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.

• Rasool Bux Soho vs Fed. of Pakistan and Ors2017 SHC 215 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bakhsh vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1351 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-02-14
  circumstantial evidencecapital punishmentbenefit of doubtrecovery from open placecriminal appealmurder referenceappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and capital punishment awarded to the appellant for offences under sections 302, 460, 392, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a weapon and travel records, as there were no eyewitnesses to the double murder. The core legal question was whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was unbroken and sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the appellant to the crime. It ruled that recovery of a weapon from an open, accessible place is unreliable, and mere coincidence of travel with a co-accused does not prove participation. The Court emphasized that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain must be unbroken, and any missing link entitles the accused to an acquittal. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative, reiterating that the benefit of doubt is a right, not a grace.

  Questions settled

  • Is a recovery of a weapon from an open place accessible to the general public sufficient to corroborate circumstantial evidence?
  • Can an accused be convicted on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is not unbroken?
  • Does the mere coincidence of travelling on the same flight as a principal accused constitute sufficient evidence of participation in a crime?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a matter of right for an accused in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Yousaf, Constable Punjab Constabulary, Farooqabad vs Superintendent of Police, H.Q. Punjab Constabulary Farooqabad and 2 others2017 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 22 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  Punjab Service TribunalPEEDA Act 2006Punjab Constabularyforfeiture of approved servicedisciplinary proceedingsmisconductabsence from dutydisciplined force
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed before the Punjab Service Tribunal by a Constable of the Punjab Constabulary challenging the departmental penalty of forfeiture of two years' approved service under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA Act, 2006). The appellant had been departmentalized for leaving the scene of a fatal road accident involving an official vehicle and remaining absent from duty. Initially dismissed from service, his penalty was sequentially reduced on departmental appeal and revision to forfeiture of two years' approved service. The core legal question was whether the reduced penalty was proportionate to the misconduct of a member of a disciplined force who fled an accident site instead of safeguarding official property and aiding victims. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that as a member of a disciplined force, the appellant had both a moral and legal obligation to remain at the scene, manage the situation, protect the official vehicle, and assist the injured. The penalty imposed was deemed commensurate with his guilt under the principle that guilt must not remain unpunished.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leaving the scene of an accident involving an official vehicle constitutes actionable misconduct for a member of a disciplined force under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
  • Whether the reduction of a dismissal penalty to forfeiture of two years' approved service is proportionate where an official fails to protect official property and assist accident victims?
  • Does a police official have a legal and moral obligation to remain at the scene of a fatal road accident involving official transport rather than leaving due to crowd presence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Yasin vs Dubai Islamic Bank and others2017 CLD 250 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-01Read full judgment →
• Rashid Mukhtar vs The State and others2017 YLR 1925 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-05-23
  criminal appealbenefit of doubttwo versions casemedical evidenceinterested witnessesmotiveweapon recoverymurderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for murder and attempt to murder under sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of conflicting ocular and medical evidence in a two-version case, the proof of motive, the reliability of weapon recovery, and the benefit of doubt. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the motive through independent evidence, the recovery of the alleged weapon was doubtful, and the medical testimony did not rule out the defence version that the minor deceased sustained fatal injuries from an accidental fall during a scuffle. Setting aside the conviction, the court laid down the principle that where two interpretations of evidence exist or a reasonable possibility of the defence plea's truthfulness emerges, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution is bound to prove the alleged motive through independent corroborative evidence?
  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the cause of injury entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • How should a court evaluate a case involving two competing versions and a plausible defence plea?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the recovery of the crime weapon is shrouded in doubt and lacks independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Hussain vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 69 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-07
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecriminal liabilitybail concession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Rashid Hussain, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs. 35,00,000. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offence and the duration of his incarceration. The Court observed that the petitioner had been in custody since July 2016 and that the offence charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the petitioner was not required for further investigation and had no history of similar offences. Relying on the principle established in Zafar Iqbal vs. Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488), the Court held that bail should be favourably considered in cases falling outside the prohibitory clause unless exceptional circumstances exist. Finding no such exceptional circumstances, the Court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of dishonouring a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should bail be granted in cases involving offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Aslam and another vs The State2017 YLR 2052 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-25
  kidnapping for ransomcircumstantial evidenceretracted confessionjoint pointationdeath sentence confirmationlast seen evidenceDNA evidenceanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under sections 365-A, 302(a), 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and sentencing them to death for kidnapping a minor for ransom followed by his murder. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, the identification of a decomposed dead body, the voluntariness and evidentiary value of retracted judicial confessions, and the validity of joint pointations leading to discoveries. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, voluntary confessions, pointations, and forensic DNA reports, proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the convictions and the death sentences, though it modified the specific section of conviction for murder to section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and adjusted the fine mechanism to compensation. The key principles laid down include that capital punishment can be lawfully awarded on circumstantial evidence if the chain is complete, and that minor lapses in recording judicial confessions do not render them involuntary if otherwise proven genuine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether capital punishment can be awarded solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession render it involuntary or inadmissible?
  • Can information leading to discovery provided jointly by multiple accused persons be admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is the absence of a formal identification parade fatal to the prosecution's case when witnesses identify the accused in court?
  • What constitutes the necessary legal ingredients to establish an offence under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding kidnapping for ransom?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid and another vs The State2017 YLR 1026 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-08
  qatl-e-amdbenefit of doubtballistic expert reporteyewitness credibilitycommon intentioncriminal appealanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for murder and related offences. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of prosecution evidence, specifically regarding eyewitness credibility, medical-legal discrepancies, and the evidentiary value of weapon recovery and ballistic reports in a high-profile shooting incident. The court held that the conviction of the appellant whose specific role, eyewitness testimony, and positive ballistic match were firmly established must be upheld, while the co-appellant, against whom no overt act or active participation was proved and whose common intention remained doubtful, was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies between eyewitness assertions of instantaneous death and medical-legal testimony regarding survival duration do not discredit an otherwise confidence-inspiring eyewitness account, provided the core ocular testimony is consistent and corroborated by independent forensic evidence such as positive ballistic reports and prompt recovery of crime weapons.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between eyewitnesses stating a victim died on the spot and a medico-legal officer stating the victim survived briefly invalidate the entire prosecution case?
  • Can a co-accused be convicted under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when no specific overt act is attributed and common intention is not proved beyond doubt?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon corroborated by a positive ballistic report sufficient to reinforce the ocular testimony against an accused in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali vs The State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 712 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-15
  criminal revisionwitness statementssupply of copiesfair trialinvestigation recordsexpeditious trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, which had dismissed the petitioner's application for the supply of copies of statements of two prosecution witnesses, Abid Hussain and Muhammad Behram Khan, recorded by the Investigation Officer in case diaries. The core legal question was whether the accused is entitled to receive copies of witness statements recorded during the investigation. The Lahore High Court, noting the established legal position that all witness statements recorded during an investigation are governed by Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, allowed the petition. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to provide the requested copies to the accused. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the necessity of a fair and efficient trial, directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously within a period of three months, potentially on a day-to-day basis, to ensure the swift administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Are statements of witnesses recorded by an Investigation Officer in case diaries subject to the provisions of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused person entitled to receive copies of witness statements recorded during the investigation phase?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali Channa and others vs Muhammad Junaid Farooqui and others2017 SCMR 1519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-02
  civil review petitionsuo motu jurisdictionde facto doctrineSindh Public Service Commissionpublic service examinationmerit-based recruitmenterror apparent on the face of the recordCombined Competitive Examination
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil review petitions were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging its judgment passed in Suo Motu Case No. 18 of 2016. The petitioners contended that the Court erred in exercising its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, arguing that disputed factual questions were involved, the de facto doctrine protected their appointments as civil servants, and systematic irregularities in the Combined Competitive Examination (CCE)-2013 did not warrant scrapping the entire recruitment process. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that the scope of review is strictly limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or for other sufficient cause. The Court affirmed that widespread, systematic illegalities, deviations from rules, and lack of transparency orchestrated by the Sindh Public Service Commission vitiated the entire selection process, rendering the de facto doctrine inapplicable. The Court maintained that the source of information triggering suo motu proceedings is inconsequential where the factual basis is accurate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the de facto doctrine protect appointments when both the constitution of the recruiting commission and the entire selection process suffer from systematic illegalities and lack of transparency?
  • Can the Supreme Court exercise suo motu jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution regardless of the source of information if the underlying factual basis is accurate?
  • Is the possibility of drawing an alternative factual conclusion a valid ground for the exercise of review jurisdiction by the Supreme Court?
  • Can an entire public service competitive examination process be scrapped without probing individual wrongdoing on a case-by-case basis when cumulative systemic irregularities vitiate its transparency and fairness?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheeda alias Rabia vs The State2017 MLD 496 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-26
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesopium recoverysentencing mitigationbail stageControl of Narcotic Substances Actrecovery by police
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application was filed by an accused woman, Rasheeda alias Rubina, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving the recovery of 9950 grams of Opium, registered under Sections 6 and 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the applicability of precedents regarding sentencing leniency for women. The Court held that the bail application lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court reasoned that the offence is heinous and directed against society at large. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Socha Gul v. The State, the Court established the principle that precedents regarding sentencing mitigation for women (such as Amir Zeb and Ghulam Murtaza) are not relevant at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the absence of independent witnesses from the locality does not invalidate a recovery, as Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in such cases.

  Questions settled

  • Are precedents regarding sentencing leniency for women relevant at the bail stage in narcotics cases?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses from the locality invalidate a recovery of narcotics?
  • Is Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can an accused be granted bail merely based on the quantity of narcotics recovered?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmad. vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, etc2017 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  PEMRAconflict of interestmisconductfixed tenure appointmentdue processnatural justiceengagement of private counselpublic exchequer
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal assails the judgment of the Islamabad High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition against his removal from the position of Chairman of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA). The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant could propose his own name for a statutory fixed-tenure post without disclosing personal interest, whether his appointment violated the rules and procedures, and whether his subsequent removal for misconduct followed due process and natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's appointment was illegal and tainted with conflict of interest as he had recommended himself while still in active government service without resigning or taking retirement, and that he was rightly removed after a fair inquiry providing opportunities of hearing in compliance with Article 10A of the Constitution. The Court laid down that civil servants cannot bypass statutory appointments procedures to appoint themselves to autonomous bodies, and further ruled extensively on the strict limitations and required permissions for federal and provincial governments to engage private counsel at public expense instead of utilizing official law officers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a government servant can propose his own name for appointment to a statutory regulatory authority while remaining in active government service?
  • Does a person holding a fixed-tenure post enjoy immunity from removal when their initial appointment is found to be made in violation of mandatory legal procedures and through concealment of material facts?
  • Can the federal or provincial governments engage private counsel at public expense without following the prescribed rules, obtaining approval from the Law Department, and certifying a lack of expertise in official law officers?
  • Whether the principles of natural justice and Article 10A of the Constitution are satisfied when an inquiry officer provides a show-cause notice, copies of documents, and multiple opportunities of personal hearing to a delinquent official?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, etc2017 P.S.C. 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  statutory appointmentmisconductdue processprivate counselpublic exchequernatural justicePEMRAtenure
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his removal from the position of Chairman, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), arguing that his fixed tenure could not be curtailed and that the inquiry against him was flawed. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant’s appointment, which he secured by recommending himself without disclosure, was valid and whether his subsequent removal for misconduct was lawful. The Court held that the appellant’s appointment violated the requirement for an open, transparent process and that he had committed misconduct by continuing in government service while holding the statutory position. The Court affirmed the removal, noting that the appellant was afforded due process and opportunities to be heard. Furthermore, the Court addressed the unauthorized engagement of private counsel by government departments, ruling that such practice constitutes financial impropriety. It established that government entities must utilize official law officers and may only engage private counsel in exceptional circumstances with prior written approval, failing which the engagement is illegal and the authorizing official may face disciplinary action.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public official unilaterally propose their own name for a statutory appointment without disclosure?
  • Does the engagement of private counsel by the government without following established procedures constitute financial impropriety?
  • Is a person holding a fixed tenure post immune from removal for misconduct?
  • Are government departments permitted to engage private counsel without the approval of the Law Division?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others2017 P.S.C. 492, 2017 PLD Supreme Court 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-02-03
  Dismissal from serviceChairman PEMRAIllegal appointmentMisconductNatural justiceArticle 10A of the ConstitutionFixed tenure postGovernment servantEngagement of private counselPublic exchequer
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an Islamabad High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition seeking reinstatement of the appellant as Chairman, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), following his dismissal. The core legal questions revolved around the legality of the appellant's appointment, his removal before the expiry of his fixed four-year tenure, compliance with natural justice principles, and the propriety of the government engaging private counsel. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's appointment was illegal from the outset as he, while a serving government officer, self-nominated for the post without an open and transparent process, violating service rules and specific Supreme Court directions. The Court found that rules of natural justice and Article 10A of the Constitution were fully complied with during the inquiry. The judgment also laid down the principle that government engagement of private counsel must be for compelling reasons and with prior approval, not to protect individuals, and any deviation constitutes financial impropriety.

  Read full judgment →
• Raqiya Begum vs National Bank of Pakistan and others2017 CLD 926 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-08Read full judgment →
• Rao Ishtiaq Khursheed vs State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 730 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-13Read full judgment →
• (1) Rao Ishtiaq Khursheed (2) The State & another vs (1)The State (2) Rao2017 LHC 1320 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-02
  Qatl-e-Amdtest identification paradeocular evidencebenefit of the doubtcriminal appealmurder referencedelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's case, specifically regarding the delayed nomination of the accused in the FIR, the credibility of ocular witnesses who were allegedly unacquainted with the accused, and the validity of a test identification parade conducted after the accused had already been implicated. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The delayed introduction of the appellant's name through supplementary statements, the inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies regarding their prior acquaintance with the accused, and the negative forensic report regarding the weapon recovery undermined the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of the doubt. The principle established is that a conviction cannot be sustained on ocular testimony that is inconsistent with the initial investigative record and where the identification process is procedurally flawed and unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the accused is named only in a supplementary statement and not in the initial FIR?
  • Is a test identification parade valid when witnesses claim prior acquaintance with the accused?
  • Does a negative forensic report regarding the recovery of a weapon undermine the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Rani Bibi vs The State, etc2017 LHC 3519 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-24Read full judgment →
• Rana Shahbaz Ahmad vs Sessions Judge, etc.2017 LHC 2757 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-13Read full judgment →
• Rana Liaqat Ali Khan and others vs Government of Pakistan and others2017 CLC 962 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-14Read full judgment →
• Rana Khurram Shehzad and another vs The State and another2017 LHC 3548 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-02
  pre-arrest bailbenefit of doubtmala fideabductionfree-will marriagetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 411/17 registered at Police Station Chhanga Manga, District Kasur, concerning an alleged offence under Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court observed an unexplained thirteen-day delay in the FIR's registration and noted that the petitioners were not named in the initial FIR, which instead implicated other individuals residing in a different district. Furthermore, the alleged abductee had previously filed an application under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, claiming a free-will marriage, and the petitioners had joined the investigation. The Court held that the prosecution's story against the petitioners appeared doubtful, suggesting potential mala fide implication. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused even at the bail stage, particularly when the prosecution's narrative is prima facie inconsistent or suspect.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the petitioners were not named in the initial FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Ram Chander & Ors. vs State of Haryana2017 SCInd 01 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-01-02
  murder convictionrelated witnesscircumstantial evidenceconcurrent findingsdisclosure statementcriminal appealeye-witness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, which convicted the appellants for the murder of two women, Messo and Raj Bala, following a dispute over a marriage proposal. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of a sole, related eyewitness, the sufficiency of evidence, and the validity of convictions based on disclosure statements and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are generally binding under Article 136 of the Constitution of India unless a significant legal error is demonstrated. The Court affirmed that a close relative of the deceased is a natural witness, not an interested one, and their testimony is admissible if found credible upon scrutiny. Furthermore, the Court held that minor discrepancies do not undermine the prosecution's case when supported by overwhelming evidence, including the recovery of incriminating articles pursuant to disclosure statements. The judgment reinforces the principle that the testimony of a related witness, if consistent and reliable, is sufficient to sustain a conviction without requiring independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the sole testimony of a related eyewitness?
  • Does the Supreme Court re-appreciate evidence in an appeal under Article 136 when there are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
  • Are relatives of a deceased person inherently unreliable witnesses in a criminal trial?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses invalidate a prosecution case supported by other credible evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ram Chand vs Judge Family Court, etc2017 PLJ Lahore 732 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ram Chand vs Judge Family Court etc2017 PLJ Lahore 732, 2017 LHC 1130 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-06Read full judgment →
• Rajab Ali vs National Accountability Bureau etc2017 PHC 474 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-11
  disproportionate assetscorruption and corrupt practicespublic servantburden of proofhandwriting expertacquittalNational Accountability Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of criminal appeals filed by Rajab Ali and Latif Hussain against their conviction and sentences under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, arising from an Accountability Reference relating to the accumulation of assets disproportionate to known sources of income and abetment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved that the public servant appellant accumulated illegal assets and whether the co-appellant abetted him through a fabricated property transaction. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, as the ancestral property, joint family income, and legitimate agricultural yields of the appellant and his brothers accounted for the acquisition of assets, and the disputed land sale transaction was substantiated by evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted both appellants, laying down the principle that the prosecution must independently prove all essential ingredients of corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, before any statutory presumption of guilt can be invoked against an accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution bears the primary burden to prove the essential ingredients of asset accumulation before invoking statutory presumptions under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can the opinion of a handwriting expert alone form a safe and sufficient basis for a criminal conviction regarding a forged document?
  • Does the joint family income and ancestral property of a public servant constitute a known lawful source of income to justify acquired assets?
  • Whether an investigative officer is duty-bound to collect and record evidence favouring both the prosecution and the defence during an inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajab Ali vs Hayatullah Khan and 6 others2017 PLD Balochistan 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-12-30Read full judgment →
• Raja Sajjad Hussain vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 1513 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-05-15
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationmaintainabilitycriminal revisionbreach of compromiseSection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had previously been granted pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court based on a compromise, which was subsequently cancelled by the same court due to the petitioner's breach of the compromise terms. The petitioner then filed a fresh application for bail before arrest directly in the High Court. The core legal question was whether a fresh petition for bail before arrest is maintainable in the High Court after the Sessions Court has cancelled a previously granted pre-arrest bail. The High Court held that such a petition is not maintainable. Relying on the principle established in Muhammad Malik Pervaiz v. The State, the Court ruled that where pre-arrest bail is cancelled by the Sessions Court, the appropriate remedy is to file a criminal revision against that order, not a fresh bail application. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the necessary mala fide or ulterior motives required for the grant of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is a fresh petition for bail before arrest maintainable in the High Court after the Sessions Court has cancelled a previously granted pre-arrest bail?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy when a Sessions Court cancels a previously granted pre-arrest bail?
  • Is proof of mala fide or ulterior motives a prerequisite for the grant of bail before arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Shumar Khan, Principal (RTD.) vs Secretary Education2017 PLJ AJ&K 123 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Khan vs Azad Government & 4 others2017 SCR 1351 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-04-06Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Gul Hussain vs Azmat Bibi2017 SCR 199 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-12-07Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Azad Khan s/o Abdul Mallik, Caste Rajpoot, r/o Awnah,2017 SC AJK 317 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Asghar & another vs State & 3 others2017 SCR 1290 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-06Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Amir and another vs Raja Muhammad Sher Afzal, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 331 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-22Read full judgment →
• Raja Khurram Ali Khan vs Mst. Tayyaba Bibi through father and another2017 P Cr. L J 1469 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-05-23
  revisional jurisdictionmaintainabilityHigh Court original jurisdictioninferior criminal courtJudge-in-Chamberscompounding of offencesSection 439 CrPCSection 435 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed before the Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court against an order passed by a Judge-in-Chambers in a case transferred to the High Court under Section 526, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for trial under its original jurisdiction. The petitioner sought acquittal on the basis of a compromise under Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. The primary legal question before the Division Bench was whether a revision petition under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lies before a Division Bench against an order passed by a Single Judge of the same High Court exercising original criminal jurisdiction. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Division Bench held that a Single Judge exercising original criminal jurisdiction is not an inferior criminal court within the meaning of Section 435, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, nor can its record be called for under Section 439. Consequently, a Division Bench has no revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by a Judge of the same High Court. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed as non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Single Judge of a High Court exercising original criminal jurisdiction an inferior criminal court under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Division Bench of a High Court entertain a criminal revision petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against an order passed by a Single Judge of the same High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Khalil Ibrahim, & 3 others vs Azad Government & 7 others2017 SCR 1476 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-07-06
  writ jurisdictionup-gradation of postsservice tribunal jurisdictionfinal ordercivil servantconstitutional petitiondismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the High Court's dismissal in limine of a writ petition filed by civil servants seeking the up-gradation of their posts. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding post up-gradation, or if such matters were exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the petition at the threshold. The Court clarified that the Service Tribunal’s jurisdiction is conditional, requiring a final order from a departmental authority, which was absent in this case. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that the issue of post up-gradation does not strictly constitute a term and condition of service that ousts the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the High Court to admit the writ petition and decide the matter on its merits. The principle established is that where no final departmental order exists, and the relief sought involves policy-based up-gradation, the High Court retains jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal where no final order has been passed by a departmental authority?
  • Is the up-gradation of a post considered a term and condition of service that ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Can the High Court issue a writ of mandamus for the up-gradation of posts in government service?
  • Under what conditions is the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Imran Akhtar vs National Highway Authority and others2017 IHC 207 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-07-07Read full judgment →
• Raja Haroon Rashid vs Defence Housing Authority through Secretary2017 CLC 342 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-06
  property rightsconstitutional petitionembargocautiondue processcontractual obligationDefence Housing Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an embargo placed by the Defence Housing Authority (Respondent) in the form of a caution marked on his plot, which prevented him from selling it due to alleged non-fulfillment of obligations under a previous land sale agreement. The core legal question was whether a statutory authority could unilaterally place an embargo or mark a caution on a property owner's land for an alleged breach of contract without the authority of law or intervention of a court. The Lahore High Court held that marking a caution and placing an embargo on a citizen's property rights for contractual breaches without statutory backing or a court order is illegal, without lawful authority, and violative of Articles 10-A, 23, and 24 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that authorities cannot take unilateral coercive measures or bypass judicial remedies to enforce contracts, and any restriction on property rights must strictly conform to the law and observe due process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Defence Housing Authority has the legal authority to mark a caution on a landowner's property for alleged non-fulfillment of a contractual obligation?
  • Does placing an embargo on a citizen's property without a court order violate Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a statutory authority bypass a civil court and unilaterally penalize a party for breach of a conveyance deed?
  • Does the unilateral marking of caution on a plot without affording an opportunity of hearing violate the principle of audi alteram partem and Article 10-A of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Asif Khan vs Masood Ahmad Bhatti, etc.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 419 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-25
  Illegal Dispossession Actmens realand grabbingcivil disputecriminal appealproperty demarcationpossessionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, regarding an alleged illegal occupation of a plot. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s construction on the disputed property constituted the criminal offence of illegal dispossession under the Act, or if the matter was essentially a civil dispute regarding plot demarcation. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. It determined that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is intended to curb forcible dispossession by land grabbers and does not apply to civil disputes involving competing claims or administrative errors in plot earmarking. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the requisite mens rea (criminal intent) or the essential ingredients of the offence, noting that the appellant acted under a perceived lawful authority granted by the Capital Development Authority. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and clarified that such disputes regarding property location and possession must be resolved through appropriate civil or revenue forums.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to civil disputes concerning property demarcation between private parties?
  • Is proof of mens rea a mandatory requirement for a conviction under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a conviction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be sustained when the alleged offender acted under a belief of lawful authority granted by a municipal body?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Abdul Hussain Khan vs Custodian of Evacuee Property Azad Jammu &2017 SC AJK 412 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-11-13Read full judgment →
• Raj Kumar Bhatia vs Subhash Chander Bhatia2017 SCInd 1360 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-12-15Read full judgment →
• Raidullah Khan vs Government of KPK, etc.2017 YLR 1687, 2017 PHC 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-16
  rejection of plaintwaqf propertyoccupancy tenantlimitationKPK Tenancy ActOrder VII Rule 11 CPCcause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged an order by the District Judge, Mardan, which rejected his plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding property declared as waqf. The core legal questions were whether the appellant could claim ownership based on occupancy rights under the KPK Tenancy Act 1950 and whether the suit was time-barred. The Court held that the appellant failed to challenge the waqf notification within the thirty-day limitation period prescribed by Section 11 of the NWFP Waqaf Properties Ordinance 1979. Furthermore, the Court observed that the Supreme Court had declared the provisions of the KPK Tenancy Act 1950 regarding occupancy rights as contrary to the injunctions of Islam, rendering the appellant's claim legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court affirmed the rejection of the plaint, emphasizing that Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. is designed to prevent fruitless litigation when a suit is barred by law. The principle established is that a suit clearly barred by limitation or lacking a valid cause of action must be rejected at the threshold to preserve judicial resources.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. if it is barred by limitation?
  • Does the failure to challenge a waqf notification within the statutory period under the NWFP Waqaf Properties Ordinance 1979 preclude a subsequent suit regarding the property?
  • Can an occupancy tenant claim proprietary rights under the KPK Tenancy Act 1950 after the target date of 23.03.1990?
  Read full judgment →
• Raid Ullah Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2017 YLR 1687 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-16Read full judgment →
• Rai Muhammad Khan vs NAB through its Chairman and others2017 P.S.C. Crl. 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-22
  post-arrest bailleave to appealcorruptionmisappropriation of public fundsNAB SOPparity in bailspeedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's post-arrest bail application by the Lahore High Court in a corruption case. The petitioner, as Chairman of a Citizens Community Board, was accused of misappropriating Rs. 11.04 million in government funds allocated for road construction through fake completion bills. The petitioner sought bail claiming parity with a co-accused who was granted bail and argued that NAB violated its own Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) regarding monetary thresholds for taking cognizance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined leave to appeal, refusing to interfere with the High Court's judgment. The Court held that each bail petition must be decided on its own merits and established that courts must apply anti-corruption laws rigidly when dealing with financial corruption and embezzlement of public funds, drawing a clear distinction between ordinary criminal cases and corruption offenses. It further directed the trial court to resolve jurisdictional objections and finalize the trial speedily within six months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether courts should draw a distinction between ordinary criminal cases and corruption offenses when deciding bail matters?
  • Whether an accused is automatically entitled to bail on the ground of parity when a co-accused has been granted bail?
  • Should anti-corruption laws be applied rigidly by courts at the bail stage once a prima facie case of financial embezzlement is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Rai Muhammad Khan vs NAB through Chairman and others2017 P.S.C. Crl. 368, 2017 SCMR 1152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-22
  post-arrest bailleave to appealcorruptionNational Accountability Bureaumisappropriation of public fundsrule of consistencyspeedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition seeking leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing the petitioner's bail application. The petitioner, as Chairman of a Citizens Community Board, was accused in a NAB reference of misusing his official position to misappropriate Rs. 11.04 million of public funds intended for road construction through bogus completion bills. The core questions before the Court concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on grounds of parity with a co-accused, and whether courts should apply a more rigid standard when considering bail in corruption cases involving public funds. The Supreme Court declined leave to appeal and upheld the High Court's order, holding that each bail petition must be decided on its own merits and that anti-corruption laws must be applied rigidly at the bail stage due to the severe impact of corruption on public welfare and state economy. The Court further directed the trial court to expeditiously conclude the trial within six months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail petitions in corruption cases involving public funds should be evaluated under a more rigid standard than ordinary criminal cases?
  • Can a bail petition be granted solely on the ground of parity without considering the individual merits of the accused's case?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's refusal of bail in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction when no plausible reason for interference exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Rai Mansab Ali, Advocate Nankana Sahib vs Rai Muhammad Shamoon, etc2017 PLJ Tr.C. (Anti-Corruption) 267 · Pakistan Bar Council · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
• Rai Hassan Nawaz vs Haji Muhammad Ayub and others2017 P.S.C. 215, 2017 PLD Supreme Court 70 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-05-25
  Election petitionFalse declaration of assetsCorrupt practiceDisqualification of candidateConstitutional qualificationsElection Tribunal powersSuo motu jurisdictionLimitation periodRepresentation of the People ActArticle 62 of Constitution
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal challenged an Election Tribunal's judgment that declared the appellant's election void from NA-162 Sahiwal-III for failing to meet Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and committing corrupt practice under Section 78(3)(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA). The core legal questions concerned the appellant's alleged false declaration of assets in his nomination papers and the Election Tribunal's jurisdictional competence given a defectively verified and time-barred election petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the Election Tribunal's finding that the appellant intentionally concealed valuable urban commercial properties and substantial rental income in his nomination papers, constituting a corrupt practice and failure to meet constitutional qualifications. While acknowledging the election petition's re-verification was time-barred, the Court held that the Election Tribunal's findings were valid under its extraordinary suo motu and inquisitorial powers granted by Section 76A of ROPA, which operates independently of procedural defects or limitation periods, serving the public interest in ensuring integrity of elected representatives. The appeal was dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Rahmatullah vs The State2017 PHC 1179 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-10Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Razaq vs The State2017 YLR 2354 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-19Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Bar Khan vs Daulat Khan etc2017 PHC 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-10Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Bar Khan vs Daulat Khan and 4 others2017 PHC 126, 2017 YLR 1461 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-10Read full judgment →
• Rahim Shah vs The State & one another2017 PHC 743 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-15Read full judgment →
• Rahim Muhammad alias Rohi Muhammad vs Syed Noor Sitar2017 PLJ Quetta 104 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-29Read full judgment →
• Rahim Muhammad alias Rohi Muhammad vs Syed Noor Shah2017 MLD 2106 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-29Read full judgment →
• Rahim Dad vs The State and others2017 MLD 1573 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-02
  criminal revisionquantum of sentencehurtArshTazirsentencing guidelineshabitual offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and three-year sentence under Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injury. The core legal question was whether the imposition of substantive imprisonment as Tazir was justified in the absence of the petitioner being a previous convict, habitual offender, or hardened criminal. The Court held that while the conviction was soundly based on consistent ocular and medical evidence, the sentence of imprisonment was excessive. The Court maintained the conviction and the payment of Arsh but set aside the sentence of rigorous imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that for offences involving hurt under Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the normal punishment is the payment of Arsh or Daman. Substantive imprisonment as Tazir is reserved for offenders who are previous convicts, habitual, hardened, or desperate criminals, or where the offence is committed in the name of honour, as per the established interpretation of Section 337-N(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Is substantive imprisonment as Tazir mandatory for offences of hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances can a court impose imprisonment as Tazir for offences of hurt?
  • Does the absence of a criminal record preclude the imposition of imprisonment as Tazir for hurt offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh alias Shada vs The State etc2017 LHC 158 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-03Read full judgment →
• Raheem Ullah vs The State2017 YLR 2085 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-02
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencesodomy and murdercapital punishmentmurder referencedeath sentence confirmationmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Rawalpindi, whereby the appellant Raheem Ullah was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the kidnapping, sodomy, and murder of a four-year-old child, Suleman Khan. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, Waj Takkar evidence, the recovery of the dead body from a locked Baithak in the exclusive tenancy and possession of the appellant, and corroborative medical evidence establishing sexual assault and death by asphyxia due to throttling. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial and last-seen evidence in capital cases and whether such evidence can form the sole basis for a death sentence. The Lahore High Court held that when a continuous and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence conclusively connects the accused to the crime and the victim was last seen in their exclusive company, capital punishment can legally and properly be sustained in the absence of a plausible exculpatory explanation from the accused. The appeal was dismissed, the death sentence upheld, and the murder reference answered in the affirmative.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted and sentenced to death solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Is last-seen evidence sufficient to establish guilt when corroborated by other interlocking circumstances?
  • What is the evidentiary value of un-cross-examined facts regarding the tenancy and exclusive possession of a crime scene?
  • Does the failure of an accused to offer an explanation under section 342 Cr.P.C. strengthen the prosecution's circumstantial case?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheem Shah vs Momin Khan & another2017 PHC 1277 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-11
  pre-emptionTalb-e-MuwathibatTalb-e-Ish'hadattorneyrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a civil revision petition challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby his pre-emption suit for possession of land was dismissed. The core legal question before the court was whether the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat, being a personal act of the pre-emptor, can be legally proved through the statement of an attorney instead of the pre-emptor's own testimony when no valid disability to appear in court is established. The Peshawar High Court held that Talb-e-Muwathibat is a personal act that must be established by the pre-emptor through his own statement on oath, and an attorney cannot substitute the pre-emptor to prove it unless a valid inability is shown and the demand itself was made by the agent under Section 14. The court laid down the principle that failure of the pre-emptor to personally depose regarding Talb-e-Muwathibat renders the pre-emption suit liable to dismissal, and concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction absent material irregularity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emptor prove the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat through an attorney without establishing personal disability to appear in court?
  • Whether Talb-e-Muwathibat is a personal act required to be proved by the pre-emptor through his own statement on oath?
  • What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding concurrent findings of fact in pre-emption suits?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheel vs The State2017 PLJ Peshawar 334, 2017 MLD 1548 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-20Read full judgment →
• Raheel vs State2017 PLJ Peshawar 334 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-20Read full judgment →
• Rahat Ali vs The State etc2017 PHC 277 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Rafique Ahmed vs Ashok Kumar and 5 others2017 CLC 317 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-15
  additional evidenceappellate stagecivil revisionlimitation periodmutation entriessettlement departmentburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application impugned the appellate court's judgment whereby the trial court's dismissal of the respondent's suit for declaration and permanent injunction was set aside. The core legal questions involved whether the first appellate court could permit a party to introduce a new document and additional evidence at the appellate stage without a formal application, whether such evidence could be considered without recording mandatory reasons, and whether a trial court's judgment based on evaluated evidence could be reversed on that basis. The Sindh High Court held that the appellate court erred in admitting additional evidence in the absence of an application, without showing that the evidence could not be produced during trial despite due diligence, and without recording mandatory reasons under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court laid down that provisions regarding additional evidence cannot be invoked by a negligent litigant to patch up weak parts or fill omissions in their case, and that an appellate court must record mandatory reasons when permitting additional evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court allow a party to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage without a formal application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is it mandatory for an appellate court to record reasons when admitting additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can provisions regarding additional evidence be invoked by an unsuccessful litigant to patch up weak parts or fill omissions in their case during appeal?
  • Under what circumstances may an appellate court permit the production of additional evidence at the appellate stage?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Rafique Ahmed (2) Hamood-ur-Rehman Qazi vs (1) The NAB (2)2017 SHC 168 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-28Read full judgment →
• Rafiq-ur-Rehman vs The State2017 MLD 1791, 2017 PHC 522 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-30Read full judgment →
• Rafiq-Ur-Rahman vs The State and another2017 MLD 1791 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-30Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Ur Rehman through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 4 others vs Federation of Pakistan2017 PTD 1178 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-23Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Hussain vs The State2017 YLR 1742 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-29Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Hussain vs State2017 PHC 175 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-09Read full judgment →
• (1) Rafaqat Hussain (2) Shafqat Hussain etc (3) Muhammad Ilyas (4) The2017 LHC 3551 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-12
  qatl-e-amdvicarious liabilitycommon intentionmitigating circumstancesdeath sentence commutationocular evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibus
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against a trial court judgment convicting the appellants for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, whether the doctrine of vicarious liability under sections 34 or 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applied to the co-accused, and whether the death penalty was appropriate given the circumstances. The Court held that while the ocular account and medical evidence sufficiently proved the individual culpability of the appellants for the specific injuries caused, the prosecution failed to establish a 'common intention' or 'pre-arranged plan' to invoke vicarious liability for the murder charge against the co-accused who did not cause the fatal injury. Furthermore, the Court found mitigating circumstances, specifically the non-repetition of fire shots and the failure to prove the alleged motive, warranting the commutation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that common intention requires a pre-arranged plan and prior meeting of minds, and cannot be inferred merely from the presence of accused persons at the scene of a sudden, unplanned incident.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of some co-accused based on the same evidence necessitate the acquittal of all other co-accused?
  • Can vicarious liability under sections 34 or 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be established in a sudden, unplanned incident without evidence of a pre-arranged plan?
  • Does the non-repetition of a firearm injury by an assailant constitute a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing in a murder case?
  • Is the doctrine of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' applicable in the Pakistani criminal justice system?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali vs Messrs United Bank Limited2017 CLD 1076 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-01Read full judgment →
• Raees Khan vs The State2017 YLR 2308 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-17
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesprocedural irregularitymashirnamafurther inquiryprohibitory clausecriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Raees Khan, challenging the dismissal of his bail plea by the Special Judge-II, Karachi. The applicant was charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 580 grams of crystalline amphetamine from his luggage at Jinnah International Airport. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the procedural irregularities in the investigation and the statutory classification of the offense. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged prior to the preparation of the mashirnama of arrest and recovery, which constituted a significant procedural deviation and cast doubt on the recovery process. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant procedural law, and the trial had not commenced despite the conclusion of the investigation. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry, establishing that procedural lapses in recovery create doubt that must be resolved in favor of the accused at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the lodgment of an FIR prior to the preparation of the mashirnama of arrest and recovery constitute a procedural irregularity sufficient to entitle an accused to bail?
  • Does an offense punishable by up to seven years fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should doubts regarding the sealing and weighing of recovered narcotics be resolved in favor of the accused at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Raees Khan vs State2017 PHC 1087 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-07Read full judgment →
• Rabia Bashir, Junior Technical Teacher, Government Girls Middle Scho_3d6dc1df2017 SC AJK 89 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Rabia Bashir vs Azad Government &11 others2017 SCR 452 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-01-26Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Director General, NAB etc.2017 LHC 1583 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-11Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Education2017 PLC (C.S.) 1418 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-20
  pensionary benefitsannual incrementscivil servantsequal treatmentconstitutional petitionpay scalediscrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by retired civil servants challenging the denial of annual increments and the subsequent adverse impact on their pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to receive annual increments for years where they had reached the maximum pay scale, and whether the government's refusal to grant these benefits, despite having granted them to a similarly situated employee, constituted unlawful discrimination. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the relief sought, finding that the government's denial of benefits was discriminatory and inconsistent with its own policy. Relying on the principle of equal treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Court affirmed that when a court decides a point of law regarding the terms and conditions of a civil servant, the dictates of justice and good governance demand that such benefits be extended to other similarly situated civil servants without compelling them to initiate separate litigation. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, and the respondents were directed to recalculate the petitioners' pensionary benefits accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Are retired civil servants entitled to annual increments for years where they reached the maximum pay scale?
  • Does the principle of equal treatment require the government to extend the benefit of a judicial decision to other similarly situated civil servants?
  • Can the government deny pensionary benefits to civil servants based on a policy that has been withdrawn or declared inoperative by the courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and others vs Govt. of Balochistan through Chief Secretary2017 PLJ Quetta 87 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rana Ghulam Khaliq vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 703 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-09
  post-arrest bailwhite collar crimeembezzlementforgeryprohibitory clausefugitive from lawcriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through which the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 159/2015 registered under Sections 420, 408, 468, 467, 381-A, 380, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Old Kootwali, District Multan. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when he is specifically nominated in the FIR for committing a white-collar crime involving massive embezzlement, forgery, and theft, and has remained a fugitive from law. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner was prima facie connected with the commission of a heinous white-collar crime falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and that his prolonged abscondence further manifested guilty intent. The key principle laid down is that tentative assessment at the bail stage disentitles an accused person from relief where serious allegations of financial embezzlement and forgery are supported by record and statements, compounded by subsequent abscondence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused charged with a white-collar crime falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.?
  • Does remaining a fugitive from law for a significant period disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Can deeper appreciation of evidence be undertaken while deciding a bail petition after arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and another vs State and 2 othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1046 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-12Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and 4 others vs Government of Balochistan through its Chief2017 [M] C.L.R. 603 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and 4 others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2017 PLJ Quetta 87, 2017 PLC (C.S.) 1273 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-13
  constitutional jurisdictionservice matterterms and conditions of servicewrit petitionregularizationcivil servantbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by 199 Assistant Lecturers seeking to challenge a government notification that regularized their services as Secondary School Teachers (SST) instead of Lecturers (B-17) and adjusted them in the school branch rather than the college branch. The petitioners argued that their initial induction under the Aghaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan package entitled them to be accommodated as Lecturers in colleges. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, citing the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, arguing that the matter pertained to the terms and conditions of service. The Court held that the petitioners, being civil servants, had an alternate remedy available before the Service Tribunal. It determined that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 212 in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, even where allegations of discrimination or hardship are raised. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction, emphasizing that policy decisions regarding the regularization and nomenclature of posts cannot be challenged via writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging the terms and conditions of service of civil servants in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a policy decision regarding the regularization and nomenclature of government posts be challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the plea of hardship or discrimination?
  • Is the Service Tribunal the appropriate forum for a civil servant to challenge the regularization of their services and their subsequent posting?
  Read full judgment →
• R (on the application of Unison) vs Lord Chancellor2017 SCMR 1887 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
• R (on the Application of Ingenious Media Holdings PLC and another) vs Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs2017 SCMR 63 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
• Qutab-ud-din vs Mutabar Khan2017 PHC 1270 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-13
  pre-emptionTalb-e-MuwathibatTalb-e-Ish'hadrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal questions involve whether the pre-emptor successfully proved the timely performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ish'had in accordance with statutory requirements. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove Talb-e-Muwathibat due to fatal contradictions regarding the time of performance between the plaintiff's pleadings and the testimony of his witnesses, and further noted that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the sale through official record inspection prior to the claimed date of first demand. Additionally, the court found that service of the notice of Talb-e-Ish'had was not legally proven as the postman was not produced. The key principle laid down is that strict adherence to and cogent proof of the chronological requirements of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ish'had under the pre-emption law are mandatory, and discrepancies in evidence or failure to prove notice service are fatal to a pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the time of performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat stated in the plaint and that deposed by witnesses render the pre-emption suit liable to dismissal?
  • Is a pre-emptor required to produce the postman to prove the service of the notice of Talb-e-Ish'had when receipt of the notice is denied by the vendee?
  • Does prior knowledge of a sale transaction through obtaining copies of revenue records extinguish the right to subsequently perform Talb-e-Muwathibat?
  • What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction regarding concurrent findings of fact in pre-emption cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Qureshi Muhammad Aslam vs Additional Director ACE, Sargodha and others2017 MLD 827 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-07Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain vs The State2017 SCMR 880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-08
  conviction under section 302(b) PPCdeath sentencemitigating circumstancesunproven motivelife imprisonmentreappraisal of evidenceocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302(b) PPC, where the appellant was sentenced to death for murder using a hatchet. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the ocular account supported by medical evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive warranted mitigation of the death sentence. Upon independent reappraisal of the evidence, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the eye-witness testimony natural, prompt, and credible. However, regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the motive asserted by the prosecution was unproven, leaving the real cause of occurrence shrouded in mystery, and the recovered hatchet lacked a Serologist report confirming human blood. Following settled precedent, the Court held that failure to prove an asserted motive reacts against the death penalty. Consequently, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life with benefit under Section 382-B Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive react against the sentence of death in a murder case?
  • Can a death sentence be reduced to life imprisonment when the real cause of occurrence remains shrouded in mystery due to unproven motive?
  • What is the legal effect on sentencing when the recovery of a weapon is not backed by a Serologist report confirming human blood?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain & another vs WAPDA & 3 others2017 SCR 524 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-12-03Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali vs The State and others2017 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-23
  Bail after arrestFurther inquiryLalkaraVicarious liabilityPrevious enmityMurderAttempted murderUnlawful assemblyPakistan Penal CodeCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a criminal petition seeking bail after arrest for offences under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose alleged role was limited to raising a 'lalkara' (exhortation) during an incident stemming from previous enmity, was entitled to bail. The Supreme Court noted that the FIR described an initial altercation where both sides sustained injuries, followed by the petitioner's arrival. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the purview of "further enquiry" under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as his vicarious liability for the acts of co-accused required determination by the trial court after recording evidence. The Court also observed that the petitioner's previous criminal record was not relevant at the bail stage. Considering the circumstances, including the petitioner being an old man incarcerated since May 2015, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. Bail was granted subject to furnishing a bail bond.

  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali and anothers vs The State2017 MLD 737 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-12-14
  post-arrest bailcounterfeit currencyforged currency notesprohibitory clausetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 489-B, 489-C, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code relating to the alleged recovery of forged foreign currency. The core legal question was whether the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, warranting the withholding of bail. The Balochistan High Court held that the case primarily involved possession of counterfeit currency attracting section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, the punishment for which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the completion of investigation rendered further incarceration unnecessary. The court laid down the principle that offenses under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code not falling within the prohibitory clause generally entitle the accused to post-arrest bail when further investigation is not required, with tentative observations not prejudicing the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether possession of forged currency notes prima facie falls under section 489-B or section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code for the purpose of bail?
  • Does an offense under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Questions Referred to the Court of Disputed Returns Pursuant to Section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (CTH) Concerning Senator Rodney Norman Culleton_ In the matter of vs Not2017 SCMR 493 · High Court of Australia · 2017-02-03Read full judgment →
• Qudratullah vs The State and another2017 PLD Peshawar 5 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-14
  murdercommon intentionvicarious liabilitycriminal appealacquittalenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, alongside a criminal revision for the enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question revolves around whether vicarious liability through common intention can be sustained in the absence of an overt act or active participation in the crime, where the appellant was merely alleged to have driven the principal offender to the scene. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, while dismissing the revision as infructuous. The court laid down the principle that mere presence at the spot does not ipso facto make a person vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and that sharing a common intention requires direct proof of prior concert or circumstances necessarily leading to that inference, being incompatible with the accused's innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere presence at the scene of a crime establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • What evidentiary standard is required to prove joint liability and prior concert in a criminal case?
  • Can a conviction based on vicarious liability be sustained when no overt act is attributed to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Salah Ud Din through LRs, and others vs Roman and 4 others2017 YLR 1160 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-10Read full judgment →
• Qayyum Khan vs Divisional Forest Officer, Mardan and others2017 PLC (C.S) 428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-25
  service lawcontract employeeregularization of servicesdiscrimination in employmentreinstatementback benefitspensionary benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a review petition by the Peshawar High Court concerning the termination of the appellant's services as a Wildlife Watcher. The appellant was appointed on a contract basis in 2010, and subsequently, the post was converted into a permanent position by the Government of KPK in 2012. Despite this conversion, the appellant's services were terminated, and another individual was appointed in his place. The core legal question was whether the appellant, whose contract post was regularized, was entitled to be retained in service rather than terminated, particularly when similarly situated employees were regularized. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was subjected to discrimination, as the government had selectively retained others while terminating him. Relying on the principles established in the case of Government of KPK through Secretary, Agriculture v. Adnanullah and others, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments, and ordered the appellant's reinstatement with back benefits and pensionary credit for the intervening period. The key principle laid down is that the government cannot arbitrarily discriminate against contract employees when their project posts are regularized.

  Questions settled

  • Is a contract employee entitled to regularization when their project post is converted into a permanent post by the government?
  • Can the government selectively terminate a contract employee while regularizing similarly situated employees in the same project?
  • Is an employee entitled to back benefits and pensionary credit upon reinstatement after an unlawful termination?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Shah and 3 others vs Tameer Millat Program through Manager2017 MLD 1468 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-05-09
  temporary injunctionstatus quoprima facie casecivil revisioninheritancerevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent orders of the trial court and the first appellate court dismissing the petitioners' application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for inheritance. The core legal question revolves around whether the lower courts erred in failing to establish a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience for granting a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the petitioners demonstrated a good prima facie case based on documentary evidence and that the lower courts committed material irregularity by misappreciating the evidence. The court established the principle that temporary injunctions should be granted to maintain the status quo of the suit property and avoid multiplicity of litigation when multiple rival claims to title, including government ownership, are yet to be determined on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the lower courts committed a material irregularity in dismissing a temporary injunction application despite the existence of a prima facie case?
  • Should a status quo order be granted to maintain the property state when multiple rival claims to title exist?
  • Does the requirement of irreparable loss and balance of convenience favor granting a temporary injunction to preserve the suit property during pending litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Mahmood vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 463 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-21
  criminal breach of trustenhancement of sentenceconsolidated judgmentrevisional powershostile witnessmisappropriation of public propertyprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged an appellate order which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a conviction under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and allowed the State's revision to enhance the sentence from two to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether an appeal against conviction and a revision for sentence enhancement arising from the same judgment can be decided through a consolidated judgment, and whether the prosecution successfully established the criminal breach of trust regarding misappropriated police ammunition. The Peshawar High Court held that a court of session exercising revisional powers under section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can jointly decide an appeal and a revision through a common judgment, as procedural laws are meant to advance justice and no explicit bar prohibits consolidated disposal. Furthermore, the Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but reinstated the trial court's original sentence of two years after considering mitigating circumstances including the deposit of the weapon's price and termination from service.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal against conviction and a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence be decided through a common or consolidated judgment?
  • Whether the non-production of a daily diary during trial vitiates the conviction when its contents are incorporated in the FIR?
  • Does a convict have the right to challenge their conviction in sentence enhancement proceedings without filing a separate appeal?
  • What is the effect of a witness resiling during cross-examination after supporting the prosecution in an earlier statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali vs The State and another2017 YLR 1846 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-05
  criminal appealextra-judicial confessionlast seen evidencebenefit of doubtmurderexhumationacquittalchemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Qasim Ali, for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on 'last seen' evidence and an alleged extra-judicial confession, following the exhumation of the deceased’s body which revealed the presence of benzodiazepine tranquilizers. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt given the significant delay in reporting the crime, the lack of motive, and the weak evidentiary value of the extra-judicial confession. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable chain of evidence. The court emphasized that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence requiring independent corroboration, which was absent here. Furthermore, the medical evidence regarding the tranquilizer did not rule out accidental death. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the presence of a tranquilizer in a post-mortem report automatically establish the commission of murder?
  • What is the legal consequence of a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Qammer Abbas and another vs State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 246 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-31Read full judgment →
• Qamar Zaman vs The State2017 YLR 874 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-21
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsIce CrystalMethamphetaminemashirborderline casefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Qamar Zaman impugning the order of the Special Judge CNS-II, Karachi, whereby his bail was declined in a case involving the alleged recovery of 1.090 kgs of Ice Crystal (Methamphetamine). The core legal questions involved whether the failure to associate private mashirs despite availability of time, the ambiguity regarding the weighing of the substance with or without packing in a borderline quantity case, and the delay in framing of charge make out a case for further inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant successfully made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly noting that the quantity was marginally over 1000 grams, no private mashirs were associated despite sufficient time, and the trial had not commenced even after one year. The court laid down the principle that in borderline cases regarding narcotic quantities, the minimum aspect of the sentence should be considered, and failure to associate private witnesses despite ample time creates a dent in the prosecution case warranting bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure of the complainant to associate private mashirs despite having sufficient time after receiving prior information affects the credibility of recovery in narcotics cases?
  • Is a case where the recovered narcotic weight is marginally above one thousand grams considered a borderline case for the purpose of bail?
  • Should the court consider the minimum aspect of the prescribed sentence when adjudging bail in narcotics cases?
  • Does the prolonged incarceration of an accused without framing of a charge for over a year entitle him to post-arrest bail under the rule of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar Pervaiz s/o Muhammad Pervaiz r/o Keyat Kalaan, Pak Gali, Tehsil2017 SC AJK 242 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Qamar Pervaiz and another vs The State and through Advocate-General2017 P.S.C. Crl. 382 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Qalab Hussain vs Faysal Bank and others2017 CLD 215 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-06Read full judgment →