committee valid if the representative of the autonomous body was not actively consulted or did not consent to the deviation from the merit list?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiq vs The State and another2017 MLD 586 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-27Read full judgment →
• Shafi Rehmat vs The State2017 YLR 30 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-01-27Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Karachi) 299 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-12
  unlicensed weaponarms ordinancebenefit of doubtrecovery witnesscriminal appealacquittalballistic expert
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 13-A(i)(c) of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 for possessing an unlicensed Kalashnikov. The core legal questions involve whether major contradictions in police testimony, lack of independent public witnesses, failure to seal the recovered weapon or send it to a ballistic expert, and non-production of departure entries create fatal doubts in the prosecution's case. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that even a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, and vital omissions such as failing to associate independent witnesses or properly handle recovered evidence render the prosecution case untrustworthy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to associate independent public witnesses from nearby houses during a recovery create a reasonable doubt?
  • Whether non-sealing of the recovered weapon at the spot and failure to send it to a ballistic expert weakens the prosecution case?
  • Does the non-production of the police departure diary entry create a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the police raid?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right even if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad and others vs The State and others2017 MLD 1407 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-21
  double murderocular evidenceinterested witnessesmitigating circumstancescapital punishmentcriminal appealextortion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Bugti, which convicted the appellants for double murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of ocular testimony provided by close relatives of the deceased, the impact of delayed FIR registration, and the effect of non-recovery of crime weapons on the prosecution's case. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal and the connected revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt through consistent and trustworthy evidence. It affirmed the principle that the testimony of close relatives is admissible and sufficient for conviction if it is straightforward, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that non-recovery of weapons does not exonerate an accused when other evidence is robust. Finally, the Court upheld the life imprisonment sentence, noting that the attribution of a collective role in the firing constituted a valid mitigating circumstance against imposing the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of close relatives of the deceased?
  • Does the non-recovery of the crime weapon automatically entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Is the attribution of a collective role in a firing incident a valid mitigating circumstance against the imposition of the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Shadman Cotton Mills Limited ("SCML") and 4 others vs Madam Amina2017 CLD 839 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2015-07-06
  annual general meetingcompanies ordinancefiduciary duty of directorsdefault in holding agmsecurities and exchange commission of pakistanpenalty on directors
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 33 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 against an order passed by the respondent under Section 158(4) read with Section 476 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, penalizing the directors of Shadman Cotton Mills Limited for failing to hold their Annual General Meeting within the prescribed time and the subsequent extended period. The core legal question was whether the directors could evade liability for failing to hold the Annual General Meeting by blaming internal management disputes or distinguishing between individual roles. The appellate bench held that holding the Annual General Meeting is the collective fiduciary responsibility of all directors, and failure to do so within the statutory or extended timeframe constitutes a clear default under Section 158 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, irrespective of internal disputes. Consequently, the appellate bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalties imposed.

  Questions settled

  • Is holding an Annual General Meeting the collective fiduciary responsibility of all directors of a company?
  • Can directors evade liability for failing to hold an Annual General Meeting by citing internal management disputes among themselves?
  • Does obtaining a subsequent direction to hold an overdue Annual General Meeting under Section 170 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 waive the penal consequences of a default under Section 158?
  Read full judgment →
• Shadi Khan vs The State2017 YLR 983 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-11-23
  double murderretracted confessionpolice official witnessesconfessional statementanti-terrorismcriminal appealre-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the double murder of his sister and her alleged paramour. The core legal questions involved the credibility of police official witnesses, the evidentiary value of a retracted confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a delay of twelve days, and the sufficiency of circumstantial and motive evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as the appellant was caught red-handed at the crime scene with the weapon, police officials are competent natural witnesses whose testimony requires no corroboration absent proof of ill-will, and a retracted confession remains admissible if proven voluntary and true. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials can be discarded solely on the ground that no independent private witnesses were associated with the investigation?
  • Does the mere retraction of a confessional statement by an accused during trial destroy its evidentiary value?
  • Whether a delay in recording a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders it inadmissible per se?
  • Can a conviction be based solely on a retracted confessional statement if it is found to be voluntary and true?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabnam Shazadi vs Public Service Commission Aj&K through Secretary2017 PLC (C.S.) 242 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-01-06
  departmental promotion quotainitial recruitmentad hoc appointmentwrit petitionservice rulesmerit positionacademic qualification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions challenging the recruitment process for the post of Health and Nutrition Officer (B-17) in the Health Department of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioners alleged mala fide intent by the department in advertising only one of three available posts, arguing that all posts should have been open for initial recruitment. Additionally, one petitioner challenged the merit position of a selected candidate, disputing her academic qualifications. The core legal question was whether the department was obligated to advertise all three posts for initial recruitment or if the existing departmental quota system for promotion and recruitment applied. The Court held that the departmental rules in force at the time of requisitioning (Health Services Rules, 2009) mandated a 50% quota for departmental promotion and 50% for initial recruitment. The Court affirmed that posts reserved for departmental promotion must be filled before direct recruitment. Consequently, the appointment against the single advertised post was upheld, and the petitions were dismissed, establishing the principle that departmental promotion quotas take precedence over direct recruitment when both sources are available.

  Questions settled

  • Does an ad hoc appointment against a post reserved for departmental promotion create a right for direct recruitment candidates to claim that post?
  • Should posts reserved for departmental promotion be filled before making direct recruitments?
  • Are departmental promotion quotas binding even when posts are temporarily occupied by ad hoc appointees?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabir-Ul-Hassan vs Mst. Tanveer Zaidi and 3 others2017 PLJ Lahore 720 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-16Read full judgment →
• Shabina Kousar vs Nargis Khatoon and 11 others2017 CLC 822 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-02-18Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State and another2017 MLD 1861 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-27
  bail cancellationpost-arrest baildishonoured chequenon-prohibitory clausemisuse of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondent No.2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs.9,00,000/-. The core legal question was whether the discretion to grant bail was correctly exercised and whether sufficient exceptional grounds existed for the cancellation of bail. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that offences under Section 489-F fall within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where the grant of bail is the rule and refusal an exception, and that mere subsequent accusations of tampering with evidence, yet to be proved at trial, do not furnish strong or exceptional grounds to recall bail once granted by a competent court unless the bail-granting order is shown to be patently illegal, erroneous, or productive of a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted can be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal an exception for offences falling within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a subsequent unproven accusation of tampering with prosecution evidence constitute a sufficient ground for the cancellation of bail?
  • What are the primary considerations for a superior court when examining the correctness of an order granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed Malik and another vs Chairman, NAB and others2017 MLD 200 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-03Read full judgment →
• Sh. Adnan Naseem vs The State and another2017 MLD 962 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-24Read full judgment →
• SGT Chaman Lal vs Union of India and Others2017 SCInd 1340 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-07-25Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, Islamabad and anothers vs Sajjad Hussain Shah and 22 others2017 P.S.C. 1395, 2017 CLC 329 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-12-16
  petition for leave to appealmaintainabilitypower of attorneystrict interpretationdelegation of powersAJ&K Councilaggrieved person
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir via a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that accepted three writ petitions challenging certain advertisements and actions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council. The core legal question addresses the maintainability of the petition for leave to appeal and whether a power of attorney executed solely by the Secretary of the AJ&K Council Secretariat confers authority to file proceedings on behalf of the AJ&K Council or its Chairman. The Supreme Court held that powers of attorney must be construed strictly and that the Secretary, under the relevant delegation of powers, is only authorized to act in specific suits and cannot substitute himself for the principal entity, the AJ&K Council. The key principle laid down is that a power of attorney is subject to strict interpretation and an attorney can only exercise powers expressly conferred or arising by necessary implication, meaning a functionary authorized to act for a secretariat cannot independently institute an appeal on behalf of the principal constitutional body without proper authorization.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a power of attorney executed by the Secretary of the AJ&K Council Secretariat authorizes the filing of a petition for leave to appeal on behalf of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council?
  • Should a power of attorney be interpreted strictly according to its recitals and delegated authority?
  • Can a functionary who is delegated specific powers to sign pleadings substitute themselves for the principal constitutional body in legal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, Islamabad and another vs Sajjad Hussain Shah and 22 others2017 P.S.C. 1395 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  power of attorneystrict interpretationmaintainabilitydelegation of authoritylocus standiAJ&K Councilwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that accepted writ petitions challenging the recruitment policies of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJ&K) Council. The core legal question was whether the petition for leave to appeal was maintainable, given that it was filed by the Secretary of the AJ&K Council Secretariat rather than the AJ&K Council itself, which was the party aggrieved by the High Court's directions. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that a power-of-attorney must be construed strictly, and the specific delegation of powers to the Secretary did not authorize the Secretary to substitute themselves for the Council or to file appeals on its behalf. Furthermore, the Court found that the AJ&K Council was not a petitioner but was instead listed as a pro-forma respondent, confirming the petition was filed without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that a power-of-attorney confers only such authority as is expressly granted or arises by necessary implication, and cannot be interpreted liberally to allow an attorney to act beyond the scope of their delegated powers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a power-of-attorney can be interpreted liberally to include powers not expressly granted?
  • Can an attorney substitute themselves for the principal in legal proceedings without explicit authorization?
  • Does a delegation of power to sign and verify pleadings authorize an officer to file an appeal on behalf of the principal?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable if filed by an unauthorized functionary rather than the aggrieved entity?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works2017 PLC (C.S) 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-11
  officiating promotionregularization of servicecivil service lawreversion in rankservice tribunal jurisdictionstopgap arrangementpromotion criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the reversion of civil servants from the rank of Executive Engineer to Assistant Engineer by the Communication and Works Department. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside these reversions and declaring the respondents' promotions as regular, despite the initial orders designating them as 'on officiating basis.' The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal acted correctly. The Court found that the respondents were fully qualified and promoted against regular vacancies. The 'officiating' label was used as a tool to retain extra-disciplinary power, which is contrary to the law and the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The Court established that officiating appointments are strictly stopgap arrangements for limited circumstances; they cannot be used indefinitely to create uncertainty or bypass regular promotion. Consequently, where a civil servant is promoted against a regular post after meeting all requirements, the appointment is deemed regular, and the 'officiating' condition is legally redundant.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appointment designated as 'on officiating basis' be legally treated as a regular promotion?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to set aside an order of reversion and declare a promotion as regular?
  • Under what circumstances can a government department validly make an appointment on an 'officiating basis'?
  • Can a civil servant be reverted to a lower rank based on allegations of incomplete service records after serving in a higher post for an extended period?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication & Works2017 PSC 125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  officiating promotionregular promotionservice tribunalcivil servicereversiondepartmental promotion committeestop-gap arrangement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which set aside the reversion of several Assistant Engineers to their original ranks after they had served as Executive Engineers for extended periods. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively regularizing the respondents' promotions and deleting the 'officiating' condition without fresh Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) recommendations. The Supreme Court held that the respondents were promoted against permanent, available vacancies after meeting all requisite qualifications and receiving DPC clearance. Consequently, the Court ruled that the 'officiating' prefix was redundant and unlawful, as such appointments are intended only as temporary stop-gap measures under Rule 13 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, establishing the principle that courts may look behind the label of 'officiating' appointments to determine their true legal character. It emphasized that indefinite officiating appointments are violative of the law and cannot be used by departments to exercise arbitrary disciplinary control over civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department indefinitely maintain an employee on an 'officiating' basis against a regular vacancy?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to declare an 'officiating' promotion as a regular promotion if the circumstances of the appointment warrant it?
  • Is the use of 'officiating' promotion status permissible as a mechanism to retain arbitrary disciplinary control over civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Searle Company Ltd. vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-IV, Ltu, Karachi2017 PTD (Trib.) 1044 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-03-07Read full judgment →
• SCD)Messrs Apollo Textile Mills Limited and 7 others vs Director (CSD)2017 CLD 1191 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2016-10-31
  quarterly accountscompanies ordinancepenalty on directorsdouble jeopardydata corruptionsecurities and exchange commission of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an appeal filed under section 33 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 against an order of the Respondent imposing penalties on directors of Apollo Textile Mills Limited for failing to file quarterly financial accounts in a timely manner under section 245 of the Companies Ordinance 1984. The core legal questions raised were whether data corruption absolves a company from statutory filing obligations, whether imposing a penalty for non-filing of accounts alongside a prior penalty for failing to hold an Annual General Meeting constitutes double jeopardy, and whether the directors fulfilled their statutory duties. The appellate forum held that data corruption and reliance on system failure do not excuse non-compliance, as directors bear the responsibility to maintain robust data backup systems, and that separate statutory defaults constitute distinct violations not amounting to double jeopardy. The appeal was dismissed and the impugned order upholding penalties was affirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Does data corruption of a company's accounts excuse the failure to file quarterly financial statements in a timely manner under the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • Whether penalizing a company for failing to hold an Annual General Meeting precludes the imposition of a separate penalty for non-filing of quarterly accounts.
  • Are directors of a listed company personally responsible for ensuring data backup mechanisms and timely compliance with statutory filing requirements?
  • Whether separate violations under section 158 and section 245 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 amount to double jeopardy.
  Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Mohammad Areeb Abdul Khafid Shah Bukhari vs Government of the Punjab, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1252 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-09Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Mohammad Areeb Abdul Khafid Shah Bukhari vs Government of the Punjab etc2017 LHC 2581 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-09Read full judgment →
• Saw Ullah vs The State and others2017 PLD Islamabad 143 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
• Saudi Pak Industrial & Agricultural Investment Company Limited vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division & 3 othersK.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 43 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sarzaminand others vs Wali Muhammad2017 PHC 1033 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26
  civil revisionpre-emptiontalb-e-muwathibattalb-e-ishaadexamination-in-chiefexhibition of documentsQanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land where the trial court's dismissal of the suit was reversed by the appellate court, leading the petitioners to approach the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The core legal questions involved the proper pleading and proof of talabs (demands) under pre-emption law, the legality of relying on affidavits and documents attested outside the court without formal exhibition during examination-in-chief, and the presence of material contradictions in the testimony of plaintiff witnesses. The Peshawar High Court held that failure to state the time of Talbe-Muwathibat in the plaint, material contradictions in the statements of witnesses regarding the performance of talabs, and the failure to properly exhibit documents and examine-in-chief witnesses in court in accordance with the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, are fatal to a pre-emption suit. The High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment and restored the dismissal of the suit, laying down that strict compliance with procedural requirements for proving talabs and formal exhibition of evidence in court are mandatory in pre-emption matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether omission of the time of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat in the plaint is a fatal defect in a pre-emption suit?
  • Does the mere attestation of affidavits outside the court satisfy the requirements of examination-in-chief under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether the non-exhibition of a notice of Talb-e-Ishaad in court renders the document redundant and unproved?
  • Can an appellate court's judgment based on misreading and non-reading of evidence be set aside in revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarhad Development Authority Employees Federation and 31 others vs Government and others2017 PLD Peshawar 163 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-10Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz vs Additional District Judge and 5 others2017 YLR 1684 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-19
  Family Court decreemaintenance allowancepecuniary jurisdictiondowry articleswrit petitionconcurrent findingsFamily Courts Act 1964
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an appeal by the Additional District Judge, which had affirmed a Family Court decree awarding maintenance and dowry articles. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of Section 14(2)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, specifically whether the pecuniary limit for filing an appeal against a maintenance decree applies to the aggregate amount awarded to all plaintiffs or to the amount awarded per individual. The Court held that the statutory limit of Rs 5,000 per month applies to the maintenance awarded to each individual, not the cumulative total. Consequently, as the maintenance awarded to each minor was below this threshold, the appeal was not maintainable. Additionally, the Court noted that the decree for dowry articles was below the appealable threshold of Rs 100,000 stipulated in Section 14(2)(b). Finding no jurisdictional defect or misreading of evidence in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, affirming that the legislative intent is to protect the individual's right to sustenance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pecuniary limit for an appeal under Section 14(2)(c) of the Family Courts Act 1964 apply to the aggregate maintenance amount or the amount per individual?
  • Is an appeal maintainable against a decree for dowry articles valued at less than Rs 100,000 under the Family Courts Act 1964?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a family matter absent a jurisdictional defect or gross misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Masih vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 280 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-08
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencebenefit of doubtdelayed post-mortemunnatural conductdeath sentencecorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account, the proof of motive, and the impact of a delayed post-mortem examination on the prosecution's case. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the ocular testimony unreliable due to the witnesses' unnatural conduct in failing to intervene during the attack. Furthermore, the alleged motive remained unproven, and the significant delay in the post-mortem examination cast doubt on the promptness and authenticity of the FIR. The court reiterated that when direct evidence is disbelieved, corroborative evidence, such as the recovery of a weapon, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitting the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to intervene during an attack render their ocular testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on corroborative evidence alone if the direct ocular evidence is disbelieved?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination cast doubt on the authenticity of the FIR?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the alleged motive in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz alias Safri and others vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 246, PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 143 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-17
  benefit of doubtocular evidenceidentification paradeadverse inferencecriminal appealmurder convictionforensic delaywithholding of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency and credibility of the prosecution's evidence, specifically regarding the identification of the accused and the reliability of ocular testimony in a night-time occurrence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It identified significant discrepancies in witness statements, noting that the identification of the accused was unreliable due to the absence of an identification parade for an unknown suspect. Furthermore, the Court observed that the prosecution withheld a material witness, drawing an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The delay in sending weapon recoveries to the forensic laboratory also rendered the evidence inconsequential. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt. The principle laid down emphasizes that conviction cannot be sustained on weak, inconsistent evidence or where material witnesses are withheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to conduct an identification parade for an accused not previously known to witnesses render their identification unreliable?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for failing to produce a material witness?
  • Does a significant delay in sending weapon recoveries to a forensic laboratory render the recovery evidence inconsequential?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when prosecution witnesses make dishonest improvements and material discrepancies exist in their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz alias Safri and others vs State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 143 · Lahore High Court
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtidentification parademurder referencedeath sentenceocular evidenceforensic delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial court for murder, attempted murder, and other related offenses arising from a night-time police encounter. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the necessity of an identification parade for an unknown accused, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the recovery of weapons. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies, particularly regarding the identification of the accused, who were previously unknown to the witnesses, and the lack of an identification parade. Furthermore, the court noted that the forensic analysis of recovered weapons was significantly delayed, rendering the evidence unreliable. The court emphasized the principle that when the prosecution fails to produce material witnesses or provides contradictory evidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the court acquitted all appellants, set aside their convictions, and answered the murder reference in the negative, dismissing the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to hold an identification parade for an accused who was previously unknown to the witnesses?
  • Does the failure to produce a material witness warrant a negative inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction be based on forensic evidence where the recovery of weapons was sent for analysis after a significant delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs Shah Nawaz etc2017 PLJ Lahore 817 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-22Read full judgment →
• Sardar Zulfiqar vs The State2017 YLR 674 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-07
  discharge of accusedwithdrawal from prosecutionconviction in absentiaabscondencealteration of chargeanti-terrorism trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the judgment of the District and Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-terrorism Court Sukkur, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the trial court could lawfully convict the appellant when he had previously been legally discharged from the case pursuant to an application under section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which order had attained finality, and without fresh evidence or proper legal proceedings to rejoin him as an accused. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court erred by altering the discharge status to absconder and proceeding to convict the appellant in absentia without any legal foundation, as the presiding officer was not competent to override a final discharge order passed by a predecessor without fresh material. The court laid down the principle that once an accused is validly discharged upon the withdrawal of prosecution by the public prosecutor, they cease to be an accused before the court, and subsequent conviction without lawful rejoining of the accused based on evidence or statutory procedure is illegal and void.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can legally convict an individual who was previously discharged from the case under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a presiding officer alter a predecessor's final discharge order to show the accused as an absconder without any fresh material or evidence on record?
  • Is a trial in absentia and subsequent conviction valid when the prosecution had been withdrawn against the accused and no legal proceedings were initiated to rejoin him as an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• sardar vs State etc2017 PHC 1127 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-25Read full judgment →
• Sardar Sher Bahadur & others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Islamabad and Govt of KPK, through Secretary to Govt of KP, Law & Parliamentary Affairs Department2017 PHC 333, 2017 PHC 431 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sardar Sher Bahadur & others by Barrister Babar Sattar vs Government_27fd43c62017 PHC 333 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• (1) Sardar Sher Bahadar Khan etc (2) Asghar Ali etc (3) Mst. Noor Jehan vs2017 SCP 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-20Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Rasool vs Member Consolidation, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1408 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-24Read full judgment →
• Sardar Qasim Hassan Khan vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2017 P.C.T.L.R. 299 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Qasim Hassan Khan vs Federation of Pakistan etc2017 PLJ Lahore 705 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Qasim Hassan Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 PTD 2064 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-04
  advance taxwithholding taxmotor vehicle registrationIncome Tax Ordinance 2001tax exemptionsubsequent purchaserconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves a set of constitutional petitions challenging the demand for advance tax or withholding tax by the Excise and Taxation Department upon the registration of motor vehicles under section 231-B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether subsequent purchasers of imported motor vehicles, who bought them from original importers who had already paid tax under section 148 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 at the time of import, are entitled to the exception under subsection (4) of section 231-B so as to be exempt from paying advance tax upon registration or transfer. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the exception under subsection (4) of section 231-B applies only when registration is sought by the same person who paid the tax at import, and does not extend to subsequent purchasers. The court laid down the principle that tax exemptions must be construed strictly against the taxpayer, and that advance tax paid under section 231-B is adjustable against final tax liability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent purchaser of an imported motor vehicle is exempt from advance tax under section 231-B(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 if the original importer already paid tax under section 148?
  • Does the exception provided in subsection (4) of section 231-B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 apply to persons other than the original importer of the vehicle?
  • Is advance tax collected under section 231-B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 adjustable at the time of final assessment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan vs Dr. Najeeb Naqi Khan and 12 others2017 MLD 779 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-08-21Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Ashraf Khan vs Province of Sindh through Provincial2017 YLR 288 · Sindh High Court · 2012-10-31Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad and another vs Athar Zahoor and others2017 SCMR 1668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-10
  criminal appealmurdercommutation of sentencedeath sentenceimprisonment for lifesingle shotunproven motivesudden affair
  Summary & questions settled

  These are cross-appeals arising from a single judgment of the High Court, which maintained the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but converted his death sentence into imprisonment for life, while dismissing the complainant's appeal for enhancement. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and validity of the grounds relied upon by the High Court for commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment, specifically the infliction of a single shot, the failure of the prosecution to prove motive, and whether the incident was a sudden affair. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of guilt based on consistent ocular testimony, prompt lodging of the FIR, and absence of misidentification were well-founded. The Court further held that a single fatal shot without repetition, coupled with an unproven motive suggesting a sudden occurrence, constituted mitigating circumstances justifying the commutation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The appeals of both the convict and the complainant were consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether firing a single shot without repetition constitutes a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive render the occurrence a sudden affair justifying lesser punishment?
  • Are concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts based on consistent ocular testimony liable to interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Mastan Singh Arora vs Presiding Judge etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 128 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-05Read full judgment →
• Sardar Hussain & others vs Zafar Hussain2017 PHC 949 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-29Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ghulam Sadiq vs Khan Bahadar Khan & others2017 SCR 55 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-01-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ghulam Sadiq son of Baga Khan (Speaker) resident of Phagwati,_5ec0d9f82017 SC AJK 58 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Sardar Bibi and anothers vs Munir Ahmed and others2017 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-11-29
  MurderCriminal AppealAcquittalConvictionOcular accountWitness testimonyImprovements and omissionsBenefit of doubtCorroborationMotiveWeapon recoveryFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns criminal appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from murder convictions. The core legal questions involved the re-appraisal of evidence, specifically the reliability of ocular account witnesses, the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries, and the proof of motive. The Court observed that the identification of assailants was doubtful due to lack of light source recovery and the witnesses' improbable presence at the scene. Crucially, the eye-witnesses made dishonest and deliberate improvements and omissions in their statements to align with medical evidence, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that if eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding an effective role attributed to some co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon for another accused attributed a similar role without independent corroboration. Recoveries of weapons were deemed inconsequential or unreliable due to lack of FSL matching or recovery from joint possession after a significant delay. The asserted motive remained unproved, and delays in FIR and post-mortem raised further doubts. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against acquittal and allowed the appeal against conviction, acquitting the appellants by extending the benefit of doubt due to the absence of independent corroboration and the unreliability of the ocular account.

  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Bibi & others vs Munir Ahmed etc.,2017 PLJ SC 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-12-14
  criminal appealocular evidencebenefit of doubtwitness credibilityindependent corroborationmurder convictionFIR delayimprovement in testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of appellants for murder under Section 302(b) read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony, characterized by significant improvements and omissions, was sufficient for conviction absent independent corroboration, particularly when co-accused had already been acquitted based on the same evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was doubtful, and their testimony contained deliberate, dishonest improvements to align with medical evidence, rendering them untrustworthy. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the principle that if eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding some accused persons attributed with specific roles, they cannot be relied upon to convict others without strong, independent corroboration. Additionally, the Court found the motive unproven and the FIR to be the result of deliberation. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants, and acquitted them.

  Questions settled

  • Can eye-witnesses be relied upon to convict an accused if they have been disbelieved regarding other co-accused persons attributed with similar roles?
  • Does a deliberate and dishonest improvement in testimony to align with medical evidence render an eye-witness unreliable?
  • Is recovery of a weapon from a house collectively inhabited by multiple persons sufficient to prove exclusive possession?
  • Does the failure to produce the initial investigating officer for cross-examination prejudice the defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan & another vs Azad Government & 7 others2017 SCR 1327 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Sardar Arshid Hussain and others vs Mst. Zenat-UN-Nisa and another2017 PLJ SC 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-26
  registered gift-deedun-registered dower deeddelivery of possessiontransfer of propertysuperiority of un-registered deedconcurrent findingscivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision concerning ownership of a house. The core legal question was whether a prior un-registered sale/dower deed accompanied by physical possession takes precedence over a subsequent registered gift-deed. The Supreme Court held that an un-registered transfer deed accompanied by delivery of possession prevails over a subsequent registered document, as protected by the first proviso to Section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and that the transferor having divested his title had nothing further to transfer. The Court laid down the principle that a registered deed cannot override a prior un-registered deed where physical possession was delivered, and a subsequent gift without proof of its essential ingredients and possession is void.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an un-registered sale or dower deed accompanied by physical possession can take preference over a subsequent registered gift-deed?
  • Can a property owner validly transfer immovable property a second time after having already transferred it to a prior transferee?
  • What is the effect of Section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on competing registered and un-registered deeds?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Arshid Hussain and others vs Mst. Zenat UN Nisa and another2017 PLJ SC 257, 2017 P.S.C. 322, 2017 SCMR 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-26
  dower deedregistered gift deedunregistered deedpossessionpriority of documentsSection 53-A Transfer of Property Actdeclaration suitconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arose from a dispute over a residential house initially transferred by a husband to his wife (Respondent No. 1) in lieu of dower via an unregistered deed in 1987, accompanied by physical possession. Subsequently, in 1998, the husband executed a registered gift deed for the same property in favor of his sons (the petitioners). The core legal question was whether a subsequent registered gift deed prevails over a prior unregistered transfer deed where possession was already delivered. The Supreme Court held that while Section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908 generally gives preference to registered documents, the first proviso to that section, read with Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, protects the rights of a person in possession under an unregistered deed. The Court further observed that once the property was validly transferred to the wife, the husband retained no title to execute a subsequent gift. The petitioners also failed to prove the essential ingredients of a valid gift, namely delivery of possession. The petition was dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Arshid Hussain and others vs Mst. Zeenat-un-Nisa and another2017 P.S.C. 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-26
  un-registered sale deedregistered gift deedtransfer of propertydelivery of possessiondowercivil revisionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision against concurrent findings in favor of Respondent No. 1. The core legal question was whether a prior un-registered sale/dower deed accompanied by physical possession can take precedence over a subsequent registered gift deed regarding the same immovable property. The Supreme Court held that an un-registered transfer deed accompanied by the delivery of physical possession is protected under the law, specifically Section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and takes precedence over a subsequent registered deed where the subsequent transferee never received possession and the transferor had no subsisting title left to transfer. The key principle laid down is that a prior un-registered transaction accompanied by delivery of possession prevails over a subsequent registered deed, and a donor cannot transfer a property to a third party after having already validly transferred it to another.

  Questions settled

  • Can an un-registered sale or dower deed accompanied by physical possession take precedence over a subsequent registered gift deed?
  • Does a subsequent registered gift deed confer valid title when the transferor had already transferred the property and parted with possession?
  • Are the basic ingredients of a gift under the law offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower fora in the absence of a substantial defect in reading evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali and 7 others vs The State2017 YLR 1665 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-12-08Read full judgment →
• Saraswa ti Educational Charitable Trust and Anr vs Union of India and Anr2017 SCInd 1335 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-09-01Read full judgment →
• Sar Zamin and others vs Hassan Sher and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 276 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-20
  civil revisionmiscellaneous applicationamendment of plaintnon-exercise of jurisdictionremand of casespecific reliefprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal against the trial court's dismissal of their suit for possession of property filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in failing to adjudicate upon a pending miscellaneous application for amendment of the plaint before deciding the main appeal. The High Court held that a court is legally obligated to decide miscellaneous applications, preferably before or alongside the final decision of the case. Failure to do so constitutes a non-exercise of vested jurisdiction, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The court established the principle that leaving a miscellaneous petition undecided is a procedural irregularity that necessitates a remand of the case to ensure complete justice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the matter with a direction to the appellate court to decide the amendment application and the appeal afresh within one month.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court legally required to decide a pending miscellaneous application before or alongside the final judgment of a case?
  • Does the failure of an appellate court to decide a pending application for amendment of the plaint constitute a non-exercise of jurisdiction?
  • Under what circumstances is a case remanded to the appellate court for fresh decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Zeb alias Saqi and others vs The State and others2017 P Cr. L J 79 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-18
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidenceindependent corroborationself-defenseweapon substitutionmurder convictionSection 342 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution's case, which relied on ocular testimony and forensic evidence, remained sustainable after the trial court acquitted the co-accused and rejected the alleged motive. The Lahore High Court held that the conviction was unsafe and set aside the judgment, acquitting the appellant. The court reasoned that once prosecution evidence is disbelieved regarding identically placed co-accused, it cannot be used to sustain a charge against the remaining accused absent independent corroboration. Furthermore, the court established that a conviction cannot be maintained merely on the basis of an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution has failed to prove its case. The court emphasized that inconsistencies, such as weapon substitution and the failure to explain injuries sustained by the appellant, necessitated extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused, regardless of the plea raised in defense.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained against an accused when the prosecution evidence has been disbelieved regarding identically placed co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of their statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution fails to prove its case?
  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by an accused in a criminal case affect the veracity of the prosecution's narrative?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Raza vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 777 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-17Read full judgment →
• Saqib Pal vs Mst. Beenish Khushnud and others2017 YLR 252 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-13Read full judgment →
• Saqib Muneer & another vs Uzma Waheed2017 SCR 971 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-06
  family lawmaintenance allowancerestitution of conjugal rightsdowry articlesconcurrent findingsappellate jurisdictionmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves cross-appeals arising from family litigation between spouses, Uzma Waheed and Saqib Muneer. The wife sought recovery of maintenance, dowry articles, and dower, while the husband sought restitution of conjugal rights. The trial court decreed the wife's claims for maintenance and dowry articles but dismissed her dower claim and the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The Shariat Court upheld these findings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were vitiated by misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence and that the husband was bound by his prior agreement to pay maintenance. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeals, reiterating the established principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not to be disturbed in appellate jurisdiction unless there is a clear demonstration of gross misreading, non-reading of evidence, or a violation of statutory provisions. The Court found no such error in the lower courts' adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be disturbed by the Supreme Court in the absence of gross misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Is a husband bound by a prior agreement regarding the payment of maintenance allowance to his wife?
  • Does the failure to plead financial inability in the trial court preclude a party from raising it on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Ali---Petitioner vs The State and another---Respondents2017 MLD 1405 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-18
  pre-arrest bailabductionnikahnamafree-will marriagedelay in FIRbenefit of doubtbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 260 of 2016 registered under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kotmomin, District Sargodha. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail in view of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, a verified nikahnama establishing marriage between the petitioner and the alleged abductee, and statements indicating the marriage was contracted of her free will. The court held that the delayed registration of the FIR, coupled with the verified nikahnama and the attending circumstances of the case, created reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner, making out a case of mala fide implication. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner. The key legal principle laid down is that the benefit of a tentative assessment and reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case can be extended in favor of an accused seeking pre-arrest bail where a verified marriage contract and unexplained delay exist.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR can constitute a ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a verified nikahnama showing marriage with the alleged abductee create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when an accused has already joined the investigation and no useful purpose would be served by incarceration?
  Read full judgment →
• Santhini vs Vijaya Venketesh2017 SCInd 1261 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
• (1) Sangeen Khan (2) Ilyas vs (1) The State (2) Amjad Ali2017 PHC 1187 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-20Read full judgment →
• Sang Ali vs Sultan Mehmood through L.Rs2017 MLD 1583 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-04-24
  civil revisiondeclaration of ownershipconcurrent findingssale deedburden of proofpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for declaration of ownership and possession of the suit land. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner successfully proved exclusive ownership of the vendor at the time of the sale and exclusive payment of the sale consideration without the respondents' participation. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the petitioner failed to establish these essential facts, noting contradictions in the evidence regarding the vendor's death prior to the sale deed and the involvement of the respondents in paying the sale price. The court concluded that the concurrent findings of the lower courts suffered from no misreading or non-reading of evidence and accordingly dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a plaintiff seeking a declaration of ownership based on a purchase must conclusively prove the vendor's title and exclusive payment of consideration when challenged by contesting parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts can be disturbed without proving misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Is a plaintiff claiming ownership through a sale deed bound to prove the vendor's exclusive ownership and sole payment of the consideration when contested?
  • Does a suit for declaration and possession fail if the plaintiff admits facts contradicting the validity of the sale deed?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah, etc vs Appellate Authority, Local Government Election, District Rajanpur etc2017 PLJ Lahore 772 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-19Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 713 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-12-19
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencedying declarationinterested witnessesindependent corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when the ocular testimony of interested witnesses contradicts medical evidence and the alleged dying declaration. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to material contradictions: the medical evidence indicated the victim was unconscious upon hospital arrival, falsifying the alleged dying declaration, and the eye-witnesses' claims were inconsistent with the lack of injuries to them or damage to their vehicle despite close-range firing. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive or provide independent corroboration for the interested witnesses. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of doubt. The key principle laid down is that when a motive is alleged by the prosecution, it must be proven; failure to do so, alongside significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, necessitates acquittal based on the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the victim's state of consciousness invalidate a dying declaration?
  • Must the prosecution prove an alleged motive for a crime if it has been explicitly stated in the FIR?
  • Is independent corroboration required for the testimony of interested witnesses in a murder case?
  • Does the failure to send crime empties to a firearm expert create a doubt in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah and 5 others vs Jan Muhammad and another2017 MLD 1008 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-22Read full judgment →