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. 232594 judgments in total.

• RASH KHAN Versus AFZAL MEHMOOD CHAIRMAN WAPDA2015 GBLR 348 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-27Read full judgment →
• The REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY GILGIT-BALTISTAN Versus GHULAM ABBAS2015 GBLR 346 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-02Read full judgment →
• ALLOTMENT OF LAND TO THE REFUGEES OF VILLAGE MIR MALIK AT BUNJI Versus2015 GBLR 339 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-05-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALAM Versus SHAH JAHAN2015 GBLR 335 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-10-21Read full judgment →
• DSP BABAR KHAN NOW SP RESIDENT OF SULTABAD HUNZA Versus SHER SULEIMAN2015 GBLR 330 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-10-08Read full judgment →
• PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT Versus Mrs. HAMIDA2015 GBLR 328 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-09-22Read full judgment →
• COMPLAINT AGAINST PWD Versus2015 GBLR 324 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-05-29Read full judgment →
• HAFIZ-UR-REHMAN Versus ZIA2015 GBLR 322 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-09-02Read full judgment →
• JAN MUHAMMAD Versus State2015 GBLR 320 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-14Read full judgment →
• ABDUL BARI Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT2015 GBLR 318 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-16Read full judgment →
• CLEAN DRINKING WATER AT SKARDU Versus2015 GBLR 30 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-19Read full judgment →
• PENSION OF EX. CHIEF JUDGE SUPREME APPELLATE COURT Versus2015 GBLR 293 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2011-03-24Read full judgment →
• ASHOOR KHAN Versus QASIM SHAH2015 GBLR 291 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-14Read full judgment →
• ZEEBO Versus State2015 GBLR 289 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-16Read full judgment →
• HUSSAIN Versus Syed MUHAMMAD ALI SHAH2015 GBLR 284 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-04Read full judgment →
• SOLD OUT OF AN EIGHTEEN YEARS GIRL TO A FIFTY YEARS OLD MAN Versus2015 GBLR 281 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-05-08Read full judgment →
• SECRETARY WORKS GILGIT-BALTISTAN Versus TALIB SHAH2015 GBLR 275 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-14Read full judgment →
• State Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL2015 GBLR 272 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-16Read full judgment →
• Syed FAIZ ALI SHAH Versus IQBAL AMAN2015 GBLR 269 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-04Read full judgment →
• COMPLAINT AGAINST CIVIL SUPPLY Versus2015 GBLR 252 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. RAQIA BEGUM Versus SAFDAR ALI2015 GBLR 24 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-05-05Read full judgment →
• K-2 TOURS Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gigit-Baltistan2015 GBLR 249 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-05-21Read full judgment →
• State Versus SHAMS-UR-REHMAN2015 GBLR 247 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-22Read full judgment →
• SULEMAN Versus Mst. MAROOF2015 GBLR 244 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-08-18Read full judgment →
• LAW AND ORDER SITUATION IN GILGIT-BALTISTAN Versus2015 GBLR 221 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-11-20Read full judgment →
• HUSSAIN Versus Mst. KHATOON2015 GBLR 218 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-10Read full judgment →
• State Versus ABDUL GHAFFAR2015 GBLR 214 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZOHRA Versus MEHER BANU2015 GBLR 213 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-16Read full judgment →
• State Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL2015 GBLR 1 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-10-30
  murderqatl-i-amdself-defenseocular accountmedical evidencerecovery of weaponappellate reviewconviction restoration
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals arose from a judgment of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, which had converted the death sentence of Muhammad Afzal to life imprisonment and acquitted his co-accused father, Wali Joo. The State appealed for the restoration of the trial court's conviction and death sentence, while the accused sought complete acquittal. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt or whether the accused acted in self-defense within a private compound where the deceased's licensed pistol and a blood-stained hatchet were recovered. The Supreme Appellate Court held that the Chief Court misread the evidence and that the prosecution ocular and medical accounts established the guilt of both respondents. The Court set aside the Chief Court's judgment, allowed the State's appeal, and restored the trial court's conviction and sentences for murder and associated offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court erred in converting a death sentence to life imprisonment and acquitting a co-accused on the basis of assumptions and misreading of evidence?
  • Can the plea of self-defense be sustained when the medical evidence and recovery of weapons contradict the version presented by the accused?
  • Does the recovery of a deceased person's pistol inside the accused's compound by itself establish that the murder occurred in self-defense within the four walls?
  Read full judgment →
• DANYORE RCC BRIDGE Versus2015 GBLR 196 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-05-09Read full judgment →
• ROZI KHAN Versus Mst. SHAH JAHAN2015 GBLR 194 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-17Read full judgment →
• ARIF-UD-DIN Versus State2015 GBLR 190 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. NANI Versus GHULAM RASOOL2015 GBLR 188 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-04-20Read full judgment →
• ILLEGAL CUTTING OF FOREST IN CHAPROTE NAGAR 2 AND CHAKARKOT JUGLOTE, SAI Versus2015 GBLR 186 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-27Read full judgment →
• GHULAM NABI Versus Mst. GUL NAJAF2015 GBLR 184 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-10-08Read full judgment →
• Syed ALI SHAH Versus The STATE2015 GBLR 181 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM Versus Mst. TAJ BEGUM2015 GBLR 176 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-10Read full judgment →
• COMPLAINT AGAINST CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY Versus2015 GBLR 175 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-26Read full judgment →
• REPRESENTATION/APPEAL UNDER THE CIVIL SERVANTS (APPEAL) RULES, 1977 Versus2015 GBLR 167 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-14Read full judgment →
• State Versus HAZARAT HUSSAIN2015 GBLR 165 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-06-17Read full judgment →
• PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Versus FARID ULLAH PS2015 GBLR 163 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-17Read full judgment →
• AFFECTEES OF THE LAND OWNERS OF KKH Versus2015 GBLR 162 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-21Read full judgment →
• ISHAQUE ENTERPRISES Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN2015 GBLR 159 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus State2015 GBLR 157 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-09-02Read full judgment →
• FAQIR SHAH Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT2015 GBLR 154 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-17Read full judgment →
• SHABBIR HUSSAIN Versus SAJJAD SALEEM HOTIYANA2015 GBLR 152 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-06-12Read full judgment →
• PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan Versus Malik MUSHTAQ AHMED KHAN2015 GBLR 148 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-08-19Read full judgment →
• SHER ZAMAN Versus State2015 GBLR 145 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-09-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. GUMBOORI Versus MAHERBAN SHAH2015 GBLR 141 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
• APPOINTMENT OF NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY COURT JUDGE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF ITS POLICE STATION Versus2015 GBLR 134 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-30Read full judgment →
• PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary GB Versus FIAZ AHMED2015 GBLR 132 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-17Read full judgment →
• MAQBOOL HUSSAIN Versus State2015 GBLR 130 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-10-27Read full judgment →
• SAFDAR ENTERPRISE PVT. (LIMITED) Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN2015 GBLR 123 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
• DEATH OF CHILD DUE TO COLLAPSE OF SCHOOL BOUNDARY WALL Versus2015 GBLR 122 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. HASEENA Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFA2015 GBLR 117 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-18Read full judgment →
• JAVED KHAN Versus State2015 GBLR 114 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-05-25Read full judgment →
• IFTIKHAR ALI Versus KARAKORAM INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY - KIU ROAD KONODAS GILGIT2015 GBLR 107 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-10-19Read full judgment →
• 50% HARD AREA ALLOWANCE OF CONTROLLER OF MILITARY ACCOUNTS AND OTHER Versus2015 GBLR 104 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2015-09-18Read full judgment →
• SHAKOOR Versus State2014 GBLR 98 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-09-26
  post-arrest bailmurderprinciple of parityconsistency in bailcriminal appealprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the refusal of bail by the Chief Court of Gilgit-Baltistan to the petitioner, Shakoor, who was charged with murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of consistency and parity, given that a co-accused had been granted bail by the trial court. The petitioner argued that the prosecution's case was improbable, citing the night-time occurrence and poor visibility, and contended that he deserved bail because other co-accused had been released. The Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The Court distinguished the petitioner's role from that of the co-accused, noting that the petitioner was specifically and directly charged with firing the fatal shot, supported by eyewitness statements and the recovery of the weapon. The Court established that the principle of parity does not apply when the role of the accused seeking bail is distinct and more severe than that of co-accused who have already been granted relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of parity apply to bail applications when the accused seeking bail has a distinct and more severe role attributed to them compared to co-accused?
  • Is bail appropriate when the accused is directly charged with firing a fatal shot supported by eyewitness testimony and weapon recovery?
  • Does the fact that a co-accused was released under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle another accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• RESIDENTS OF MUHALLAH YARKHOR MOZA THALLAY TEHSIL DAGHONI DISTRICT GHANCHE Versus RESIDENTS OF MUHALLAH CHUNDU MOZA THALLAY TEHSIL DAGHONI DISTRICT GHANCHE2014 GBLR 96 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-08-29Read full judgment →
• TAJUDDIN Versus Mst. ZAINAB BEGUM2014 GBLR 92 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-08-20Read full judgment →
• FIDA HUSSAIN Versus RAJA TAHIR ABBAS Mir Ikhlaq Hussain , Ali Khan2014 GBLR 86 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-08-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. SHAHID IQBAL Versus PUBLIC AT LARGE2014 GBLR 81 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. NOSHAD Versus INCHARGE POLICE CHOWKI NOMAL GILGIT2014 GBLR 73 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-07-01Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus Engineer GHULAM ABBAS2014 GBLR 72 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-06-10
  criminal appealcompromiseblood moneyacquittaldiyatmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal before the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan involving a convict, Ghulam Muhammad, who had been sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment for murder. The core legal question was whether the court could accept a compromise reached between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased, thereby warranting acquittal. The court examined the compromise proceedings conducted before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Skardu, and verified the voluntary nature of the settlement. The complainant, representing the legal heirs, confirmed in open court that they had received the blood money (diyat) and that possession of the disputed property had been transferred to them. Finding the compromise to be genuine and in the best interest of the parties, who were relatives and co-villagers, the court held that the conviction could not be sustained. Consequently, the court ordered the acquittal of the petitioner and directed his release from judicial custody, provided he was not required in any other criminal case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order the acquittal of a convict based on a compromise reached between the parties in a murder case?
  • Does the payment of blood money and the transfer of property to legal heirs constitute a valid basis for a compromise in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• SAEED HUSSAIN Versus The STATE2014 GBLR 69 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-04-24
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationabsconsionmurderdacoitycriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal case registered under sections 302/34, 324, and 393 of the Pakistan Penal Code following a robbery incident resulting in multiple casualties and injuries. The petitioner, Saeed Hussain, sought post-arrest bail, which was dismissed by both the Sessions Court and the Chief Court of Gilgit-Baltistan. Concurrently, the Chief Court noted that a co-accused, Moin Haider, had been improperly granted bail by the Sessions Court on the grounds of minority, prompting the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan to issue a notice for the recall of Moin Haider's bail. Upon proceedings before the Supreme Appellate Court, it was reported that Moin Haider had previously absconded, leading the Sessions Judge to recall the bail order, issue arrest warrants, and rearrest him. Given that the trial had progressed significantly and was nearing conclusion, the Supreme Appellate Court discharged the notice regarding bail cancellation and disposed of the matter accordingly, holding that no further action was required.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect on bail proceedings when an accused granted bail subsequently absconds during the trial?
  • Can a trial court recall a bail order on account of the non-appearance of an accused person?
  • How does the advanced stage of a criminal trial influence appellate consideration of pending bail matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZAIB-UL NISAH Versus SAFI ULLAH BAIG2014 GBLR 66 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-04-24Read full judgment →
• GHULAB KHAN Versus SAEED KHAN2014 GBLR 63 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-04-22Read full judgment →
• FAREED ALAM Versus State2014 GBLR 61 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2013-03-07Read full judgment →
• The STATE through Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan Versus ANWAR2014 GBLR 48 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2011-09-19Read full judgment →
• DILDAR HUSSAIN Versus State2014 GBLR 231 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-11-27Read full judgment →
• The STATE Versus ATEEQ HUSSAIN2014 GBLR 228 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-11-26Read full judgment →
• ALL RESIDENTS OF MOUZA NEW RANGAH SKARDU THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES Versus Amjad Hussain2014 GBLR 227 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-11-25Read full judgment →
• ROZEENA KHATOON Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN2014 GBLR 225 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-11-20Read full judgment →
• LATIF-UR-REHMAN Versus State2014 GBLR 215 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-11-18Read full judgment →
• Mir SHAKEEL-UR-REHMAN Versus The STATE2014 GBLR 207 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-11-18Read full judgment →
• SADAQAT ALI Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE GILGIT-BALTISTAN Amjad Hussain , Asad Ullah Khan2014 GBLR 203 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-11-13Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF GB Versus ROZEENA KHATOON2014 GBLR 200 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-11-11Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus The STATE2014 GBLR 1 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2011-05-12
  criminal appealmurderstatement of accusedcircumstantial evidencelast seensudden provocationsentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Chief Court which dismissed the appellant's appeal against a conviction for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and allowed a state revision to enhance the appellant's sentence from life imprisonment to death under section 302(b). The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value and treatment of an accused's statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically whether exculpatory and inculpatory parts can be bifurcated, and the appropriate classification of the offence between premeditated murder and sudden provocation. The Supreme Appellate Court held that while an admission in a section 342 statement cannot be selectively parsed to establish guilt while ignoring the defence without corroboration, the circumstances and medical evidence established an unnatural death following last-seen company, while the immediate subsequent conduct of the accused showed no premeditation. The Court converted the conviction from section 302(b) to section 302(c), altering the death sentence to fifteen years' rigorous imprisonment, laying down principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence and the limits of accepting an accused's statement under section 342.

  Questions settled

  • Can the statement of an accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted in part while excluding the exculpatory defence version?
  • Whether last-seen evidence coupled with the recovery of a weapon and unexplained unnatural death is sufficient to raise a presumption of guilt against the accused?
  • Does an unexpected killing arising from a sudden flare-up during a money dispute fall under section 302(b) or section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is subsequent conduct such as taking an injured victim to the hospital relevant to determining the presence of premeditation or intention to kill?
  Read full judgment →
• State Versus IFTIKHAR-UD-DIN2014 GBLR 199 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-11-10Read full judgment →
• PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan Versus NAEEM-UD-DIN OT/ARABIC TEACHER BOYS HIGH SCHOOL NO.1 GILGIT2014 GBLR 196 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-10-27Read full judgment →
• SAIF-UR-REHMAN Versus The STATE2014 GBLR 194 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-10-27Read full judgment →
• LASHKAR Versus FAZAL2014 GBLR 187 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-10-27Read full judgment →
• State Versus ASIF ABBASS2014 GBLR 185 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-09-29Read full judgment →
• GHAZI JOHAR Versus Malik ASHDAR2014 GBLR 183 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-09-22Read full judgment →
• State Versus SHARAFAT HUSSAIN KING2014 GBLR 180 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-08-28Read full judgment →
• VICE-CHANCELLOR KARAKORUM INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY GILGIT-BALTISTAN Versus Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA2014 GBLR 177 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-08-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM Versus IMAM YAR BAIG2014 GBLR 172 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-08-20Read full judgment →
• Haji FIDA HUSSAIN Versus DIRECTOR CIVIL SUPPLY GILGIT-BALTISTAN2014 GBLR 169 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-08-13Read full judgment →
• PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan Versus Haji FIDA HUSSAIN2014 GBLR 167 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-08-13Read full judgment →
• COMPLAINT OF CONTRACT EMPLOYEES OF BPS-17 AND BPS-18 FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN Versus2014 GBLR 163 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-08-13Read full judgment →
• ALTAF HUSSAIN JUSTICE RETIRED Versus Syed MUTAHIR ALI SHAH, ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL GB2014 GBLR 161 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-06-25
  contempt of courtpension rightsretired judgesunconditional apologyadministrative notificationGilgit-Baltistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, retired judges of the Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan, filed a contempt application against the Accountant-General and Deputy Accountant-General of Gilgit-Baltistan. This action followed the issuance of a notification by the respondents that unilaterally stopped the petitioners' monthly pensions and associated privileges. Upon the initiation of contempt proceedings, the respondents appeared before the Court, explained that the notification was issued due to a misunderstanding under instructions from higher authorities, and subsequently withdrew the impugned notification. The respondents further tendered unconditional written apologies, expressing remorse and repentance for their actions, and assured the Court of future compliance. Given the withdrawal of the notification and the unqualified apologies tendered by the respondents, the counsel for the petitioners did not press the contempt application further. Consequently, the Court accepted the apologies and disposed of the petition, effectively closing the contempt proceedings without further punitive action against the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contempt of court petition be disposed of if the respondent tenders an unconditional apology and withdraws the impugned order?
  • Does the withdrawal of an administrative notification that caused the alleged contempt mitigate the grounds for continuing contempt proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• LAL SHAIREEN Versus FURDUM KHAN2014 GBLR 158 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-06-24Read full judgment →
• Haji GHULAM QADIR Versus SAJJAD ALI2014 GBLR 153 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-05-29
  acquittalsection 249-A Cr.P.C.hearsay evidencenon-production of evidenceabuse of processcriminal intimidationpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition with leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, which upheld the trial court's order acquitting the accused persons under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved whether an order of acquittal under section 249-A can be passed without recording evidence when the prosecution fails to produce witnesses, and whether a criminal case based entirely on inadmissible hearsay evidence warrants acquittal. The Supreme Appellate Court held that where the prosecution fails to produce evidence despite repeated opportunities and coercive measures, and where the first information report is founded on hearsay without any direct evidence or probability of conviction, the trial becomes an abuse of process and acquittal under section 249-A is justified. The court laid down the principle that a Magistrate may acquit an accused under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at any stage if, after exhausting coercive measures for procuring attendance, no probability of conviction exists and the charge is groundless.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording prosecution evidence?
  • Whether an acquittal under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is sustainable when the first information report is based entirely on hearsay evidence?
  • What measures must a trial court exhaust regarding the issuance of process before acquitting an accused for non-production of evidence under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• HABIBULLAH Versus RAHIMULLAH2014 GBLR 148 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-05-22Read full judgment →
• State Versus SUFI ALI2014 GBLR 137 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-05-16
  acquittalcognizance of offencesanction for prosecutionsectarian hatredanti-terrorismcriminal procedureappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was preferred by the State against the judgment of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, which had set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents under Section 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with Section 153-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and whether taking cognizance of an offence under Section 153-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a formal complaint authorized under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiated the trial. The Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan held that the trial court's cognizance based on a police report rather than a government-sanctioned complaint violated the mandatory provisions of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering the entire proceedings coram non judice and a nullity in law. The Court affirmed that procedural safeguards must be strictly followed, and finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the acquitting court, dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates a trial for an offence under Section 153-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Section 153-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 instead of a complaint authorized by the government?
  • What are the principles for reappraising evidence in an appeal against an acquittal judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does the non-sending of an immediate report to a Magistrate under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 create a serious doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AJAB KHAN Versus FAIZULLAH2014 GBLR 128 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-04-29Read full judgment →
• PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GILGIT-BALTISTAN Versus JAN WALI2014 GBLR 125 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-03-25Read full judgment →
• MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY Versus KARAKURAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED2014 GBLR 123 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2014-03-24Read full judgment →
• The STATE Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM2014 GBLR 10 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2011-05-25Read full judgment →