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.

• Sana Gulnaz vs Secretary, Health Govt. of Punjab and others2017 MLD 815 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Samson alias Mithoo and others vs Nasim Qazi2017 LHC 1638 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-19
  specific performanceagreement to sellunilateral agreementsecondary evidencemarginal witnessesres judicatacivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a dispute over specific performance of an agreement to sell executed in 1992 regarding agricultural land. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had agreed to sell the land to the respondent, delivering possession and executing a general power of attorney. The trial court dismissed the respondent's suit for specific performance, but the first appellate court reversed the decision and decreed the suit. In this revision, the Lahore High Court examined whether the agreement was enforceable despite not being signed by the vendee, whether the suit was barred by limitation and res judicata, and how the death of marginal witnesses affects secondary evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court held that an agreement to sell not signed by one party is nonetheless enforceable if proved and acted upon, that the suit was not time-barred since proprietary rights were granted later, and that proof of execution through relatives of deceased marginal witnesses was valid under Article 80 without formal permission for secondary evidence. The revision was partly allowed to condition the decree on the payment of the remaining balance sale consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement to sell not signed by one of the parties is enforceable under law if its execution and implementation are proved?
  • Does the death of marginal witnesses allow the production of secondary witnesses to prove execution under Article 80 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 without formal permission for secondary evidence?
  • Whether the dismissal of an earlier suit for permanent injunction operates as res judicata or bars a subsequent suit for specific performance of contract?
  • Can a suit for specific performance be filed before the vendor acquires proprietary rights in the suit property?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiur Rehman and another vs IInd Adj South Karachi and another2017 SHC 90 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-03Read full judgment →
• Samiur Rehman and another vs Iind Additional District Judge, South2017 YLR 1873 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-03Read full judgment →
• Samina Zaheer vs PTCL etc2021 PLC (C.S.) 961, 2017 LHC 4427 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-16
  voluntary separation schemepensionary benefitsqualifying servicetraining periodtransferred employeesmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a former Telephone Operator of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) challenging an order dated 19.06.2008, which rescinded her retirement under the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) and withdrew her pensionary benefits. The respondent-department contended that the retirement order was issued due to an arithmetic error, as the petitioner's training period was excluded from her qualifying service, rendering her ineligible. The respondents also argued that the petition was not maintainable as the VSS lacked statutory backing. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, being a transferred employee, was protected under statutory terms and conditions, making the writ petition maintainable. On the merits, the Court ruled that training periods must be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to pay all outstanding and future pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable by a transferred employee of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited regarding terms and conditions of service?
  • Whether the period spent by an employee in training must be counted towards the length of qualifying service for pensionary benefits?
  • Can an employer deny pensionary benefits under a voluntary separation scheme by unilaterally rescinding a retirement order on the pretext of a clerical or arithmetic mistake?
  Read full judgment →
• Samina Iram vs The State and othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 21, 2017 MLD 494 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-29
  pre-arrest bailbail confirmationmurderabscondencestatutory exceptionswoman offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the female petitioner, who was attributed a lalkara, declared a proclaimed offender, and whose husband was abroad, is entitled to pre-arrest bail keeping in view her gender, the role attributed, and the fact that the principal accused had already been convicted. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest bail as she caused no injury, was a woman with an infant falling under the statutory exceptions, and her abscondence was reasonably explained. The key principle laid down is that feminity, lack of active injury attribution, and a reasonable explanation for abscondence, alongside the conviction of the main accused, can constitute exceptional grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail even if the offence falls within the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to a female accused attributed a lalkara when the principal accused has already been convicted?
  • Does reasonable explanation of abscondence disentitle an accused from claiming bail?
  • Can feminity and the status of being a nursing mother be considered as exceptional grounds under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Samina Iram vs State, etc.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 21 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-29
  pre-arrest bailproclaimed offenderweaning motherprohibitory clausecriminal conspiracyjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was nominated in an FIR for murder and criminal conspiracy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a woman with a weaning infant, was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail despite being declared a proclaimed offender and facing charges falling within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the principal accused had already been convicted, the petitioner had caused no injury to the deceased, and she had been found innocent in the initial investigation. Furthermore, the Court accepted her explanation for her previous absence and her offer to surrender her passport. The key principle laid down is that the status of a proclaimed offender does not automatically bar the grant of bail if the absence is reasonably explained, and that the circumstances of a weaning mother, combined with the lack of recovery required from her, constitute sufficient grounds to exercise judicial discretion in favor of granting pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of a proclaimed offender automatically bar the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a woman with a weaning infant be granted bail in a case falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is pre-arrest bail permissible when the petitioner has provided a reasonable explanation for their previous absence?
  Read full judgment →
• Samina Bukhari vs Muhammad Javed Abbasi and others2017 P Cr. L J 96 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-11
  Justice of the Peaceregistration of FIRpolice discretionillegal confinementcustodial tortureconstitutional jurisdictionarrest without warrantCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order by the Justice of the Peace directing the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner, a police officer, based on allegations of illegal confinement and torture. The core legal question concerned whether the registration of an FIR necessitates the immediate arrest of the accused and the scope of police discretion in such matters. The Peshawar High Court upheld the impugned order, finding no legal infirmity in the direction to register the case. The Court held that the registration of an FIR does not mandate the immediate arrest of the accused, as arrest is not a prerequisite for conducting a fair investigation. The Court clarified that under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically sections 54, 154, 155, 156, and 157, police officers possess the discretion to investigate without resorting to immediate arrest. The judgment emphasizes that law enforcement must act reasonably, avoiding harassment, and that the power to curtail liberty must be exercised in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of an FIR against an accused person mandate their immediate arrest by the police?
  • Is the arrest of an accused person a prerequisite for the police to conduct an investigation into a cognizable offence?
  • What is the scope of the discretion vested in a police officer under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the arrest of an accused?
  • Can a Justice of the Peace issue directions to police authorities regarding the registration of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Samin Ullah vs KPK, Public Service Commission2017 PHC 1080 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-25Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and 8 others2017 CLC 1554 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-07Read full judgment →
• Samba Bank Ltd., Lahore through Authorized Signatory vs Abu SaeedPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 157 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-27
  acquittalcriminal revisionbank offencesnon-production of evidencedelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Special Judge (Offences in Banks), Lahore, whereby an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was accepted and Respondent No. 1 was acquitted of charges relating to fraud, forgery, and cheating in connection with a bank finance facility. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C., where the prosecution failed to produce any evidence over a period exceeding fifteen years and no direct role or financial benefit was established against the accused. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's acquittal order was entirely lawful and justified, noting the inordinate delay and total absence of prosecution evidence or incriminating material connecting the respondent to the offense. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to adduce any evidence over a protracted period and there is no probability of conviction, an order of acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is fully warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be entertained and accepted when the prosecution fails to produce any evidence for a prolonged period?
  • Is a subsequent application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 barred after the dismissal of a prior application when changed circumstances, such as continued lack of prosecution evidence, arise?
  • Can an accused be held criminally liable for a financial facility where no role in the disbursement, forgery, or receipt of funds is established on the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Samar Abbas vs The State and others2017 YLR 48 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-10
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionjoint confessiontest identification paradebenefit of doubtmurder trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses appeals, a revision petition, and a murder reference arising from a trial court judgment whereby the appellants were convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established a continuous chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to unexplained delays in nominating the accused, unreliable extra-judicial confessions which were joint in nature, and belated identification parades. The court laid down the principle that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must form a continuous chain touching the accused without a missing link, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeals were accepted, the convictions and death sentences were set aside, the appellants were acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • What is the required standard for a continuous chain of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case?
  • Can a joint extra-judicial confession made by multiple co-accused be used as legal evidence against them?
  • What is the evidentiary value of test identification parades conducted long after the nomination of the accused in a criminal case?
  • Does an accused person have a fundamental right to the benefit of doubt when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Samandar alias Qurban and others vs The State2017 MLD 539 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-03
  police encounterunlicensed weaponsbenefit of doubtanti-terrorismabductionrecovery of weaponscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of three connected appeals against the conviction of appellants by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Larkana. The appellants were convicted under Sections 324, 353, 148, and 149 of the PPC, Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and Section 23(i)(a) of the Sindh Arms Ordinance, following an alleged police encounter during a raid to recover two abductees. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt given the lack of independent witnesses and inconsistencies in the encounter narrative. The High Court observed that despite a five-minute shootout involving 100 police personnel, no injuries were sustained by either side, nor was any property damaged. Furthermore, the recovered abductees testified that the appellants were not their kidnappers and denied that weapons were recovered in their presence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide cogent evidence, noting the non-compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C. and the delay in ballistic testing. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the appellants.

  Read full judgment →
• Salman Shahzad, etc. vs Chief Executive, Multan, etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 239 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-05Read full judgment →
• Salman Shahid vs Federation of Pakistan through Interior Ministry and 42017 PLD Islamabad 218 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-03-31Read full judgment →
• Salman Ahmad Khan vs Judge Family Court, Multan and others2017 PLD Lahore 698 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-22Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad and another vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 1391 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-02
  criminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtocular testimonymedical evidenceinterested witnessesrecovery of weaponunnatural conduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested on ocular testimony from three witnesses, all related to the deceased, and the recovery of a weapon. The Court found significant discrepancies between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence regarding the time of the incident and the number of bullet injuries sustained. Furthermore, the Court observed that the conduct of the witnesses—who allegedly stood by while an elderly man committed the murder—was unnatural and cast doubt on their presence at the scene. The Court also noted the lack of independent corroboration for the recovery of the weapon, citing non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries and time of occurrence create a reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration when their presence at the crime scene is doubtful?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during the recovery of a crime weapon violate the requirements of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad and 2 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary2017 YLR 1199 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saleemullah vs Asmatullah and another2017 PHC 1182 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-10Read full judgment →
• Saleem vs Intizar Hussain alias Shahzad and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 123 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-17Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ullah Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior2017 YLR 1224 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-05-06
  territorial jurisdictionrent restrictionurban areademarcation maphousing society
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed before the Islamabad High Court to determine the territorial jurisdiction of the PWD Housing Society in terms of notification S.R.O. 83(KE)/2002 issued under the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001. Upon notices being issued, the Surveyor General of Pakistan submitted certified true copies and a demarcated map identifying the boundary pillars and reference points. The core legal question addressed was whether the PWD Housing Society falls within the urban area limits notified for the purpose of rent restriction laws in Islamabad. The Court held that, based on the demarcated map provided by the Surveyor General, the PWD Housing Society does not fall within the territorial limits of the notification. The Court laid down the principle that the determination of territorial jurisdiction for rent control matters must strictly adhere to the notified map references and boundary pillars established under the relevant statutory notifications, directing all Rent Controllers to verify pending cases accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the PWD Housing Society fall within the territorial limits of notification S.R.O. 83(KE)/2002 under the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001?
  • How is the territorial jurisdiction of urban areas determined for the purpose of rent restriction in Islamabad?
  • What is the legal effect of a demarcated map provided by the Surveyor General of Pakistan in resolving territorial disputes before Rent Controllers?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Sugar Mills Limited, Charsadda, NWFP vs Executive Director2017 CLD 513 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2016-02-02Read full judgment →
• Saleem Dad vs Collector Acquisition, NHA, Peshawar and others2017 PHC 1197 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-22Read full judgment →
• Salamat vs The State and another2017 LHC 867 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybenefit of doubtcause of deathdelay in FIRprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 245/16 registered under Sections 302, 342, 379, 337A(i), 337F(i), 337L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Housing Colony, District Sheikhupura. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest given the medical opinion regarding the cause of death, delay in the FIR, and lack of specific attribution. The court held that the case falls under further inquiry pursuant to Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, a medical report attributing death to heart disease rather than the sustained injuries, general allegations without a specific role assigned, and prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial. The court established the key principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to an accused even at the bail stage where the medical cause of death is disputed and prosecution claims prima facie create doubt, and that heinousness of an offence alone does not bar bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a medical opinion attributing death to natural causes rather than alleged injuries create a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground of the heinousness of the offence when the accused is otherwise entitled to the concession of bail?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR creates doubt in the prosecution case warranting bail at a pre-trial stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamat vs State and another2017 LHC 867, PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 624 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybenefit of doubtmedical evidencecause of deathprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 302, 342, 379, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the medical evidence regarding the cause of death and the circumstances of the FIR. The Court observed that the FIR was registered with an unexplained one-day delay and that the medical report from the Forensic Science Agency indicated the complainant's death resulted from heart disease rather than the alleged injuries. Furthermore, the petitioner was assigned only a general role, and the investigation was complete. The Court held that the case fell under the category of further inquiry, entitling the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of doubt, even at the bail stage, must be extended to the accused when the prosecution's case is prima facie weakened by medical evidence, and that the heinousness of an offense alone is insufficient to deny bail when the accused is otherwise entitled to it.

  Questions settled

  • Does a medical report attributing death to natural causes rather than injuries create a case of further inquiry for bail purposes?
  • Can bail be granted when the FIR is registered with an unexplained delay and the accused is assigned only a general role?
  • Is the heinousness of an offense a sufficient ground to refuse bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali---Appellant vs The State---Respondent2017 P Cr. L J 1634 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-23
  narcotics controldelayed FIRchain of custodyhostile witnesscriminal appealacquittalheroin recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of narcotics, unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, hostility of key witnesses, and gaps in the safe custody and transmission of samples to the chemical examiner. The Lahore High Court held that the unexplained delay of over twenty-three hours in lodging the FIR, coupled with material inconsistencies, hostile witnesses, and failure to prove safe custody of the seized contraband, rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate acquittal and release of the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where severe punishments are prescribed by statute, strict compliance with statutory safeguards is required, and unexplained delays in reporting and fatal gaps in the chain of custody vitiate the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained and long delay in lodging the First Information Report in a narcotics case create doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution evidence?
  • Whether fatal gaps and lack of proof regarding the safe custody of seized contraband vitiate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • What is the effect of unexplained delays by the investigating officer in recording statements of material witnesses during investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali vs The State2017 MLD 701 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-12-16
  MurderRetracted confessionMental fitnessCriminal appealCapital punishmentJudicial confessionVoluntary statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Jail Appeal challenged a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a four-year-old child. The appellant contended that he was mentally unfit at the time of the crime and that his judicial confession was coerced and subsequently retracted. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the retracted confession and whether the appellant possessed the mental capacity to stand trial. The Federal Shariat Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the confession was recorded after fulfilling all legal formalities, including providing the accused time to reflect, rendering it voluntary and credible. Regarding the appellant's mental state, the Court observed that while he had previously been diagnosed with psychosis, medical reports confirmed he was fit to understand court proceedings at the time of the trial. The Court reaffirmed the principle that capital punishment may be awarded based on a retracted confession if the court is satisfied that the statement was voluntary, true, and made without fear or inducement. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on a retracted judicial confession?
  • What criteria determine whether an accused is mentally fit to understand court proceedings?
  • Does the failure of a mashir to support the prosecution's case regarding recovery invalidate a conviction based on other evidence?
  • Is a confession considered voluntary if the accused was given time to reflect before it was recorded?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali vs State2017 PLJ FSC 28 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-11-30
  judicial confessionretracted confessioninsanity pleamurdercriminal appealvoluntariness of confessionmental fitness to stand trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas, for the murder of a four-year-old child. The appellant, the victim's father, was initially charged under Section 302 and 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 subsequently added. The core legal questions were whether the appellant's judicial confession was voluntary and reliable, and whether the defense of mental incapacity (insanity) was substantiated. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the Zina charge due to inconclusive chemical examiner reports. However, the Court upheld the murder conviction, finding the judicial confession to be voluntary, consistent with the circumstances, and corroborated by the recovery of the weapon. The Court rejected the insanity plea, noting that medical reports confirmed the appellant was fit to stand trial. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a conviction, including capital punishment, may be sustained on a retracted confession if the court is satisfied that the confession was made voluntarily and without inducement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based solely on a retracted judicial confession?
  • What criteria must a court use to determine the voluntariness of a judicial confession?
  • Does a prior diagnosis of psychosis automatically render an accused unfit to stand trial?
  • Is a confession recorded shortly after arrest inherently involuntary?
  Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin and 10 others vs Govt. of KPK etc2017 PHC 904 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• Sakeena Bibi vs Muhammad Ashiq & 3 others2017 SCR 242 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-03-11Read full judgment →
• Sakeena Begum widow of Raja Hadayatullah Khan (late) and for others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 7 others2017 SC AJK 248 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Sakeena Begum and 4 others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu2017 P.S.C. 1132 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Sajjid Ahmed and another vs National Accountability Bureau through itsK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 184 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-29Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Serhani vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 474 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-12
  juvenile justicedetermination of ageossification testbenefit of doubtschool leaving certificatecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application for declaring him a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The core legal question concerns the proper determination of the accused's age for juvenility when conflicting evidence exists between a School Leaving Certificate, a NADRA identity card, and a medical/ossification report. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court failed to properly evaluate and reconcile the medical and documentary evidence, and neglected the established principle that beneficial legislation must be interpreted liberally in favor of the accused where two views regarding age are possible. Setting aside the impugned order, the Court laid down the principle that ossification and radiological reports serve as primary technical tests for age determination, and that any margin of doubt regarding age must be resolved in favor of the accused to extend the rehabilitative benefits of juvenile laws.

  Questions settled

  • How should a court determine the age of an accused claiming juvenility when conflicting evidence exists between documentary records and medical reports?
  • Does the benefit of a margin of doubt in age determination tilt in favor of the accused in juvenile matters?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an ossification test and radiologist report in determining the age of a juvenile accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Khan vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 261 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-22
  narcotics traffickingcriminal appealbenefit of doubtrecovery proceedingsprosecution evidenceFSL delayacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the trafficking of three kilograms of heroin under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the evidence presented. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed due to material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the preparation of the recovery memo and the murasila. Specifically, the court noted that the complainant’s account of the proceedings was contradicted by the Moharrir, and the prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in transmitting the contraband samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the burden lies squarely on the prosecution to prove its case beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, and any significant failure or contradiction in the evidence necessitates the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the preparation of recovery documents create reasonable doubt?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending contraband samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Khan vs Momana Urooj2017 PHC 1253 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Khan alias Shahzad Khan vs The State and others2017 P Cr. L J 1121 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-12-09
  criminal appealqatl-i-amdinjured witnesssifting grain from chafffalsus in uno falsus in omnibusappreciation of evidencelife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed upon the appellant for the murder of Kausar Mahmood and the attempted murder of Karam Ellahi. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically whether the conviction of one accused is sustainable when co-accused were acquitted, and whether the testimony of an injured witness remains credible despite alleged inconsistencies. The Court held that the conviction was sound, affirming that the testimony of the injured witness, which remained largely unchallenged during cross-examination, provided direct ocular evidence of the appellant's guilt. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the acquittal of co-accused necessitated the acquittal of the appellant, emphasizing the principle of "sifting the grain from the chaff." It held that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus does not apply universally in the Pakistani criminal justice system. Furthermore, the Court established that failure to confront a witness with previous contradictory statements during cross-examination renders those statements ineffective for impeachment purposes, and unchallenged testimony constitutes an admission of facts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused automatically invalidate the conviction of a remaining accused if the evidence against them is distinct?
  • Is the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus a universal rule in the Pakistani criminal justice system?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to confront a witness with their previous contradictory statements during cross-examination?
  • Can the testimony of an injured witness be considered sufficient to sustain a conviction without further corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain, etc vs Deputy Commissioner, etcK.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 231 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-15Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs The State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 320, 2017 MLD 1172 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-13
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecross-version casecriminal recordbail adjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Sajjad Hussain, who is accused in FIR No. 60 of 2015 for offences under sections 337-A(2), 337-A(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(ii), 334, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to him and the statutory limitations on bail. The Court held that the specific injury attributed to the petitioner, falling under section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, carries a maximum sentence not exceeding five years and thus does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted the existence of cross-versions of the incident, the petitioner's lack of a criminal record, and the fact that the trial's conclusion was not imminent. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused is not a hardened criminal, continued incarceration is not justified.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence punishable with a maximum sentence of five years fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is the absence of a previous criminal record a relevant factor in determining the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Should bail be granted when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future and the accused is not required for further investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 320 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-13
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseblunt weapon injurycross-version casecriminal recordincarceration
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 60 dated 04.02.2015, registered at Police Station Khangarh, District Muzaffargarh, for offences under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(ii), 334, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was alleged to have caused injuries to the complainant's party using a blunt weapon. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the offence attributed to the petitioner under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted the case involved cross-versions of the incident, the petitioner had no prior criminal record, and the trial's conclusion was not imminent. The Court established that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused is not a hardened criminal, mere absconsion is insufficient to deny bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is absconsion alone sufficient to deny post-arrest bail when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  • Should bail be granted when the accused has no previous criminal record and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain etc. vs Deputy Commissioner etc.K.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 231, 2017 LHC 1845 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-15Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider Tareen, PDSP, Quetta and 10 others vs The Provincial PoliceK.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 255 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-20Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmed and 8 others vs Azad Govt. of State of Jammu Kashmir2017 PLJ AJ&K 214 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-11-30Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad and 8 others vs Muhammad Khalid Khan and others2017 MLD 656 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-07-22Read full judgment →
• Sajida Yousuf vs (1) Muhammad Zahid Khan (2) Mrs. Razia Yousuf (3)2017 SHC 22 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sajid Plastic Factory through Sole Proprietor vs MSC Bahamas through Master_Chief Officer and 9 others2017 PLD Sindh 396 · Sindh High Court · 2014-06-11
  foreign jurisdiction clausestay of suitbills of ladingchoice of forumconsigneecontract of carriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses two applications filed by the defendants seeking either a stay of the suit or the return of the plaint based on a foreign choice of forum clause contained in bills of lading, which designated the High Court of London as the exclusive forum and English law as exclusively applicable. The core legal question was whether the court should enforce the foreign jurisdiction clause and stay the proceedings brought by the plaintiff consignee in breach thereof. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in M.A. Chowdhury v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and considering the totality of the circumstances under the guiding framework, the court held that the consignee is bound by the totality of the contract of carriage including the foreign jurisdiction clause, and that the defendants successfully discharged the onus of establishing that the suit ought to be stayed. The key principle laid down is that foreign jurisdiction clauses are treated similarly to arbitration clauses under section 28 of the Contract Act, and courts will generally stay local proceedings in favor of the chosen foreign forum unless strong cause is shown to the contrary, respecting the sanctity of contractual choice of forum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a consignee is bound by a foreign jurisdiction clause contained in a bill of lading?
  • Does the onus lie on the defendant to establish that a suit should be stayed by reason of a foreign jurisdiction clause?
  • Can a court return a plaint in cases involving a foreign jurisdiction clause or is a stay of proceedings the proper course?
  • Whether a foreign jurisdiction clause can be likened to an arbitration clause under section 28 of the Contract Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Latif vs Abdul Latif and 3 others2017 C.L.R. 152 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-03Read full judgment →
• Sajid Khan Jadoon vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Ehtesab Commission2017 PLJ Peshawar 111, 2017 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-03Read full judgment →
• Sajid Khan Jadoon vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Ehtesab Commission2017 PLJ Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-03Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain vs Maroof Hussain & 3 others2017 SCR 965 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-01-24Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain son of Khadim Hussain, r/o House No.469, Sector F/3 Part II,2017 SC AJK 74 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Sajid alias Shahzad and others vs State and othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 503 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-06
  abductionkidnappingbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealcriminal revisionenhancement of sentenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib, convicting the appellants under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment, while acquitting them of charges under Sections 376 and 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants abducted a fourteen-year-old girl and committed zina with her. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution successfully established the elements of abduction and kidnapping under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the complainant's revision petition for enhancement of sentence could be converted into an appeal against acquittal. The Lahore High Court held that the movement of the victim a short distance to an adjacent house solely for the commission of the principal act did not constitute an independent offence of abduction under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following established precedent. The court further declined to convert the revision petition into an appeal against acquittal. Consequently, the criminal appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, the appellants were acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and the revision petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does moving a victim a short distance to a nearby place solely for the commission of an intended crime constitute an independent offence of abduction under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether a criminal revision filed specifically for the enhancement of a sentence can be converted into a criminal appeal against acquittal under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the uncorroborated sole statement of a victim sufficient to prove kidnapping and abduction when the physical circumstances render the prosecution's narrative improbable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajhlo vs WAPDA, Islamabad through its Secretary, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 493 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-14Read full judgment →
• Sajahid Gul vs The Chairman, National Accountability Bureau NAB2017 PLJ Peshawar 249, 2017 MLD 353 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-13Read full judgment →
• Sajahid Gul vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad2017 PLJ Peshawar 249 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sajad vs Asghar Khan and another2017 MLD 139 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-25Read full judgment →
• Sairan Bibi and 4 others vs Muhammad Javaid and 5 others2017 P.S.C. (Crl.) 705 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-03-03
  dacoitymurderidentification parademitigating circumstancesdefective investigationreduction of sentenceocular testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from judgments of the Shariat Court concerning a dacoity incident on August 2, 2003, during which victims were robbed and Ch. Muhammad Din was fatally shot by masked perpetrators. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular evidence, the necessity of an identification parade when accused persons' faces were muffled, and the existence of mitigating circumstances justifying a reduction in sentence due to defective police investigation. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that although identification parade is not a substantive piece of evidence and in-court identification by eye-witnesses can suffice, serious lapses and contradictions in the prosecution's narrative regarding the arrest of the accused and recovery of evidence constituted strong mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the court dismissed the complainant's appeal and modified the sentences of the convict-appellants from death and life imprisonment to the terms already undergone. The key principle laid down is that while identification parade loses significance if eye-witnesses identify the accused in court, grave investigative flaws and contradictions in the prosecution story serve as mitigating factors warranting leniency in sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Is an identification parade legally mandatory for conviction if eye-witnesses identify the accused during the trial?
  • Can contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution's story regarding the arrest of the accused serve as mitigating circumstances to reduce a death sentence or life imprisonment?
  • Does the failure of the investigating agency to conduct an identification parade vitiate the entire trial or render the conviction unlawful?
  Read full judgment →
• Sairan Bibi & 4 others vs Muhammad Javed & 5 others2017 SCR 1334 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-05-05
  review petitionharrabahtazirconcurrent sentencesaggregate punishmentOffence against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) ActCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  These review petitions were filed against a Supreme Court judgment concerning the conviction and sentencing of individuals for murder and robbery. The core legal questions were whether the conviction should have been governed by the mandatory sentencing provisions of the Offence against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985, and whether aggregate sentences exceeding fourteen years must run concurrently under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that because the conviction was secured under the Penal Code (Tazir) rather than the Hudood Act, the mandatory sentencing requirements of the latter did not apply. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the aggregate of sentences awarded in a single trial exceeds fourteen years, such sentences must run concurrently by operation of law, regardless of whether the trial court explicitly directed it. The Court affirmed that Section 20 of the Offence against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985 permits the application of Penal Code punishments when Hudood requirements are unmet, and that statutory limits on consecutive sentencing are mandatory.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mandatory sentencing provision of the Offence against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985 apply when a conviction is secured under the Penal Code for Tazir?
  • When aggregate sentences in a single trial exceed fourteen years, must they run concurrently by operation of law under Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Can a court award punishment under the Penal Code for an offence of harrabah if the requirements for Hadd punishment under the Offence against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985 are not met?
  Read full judgment →
• Sairan Begum & 2 others vs Sakeena Begum & 5 others2017 SCR 1093 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-04-19
  rejection of plaintcause of actionprematurity of suitgift deeddeclaratory suitcivil procedureinheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a civil suit concerning the cancellation of gift deeds executed by a donor in favor of one daughter, which the plaintiffs challenged as fraudulent. The core legal question was whether a suit for declaration and cancellation of an instrument, filed while the donor was alive, could be dismissed as premature under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, even if the cause of action matured during the pendency of the suit due to the donor's death. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the rejection of the plaint was unjustified. The Court ruled that where a cause of action matures during the pendency of a suit, the court should not dismiss the suit on technical grounds of prematurity. The key principle laid down is that procedural technicalities should not defeat the ends of justice; if a cause of action, initially absent or premature at the time of filing, becomes fully vested or mature during the litigation process, the court must proceed to decide the matter on its merits rather than rejecting the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit be dismissed as premature if the cause of action matures during the pendency of the proceedings?
  • Is the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 appropriate when the cause of action arises after the institution of the suit?
  • Does the death of a donor during the pendency of a suit challenging a gift deed provide a valid cause of action to the legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Sain Dad Khan vs General Manager HR and Admn. (NTDC) WAPDA, Lahore and 4 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 74 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-08-25
  service lawdate of birth correctionsuperannuationlachesfinality of service recordWAPDA employees
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns a dispute over the correction of a date of birth in the service record of an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner, having joined service in 1980, sought to alter his recorded date of birth from 1956 to 1961, relying on educational and other certificates, shortly before his superannuation. The core legal question was whether a civil servant could seek the alteration of their date of birth after decades of service, particularly when a previous departmental decision on the matter had attained finality. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the request was barred by laches and the principle of finality, as the petitioner had failed to challenge the 2009 departmental order declining the correction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that, under the relevant service rules, the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into service is final and cannot be altered after the prescribed time limits, discouraging attempts to prolong tenure near retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant seek alteration of their date of birth in the service record after decades of service?
  • Does a departmental order declining a request for date of birth correction attain finality if not challenged in a timely manner?
  • Is the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into government service considered final under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Saima Noor & 4 others vs Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University & 3 others2017 SCR 25 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-12-31Read full judgment →
• Saima Fareed and others vs Divisional Director Schools2017 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 106 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Saifullah vs The State2017 PHC 696 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-03Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs Niamatullah and 2 others2017 PLJ Quetta 72 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-02-16Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Muhib Kaka Khel vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 PHC 1230 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Khan Bangash vs Jaseem Khan and 6 others2017 CLC 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-14
  bona fide purchaserostensible ownertransfer of propertyspecific performanceagreement to sellparda nasheen ladiesburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Peshawar High Court disposes of three Regular First Appeals arising from a civil court judgment concerning a dispute over immovable property. The core legal question revolved around whether the appellant, Saifullah Khan Bangash, was entitled to protection as a bona fide purchaser for value under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, having transacted with a family member who acted as an intermediary without written authority from the parda nasheen true owners. The court held that a transferee seeking protection under Section 41 must strictly fulfill all five essential conditions precedent, including proving that the transferor was an ostensible owner with the express or implied consent of the real owners, that the transfer was for consideration, and that the transferee acted in good faith with reasonable care. Finding that the appellant failed to prove ostensible ownership, implied consent, good faith, and reasonable care—compounded by his legal background and intentional misrepresentation of the transaction as a gift to evade taxes—the court dismissed the appeals. The key legal principle laid down is that the failure to fulfill even a single condition precedent disentitles a transferee from invoking the equitable protection of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential conditions precedent required to claim protection as a transferee from an ostensible owner under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Does the failure to fulfill even a single condition precedent under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 disentitle a transferee from claiming its protection?
  • Can a purchaser who deals with an intermediary lacking written authority and knowingly misrepresents a sale transaction as a gift claim to have acted in good faith?
  • Whether specific performance of an agreement to sell can be granted when the purchaser fails to prove valid authorization from the true owners of the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Khan and others vs Mst. Afshan and others2017 PLD Sindh 324 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-03
  suit for administrationpreliminary decreeOrder XX Rule 13 CPCremand of suitbenami propertyinheritance distributionMuslim Personal Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal arose from a single-judge common judgment and decree disposing of two consolidated administration suits regarding the estate of a deceased patriarch, Z.A. Khan. The suits involved claims between two sets of legal heirs concerning partition, declaration, Benami status of properties, and validity of alleged relinquish deeds and sales. The High Court analyzed the scope and procedural mandates of administration suits under Order XX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The Court held that passing a preliminary decree under Order XX, Rule 13 C.P.C. for accounts and inquiries is a mandatory statutory requirement prior to the final disposition of an administration suit. The failure of the trial court to pass such a preliminary decree and appoint an administrator/receiver at the outset constituted a material irregularity that vitiated the subsequent proceedings. Reaffirming established precedent, the Court set aside the impugned judgments, remanded both consolidated suits for fresh adjudication, and directed the trial court to issue a preliminary decree and appoint a commissioner to record evidence on the consolidated issues.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory under Order XX, Rule 13 C.P.C. to pass a preliminary decree before passing a final decree in a suit for administration?
  • Does the failure of a court to pass a preliminary decree in an administration suit constitute a material irregularity that vitiates the entire proceedings?
  • Can a court in an administration suit determine whether property held by a sharer forms part of the estate of the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifco Group through its Chief Executive and another vs Privatisation2017 IHC 161 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-05-29Read full judgment →
• Saifco Group through Chief Executive and another vs Privatisation2017 CLC 1493 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-06-20Read full judgment →
• Saifan-Uz-Zaman Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2017 PLD Sindh 559 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-03
  public interest litigationlocus standiprivate transactionright to liferight to informationforeign exchange regulationshare purchase agreementtax evasion
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner, an investigative journalist, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging a private Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) between EFG Hermes Frontier Holdings and Invest and Finance Securities Limited. The Petitioner contended that the acquisition of 51% capital contravened the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and the Foreign Exchange Manual, alleging potential tax evasion and money laundering. The core legal question was whether a private commercial transaction could be challenged through public interest litigation under the guise of protecting fundamental rights like the right to life (Article 9) and the right to information (Article 19-A). The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the matter fell within the private domain and was subject to existing statutory regulatory frameworks. The Court ruled that the 'right to life' and 'right to information' cannot be used to justify roving inquiries into private transactions by third parties where no direct nexus with public administration or public injury is established. Public interest litigation requires a fit case of public wrong, not mere curiosity about private commercial dealings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private share purchase agreement can be challenged through public interest litigation on the grounds of alleged tax evasion?
  • Does the right to information under Article 19-A extend to private commercial transactions that have no direct nexus with public administration?
  • Can the right to life under Article 9 be invoked to seek judicial scrutiny of private business deals on the theory that they might reduce public exchequer funds?
  • Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to investigate transactions already subject to statutory regulatory oversight by bodies like the CCP and SBP?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Khan and another vs D.G. Ehtisab Commission, Khyber2017 SCMR 2091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycorruptionEhtisab Commissionauction proceedingsadministrative accountabilityad-hocism
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for post-arrest bail filed by two public employees, Saleem Khan and Sartaj, who were accused of corruption and corrupt practices in relation to the auction of municipal contracts. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established sufficient grounds to deny bail, given the lack of direct evidence regarding financial gain or specific illegal acts. The Supreme Court held that the case against the petitioners warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution failed to provide evidence of wrongful gain or specific illegalities in the auction process, which involved a multi-member committee and multiple layers of administrative approval. The Court emphasized that bail is a matter of right when a case requires further inquiry. Additionally, the Court criticized the ad-hoc appointment of the Director General of the Ehtisab Commission, noting that such temporary arrangements undermine the institution's independence, and directed the permanent appointment of a Director General. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case or trace any financial gain, and the accused's role is part of a collective administrative process, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the lack of direct evidence tracing illegal financial gain in a corruption case entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Can a junior employee be held solely responsible for a contract auction process that involved a multi-member committee and multiple layers of administrative approval?
  • Is the detention of an individual under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 justified when the underlying allegations are subject to criminal proceedings?
  • Does the continued appointment of an Acting Director General of an accountability body on a temporary basis for an extended period undermine the institution's legal authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif-Uz-Zaman Khan vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2017 SHC 112 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-28Read full judgment →
• Saif-ur-Rehman and others vs District Judge and others2017 LHC 416 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-12Read full judgment →
• Saif Ur Rehman vs The State and another2017 PLD Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-26
  Foreigners Actplea of guilttrial de novomandatory procedureCode of Criminal Procedurespecial lawremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgments of the lower courts convicting and sentencing the petitioner under section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The core legal question addressed is whether the Foreigners Act, 1946 provides for appeal or revision and whether the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to proceedings under the said Act. The Peshawar High Court held that although the Foreigners Act, 1946 does not expressly provide procedural mechanisms, section 14-A and section 16, when read with section 5(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, make the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applicable to proceedings under the Act where the special law is silent. The court further held that the trial court committed a material illegality by failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 241-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding the seven-day gap before framing a charge upon a plea of guilt. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgments of the courts below, converted the appeal into a revision petition, and remanded the case for a trial de novo.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Foreigners Act, 1946 provides the remedy of appeal or revision to an aggrieved party?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applicable to proceedings and trials under the Foreigners Act, 1946?
  • Is a trial court competent to frame a charge against an accused without providing a gap of seven days after the supply of documents under section 241-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Ur Rehman vs Faisalabad Electric Supply Company (FESCO) and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 556 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-09
  Intra Court Appealmedical fitness certificatebreak in servicecontract employmentHepatitis BA&CS Rules 1974termination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged a judgment dismissing a petition regarding the appellant's employment with the Faisalabad Electric Supply Company. The appellant, initially appointed on a contract basis, was terminated following a court order and subsequently re-qualified for the post. He was required to undergo a new medical examination, which declared him unfit due to Hepatitis B. The core legal question was whether the appellant was exempt from producing a fresh medical fitness certificate under the A&CS Rules, 1974, based on his previous service, and whether the medical report was tainted by mala fide. The Court held that the exemption under the Rules applies only when there is no break in service. As the appellant’s service was terminated on 06.06.2011 and his new appointment letter was issued on 07.07.2011, a clear break in service existed, rendering the exemption inapplicable. Consequently, the Court affirmed the medical report’s findings and dismissed the appeal, establishing that a gap between termination and re-appointment constitutes a break in service, thereby necessitating a fresh medical fitness certificate for new government employment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a gap between the termination of a contract employee and their subsequent re-appointment constitute a break in service?
  • Is a government servant exempt from producing a fresh medical fitness certificate upon re-appointment if there is a break in service?
  • Can an employee challenge a medical fitness report on the grounds of mala fide when the medical condition is clinically verified?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah vs The State2017 SCMR 2041 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-08
  convictiondeath sentencecommutationlife imprisonmentmedical evidenceocular accountmotiverecoverySection 382-B CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by Saif Ullah assailed the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining his conviction and death sentence under Sections 302/324/34 PPC for a 1998 murder. Leave to appeal was initially granted to consider whether the High Court violated principles of safe administration of justice by deciding the appeal without adequate hearing for defence counsel. However, given the passage of time since the incident, the Supreme Court decided the matter on merits based on the available record. The Supreme Court found the ocular account supported by medical evidence, establishing the appellant's guilt for firing at the deceased. However, regarding the sentence, the Court held that capital punishment was not warranted as there was no deep-rooted enmity, the motive was minor involving a dispute over advanced money, and the recovery of the 12-bore gun was inconsequential without a Forensic Science Laboratory report. Consequently, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the conviction but commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment, while extending the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sentence of death should be maintained when there is no deep-rooted enmity and the motive behind the occurrence is minor?
  • Can a recovery of a firearm be relied upon when no Forensic Science Laboratory report is available on record?
  • Is benefit under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure available when commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah vs State, etc2017 PLJ Islamabad 318 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah vs Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services, Faisalabad2017 PLC (C.S) 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-08
  compulsory retirementservice lawproportionality of punishmentmisconductinefficiencydisciplinary proceedingsservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of a service appeal by the Service Tribunal, which had upheld the compulsory retirement of the appellant, a Postmaster, following disciplinary proceedings under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The appellant was charged with negligence and misconduct for failing to obtain acknowledgments for remitted cash, which allegedly facilitated embezzlement by a co-accused Treasury Clerk. The core legal question was whether the penalty of compulsory retirement was commensurate with the proven allegations, given the absence of any direct evidence of embezzlement or collusion by the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s failure to follow procedural rules regarding cash acknowledgments constituted a lapse or inefficiency rather than fraud or collusion, especially since the co-accused had admitted sole guilt. Consequently, the Court ruled that the penalty of compulsory retirement was excessive. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary punishment must always be commensurate with the gravity of the proven guilt, and a minor procedural lapse should not attract a major penalty like compulsory retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the penalty of compulsory retirement is commensurate with the charge of procedural negligence in the absence of proven collusion or embezzlement?
  • Can a major penalty be imposed for a lapse that constitutes inefficiency rather than fraud or misconduct?
  • Does the principle of proportionality require that disciplinary punishment must be commensurate with the guilt proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Saidan Shah vs PTCL through Chairman and 4 others2017 PLC 162 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-19
  regularization of servicedaily wagespermanent workmanstanding orders ordinancediscriminationconstitutional petitionsback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a writ petition and connected petitions filed by daily-wage employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) seeking regularization of their services and back benefits after their colleagues were regularized under a policy while they were omitted. The core legal questions involve whether daily-wage workers performing duties of a permanent nature for extended periods attain the status of permanent workmen under labor laws, and whether their exclusion from regularization constitutes unlawful discrimination and exploitation in violation of constitutional principles. The Peshawar High Court held that employees rendering continuous service for years against posts of a permanent nature acquire the status of permanent workmen under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and cannot be subjected to discriminatory treatment. The court laid down the principle that the nature of work rather than the nomenclature of daily-wages determines an employee's status, and workers continuously employed for long periods are entitled to regularization and consequential benefits at par with regular employees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether daily wage employees rendering continuous service for a long period against a permanent nature post attain the status of permanent workmen under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the denial of regularization to long-serving daily-wage employees while regularizing others in similar positions violate the fundamental rights to equality and against discrimination under the Constitution?
  • Are commercial and industrial establishments bound to treat daily wage workers at par with regular employees regarding service benefits when the nature of work is permanent?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Zamin & others vs State2017 PHC 1232 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Said Zaman Khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, Superintendent HSP, Sahiwal and others2017 P.S.C. 1018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Field General Court Martialjudicial reviewcivil offencesPakistan Army Actmalice in lawcoram non judicefair trialfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple civil petitions for leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of constitutional petitions by various High Courts, wherein the convictions and death sentences awarded to civilians by Field General Courts Martial (FGCMS) under the Pakistan Army Act 1952 (as amended by the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act 2015) were challenged. The core legal questions involved the scope of judicial review under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 over trials conducted by FGCMs, allegations of fair trial violations, lack of access to counsel of choice, and whether the convictions suffered from jurisdictional defects, mala fides, or coram non judice. The Supreme Court held that while FGCM proceedings and convictions are subject to limited judicial review on grounds of coram non judice, lack of jurisdiction, or mala fides (including malice in law), High Courts and this Court cannot act as appellate courts to reappraise evidence or review the merits. The Court established that where convicts are validly subject to the Pakistan Army Act 1952 for civil offences, and procedural safeguards under the Act and Rules are substantially observed, constitutional petitions against such convictions are not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the convictions and sentences awarded by a Field General Court Martial to civilians are subject to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • On what specific grounds can a High Court or the Supreme Court interfere with a conviction recorded by a Field General Court Martial?
  • Whether the bar contained in Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 precludes judicial scrutiny in cases of coram non judice, lack of jurisdiction, or mala fides?
  • Can the superior courts reappraise the evidence or act as a court of appeal when reviewing proceedings of a Field General Court Martial?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Zaman Khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and others2017 SC MR 1249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-29
  Field General Court MartialJudicial reviewCoram non judiceMala fidesFair trialConstitutional jurisdictionPakistan Army ActDeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple civil petitions for leave to appeal against High Court judgments dismissing constitutional petitions that challenged convictions and death sentences awarded to civilians by Field General Court Martials (FGCMs). The core legal question concerns the validity of these trials, specifically regarding allegations of denied fair trial rights, lack of legal counsel, and violations of Fundamental Rights under the Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the FGCMs were validly constituted under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, as amended by the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act, 2015. The Court ruled that judicial review of FGCM proceedings is strictly limited to cases of coram non judice, lack of jurisdiction, or mala fides (including malice in law). The Court clarified that it cannot sit as an appellate court to re-appraise evidence or analyze the merits of the case. Furthermore, it established that procedural irregularities, if any, are cured by Rule 132 of the Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954, and that the constitutional protection afforded to the Army Act precludes challenges based on alleged violations of Fundamental Rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise judicial review over convictions awarded by a Field General Court Martial?
  • What are the specific grounds upon which a conviction by a Field General Court Martial can be challenged?
  • Does the bar under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 prevent judicial review of trials conducted under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
  • Is a trial by a Field General Court Martial vitiated if the accused is not represented by a civilian legal practitioner of their own choice?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Umar vs The state2017 PHC 33 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-16
  qatl-e-amdcapital chargeocular accountbenefit of the doubtbelated statementconflicting recoverycorroborative evidencemurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing qatl-e-amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside a connected murder reference for confirmation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular accounts by related and belated witnesses, the credibility of conflicting versions regarding the arrest and recovery of the crime weapon, and the sufficiency of corroborative evidence in the absence of trustworthy direct evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to major contradictions, dishonest improvements, and irreconcilable versions of the arrest and weapon recovery, leading to the rejection of the ocular testimony. The court established that once the direct ocular account is disbelieved, circumstantial and corroborative evidence such as weapon recoveries and medical reports cannot sustain a capital conviction, and extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, setting aside the conviction, acquitting the accused, and answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on circumstantial and corroborative evidence when the ocular account has been disbelieved?
  • Does a belated statement of an eyewitness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. without a plausible explanation create a fatal dent in the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect of conflicting police versions regarding the time and manner of the arrest of an accused and the recovery of the alleged crime weapon?
  • Does an improvement made by a complainant in his court statement compared to his initial FIR amount to a dishonest improvement sufficient to discredit his testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Umar vs Mr. Sana Ullah and the State2017 PHC 33, 2017 PHC 253 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-16
  Qatl-e-Amdcapital chargeocular accountbelated statementdoubtful recoverybenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular account, the credibility of belatedly introduced eyewitnesses, and the conflicting versions of the appellant's arrest and weapon recovery. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting significant contradictions, dishonest improvements in the testimonies of the complainant and purported eyewitnesses, and irreconcilable discrepancies regarding the arrest and recovery. The court established that once an ocular account is disbelieved, corroborative evidence such as weapon recoveries cannot sustain a capital conviction, and that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, leading to the acquittal of the appellant and the rejection of the murder reference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for Qatl-e-Amd can be sustained when the ocular account is found to be unreliable and fraught with dishonest improvements?
  • Does the recovery of a crime weapon and positive FSL report suffice to secure a conviction on a capital charge when the direct evidence has been disbelieved?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a witness's statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a prolonged and unexplained delay?
  • How does a contradiction between the complainant's version of arrest and the police officer's account impact the prosecution's case regarding weapon recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Umar vs Abdul Ghaffar and another2017 YLR 1641 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-16
  capital chargeocular accountbenefit of doubtmurder referenceappellate jurisdictioncontradictory evidencecorroborative evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected murder reference. The core legal question revolves around whether the ocular account, supported by circumstantial evidence and weapon recovery, sufficiently establishes the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a murder trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case due to contradictory testimonies of eye-witnesses, unexplained delays in recording statements, glaring discrepancies regarding the arrest and weapon recovery, and unnatural conduct of the witnesses. The court laid down the principle that once an ocular account is disbelieved and found untrustworthy, other corroborative evidence such as recoveries and medical reports lose their evidentiary value for sustaining a capital conviction, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, who is entitled to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unreliability of the ocular account preclude a conviction on a capital charge even when supported by corroborative and circumstantial evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of a delayed statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a plausible explanation?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on a singular eyewitness account that is fraught with dishonest improvements and unnatural conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Mashal vs Shan Muhammad2017 YLR 1053 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-22Read full judgment →
• Said Kamal vs The State and another2017 YLR 733 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-25Read full judgment →
• Said Jabbar vs Habib-Ur-Rehman & others2017 PLJ Peshawar 338 · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Said Jabar---Petitioner vs Habib-Ur-Rehman and others---Respondents2017 MLD 1608 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-20Read full judgment →
• Said Badshah vs Shabana Begum and another2017 NLR Revenue 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-18Read full judgment →
• Said Amin vs The State2017 MLD 1962 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-04-06
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtmurderdacoitypointation recoverycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two jail criminal appeals filed against the judgment of the District and Sessions Judge, Charsadda, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the alleged recovery of a human skeleton, the victim's personal effects, identity cards, a crime weapon, and a robbed tractor-trolley based on the pointation of the accused. Upon hearing the appeals, the Federal Shariat Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the recovered skeleton through post-mortem or medical reports, that the recoveries were dubious and lacked independent corroboration, and that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Furthermore, no incriminating evidence linked the appellants to the crime beyond reasonable doubt, and the confessional statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were refused. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, accepted the appeals, and acquitted the surviving appellants, while noting the death of one appellant during the pendency of the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the identity of the recovered human skeleton is not medically verified?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce independent recovery witnesses render the alleged pointation recoveries doubtful?
  • Can an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report prove fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the absence of a medical report confirming bullet injuries or matching empties invalidates the recovery of a crime weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Said Akbar, (2) Jamaat Ali, sons, and 10 Others vs (1) Muhammad2017 SC AJK 70 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Said Akbar & 11 others vs Muhammad Shakoor & 2 others2017 SCR 108 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-01-13
  Shamilat DehLand Reforms Actoccupancy tenantsdeclaratory suitrevenue recordconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellants' second appeal regarding a declaratory suit concerning Shamilat Deh land. The predecessor-in-interest of appellants No. 1 to 5 had challenged entries in the revenue record showing them as Ghair Mauroos (in illegal possession) and a sale-deed executed in favour of respondents, claiming they were entitled to a share in the Shamilat Deh land as owners in the village after becoming owners under the Land Reforms Act, 1960. The trial court, district court, and High Court concurrently dismissed the suit. The core legal question was whether persons who became owners of land under the Land Reforms Act, 1960, as former occupancy tenants are entitled to a proportionate share in the village Shamilat Deh land. The Supreme Court held that the Land Reforms Act, 1960, only confers ownership rights of the specific land held as a tenant and does not grant a right in Shamilat Deh land to those who were not proprietors prior to its promulgation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether persons who become owners under the Land Reforms Act, 1960, are entitled to a share in the village Shamilat Deh land?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below be disturbed by the Supreme Court in the absence of misreading or non-reading of the record?
  • Does illegal possession over Shamilat Deh land confer any proprietary rights upon a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Afzal vs The State2017 PHC 1026 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-17
  foreign exchange regulationunauthorized dealingpossession of foreign currencycriminal appealconfiscation of currencyterritorial jurisdictionForeigners Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged convictions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and the Foreigners Act, 1946, following the recovery of foreign currency from the appellants. The core legal question was whether mere possession of foreign currency constitutes an offence under Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and whether the Act applies to foreigners. The Court held that Section 4 requires proof of unauthorized buying, borrowing, selling, lending, or exchanging; mere possession, absent such evidence, does not constitute an offence. Consequently, the convictions were set aside as the prosecution failed to establish these statutory ingredients. Regarding the Foreigners Act, the conviction was set aside due to the appellant's subsequent visa validation. However, the Court upheld the confiscation of the currency, as the appellants failed to provide a lawful justification for its possession. The judgment establishes that while the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 applies to all persons within Pakistan's territorial limits, mere possession of foreign currency is insufficient for conviction under Section 4 without proof of prohibited transaction activities.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere possession of foreign currency constitute an offence under Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947?
  • Does the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 apply to foreign nationals within the territorial limits of Pakistan?
  • Is the confiscation of foreign currency permissible even if the conviction for unauthorized dealing is set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahibzadi Shah Bano vs Senior Member Board of Revenue & 5 others2017 SHC 129 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-27Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Sanaullah, Member Provincial Assembly vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwan, through Chief Minister & others2017 PLD Peshawar 186, 2017 PHC 653 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-13Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Faisal Ali Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 CLD 463 · Lahore High Court · 2016-08-15
  Credit Information BureauState Bank of Pakistanbanking defaultcredit risk managementstatutory regulatory powerbanking companieswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Credit Information Bureau (CIB) database maintained by the State Bank of Pakistan, arguing that such reporting, while a recovery suit was pending, effectively declared him a defaulter without judicial adjudication. The core legal question was whether the State Bank of Pakistan possesses the statutory authority to maintain a CIB database and whether reporting a customer’s credit status therein constitutes an unauthorized judicial determination of default. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the State Bank of Pakistan acts within its statutory mandate under Section 25-A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, in collecting and sharing credit information. The Court clarified that CIB reports serve as regulatory tools for credit risk management and do not possess evidentiary value or constitute a judicial declaration of default. The principle laid down is that the regulatory reporting of credit information is distinct from the judicial adjudication of liability; thus, banks are not acting as judges in their own cause when complying with mandatory reporting requirements established for the stability of the financial system.

  Questions settled

  • Does the State Bank of Pakistan have the statutory authority to maintain a Credit Information Bureau database?
  • Does the inclusion of a customer's name in the Credit Information Bureau database constitute a judicial declaration of default?
  • Is the reporting of credit information by a financial institution to the State Bank of Pakistan equivalent to acting as a judge in one's own cause?
  • Can a borrower challenge the inclusion of their name in the Credit Information Bureau database on the ground that a recovery suit is pending before a banking court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Alanigir vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman, Islamabad and 2 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 304 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sahibzada Alamgir vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman and 2 others2017 MLD 1451 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-30Read full judgment →
• Sahib Shah vs Member Board of Revenue etc2017 PHC 1280 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-14Read full judgment →