Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Mst. Chanaan Bi and 2 others vs Muhammad Shahpal and 2 othersK.L.R. 2017 S.C. 588 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bilqees Begum through L.Rs, and 5 others vs Mst. Nazakat Bibi and others2017 YLR 1060 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bibi Roza vs The State and 2 others2017 P Cr. L J 1071 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed seeking the quashment of orders passed by the lower courts whereby the petitioner's application for the redemption of a house attached pursuant to section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as property of an absconding accused was dismissed. The core legal question was whether a claimant asserting an interest in attached property is entitled to a formal inquiry and an opportunity to lead evidence under section 88(6-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before their objection is adjudicated. The Peshawar High Court held that the lower courts erred in dismissing the petitioner's objection based solely on revenue records without conducting a mandatory judicial inquiry. The ratio decidendi is that where a claim or objection is preferred against the attachment of property under section 88, the court is bound to conduct an inquiry and afford the parties an opportunity to present evidence and rebuttal in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Questions settled- Whether a court is mandated to conduct a judicial inquiry when a claim or objection is preferred against the attachment of property under section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an objection to the attachment of property be dismissed solely on the basis of revenue records without affording the claimant an opportunity to lead evidence?
- What is the scope and significance of subsection (6-A) of section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding third-party claims to attached property?
- Mst. Bhagul vs The State2017 YLR 629 · Sindh High Court · 2015-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Mst. Bhagul, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged murder of her daughter-in-law. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was accused of assisting her son in the murder by stuffing a substance into the victim's mouth, was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the contradictions between the ocular evidence and the medical report. The Court observed that while the principal accused was alleged to have throttled the victim, the chemical analysis report of the victim's viscera detected no poison, rendering the medical evidence inconsistent with the ocular account. Furthermore, the Court noted the history of domestic disputes between the parties, suggesting potential mala fides in the complainant's implication of the applicant. Holding that the applicant's case required further inquiry, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where medical evidence contradicts the ocular account and there is a history of enmity or domestic dispute, a prima facie case for further inquiry is established, justifying the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Does the absence of poison in a chemical analysis report, when the FIR alleges poisoning, create grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can a history of domestic disputes between the complainant and the accused be considered as evidence of mala fides in a bail application?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when there is a significant contradiction between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence?
- Mst. Badarun Nisa vs Dr. Abdul Rehman & others2017 PLJ SC 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil appeals against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of ejectment applications filed by the appellant against the respondents. The core legal question was whether a co-owner of an unpartitioned property possesses the status of a 'landlord' sufficient to establish a landlord-tenant relationship, thereby entitling them to initiate ejectment proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, having acquired title to a portion of the property through a registered sale deed, is a co-owner of the estate. The Court determined that the findings of the lower fora, which denied the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, were legally unsustainable. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the lower court findings were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Rent Controller for further proceedings. The key principle laid down is that every co-owner of an unpartitioned property qualifies as a landlord, and this status is sufficient to establish a landlord-tenant relationship, regardless of any pending litigation between co-owners regarding the partition of the property.
Questions settled- Does a co-owner of an unpartitioned property have the legal status of a landlord?
- Can a landlord-tenant relationship be established by a co-owner despite pending litigation regarding property partition?
- Is a co-owner entitled to initiate ejectment proceedings against tenants occupying the property?
- Mst. Bachaan and another vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home2017 CLC 1530 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a married couple seeking protection for their life, honour, and property against alleged threats from relatives of the first petitioner, who were antagonized by the couple's free-will marriage. The core legal question concerned the constitutional rights of adult individuals to contract marriage of their own free will and to live together without harassment or coercion. The Sindh High Court held that major and sane persons have the fundamental right to contract marriage of their free will, as guaranteed under Articles 9 and 35 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and that state functionaries, including the police, cannot permit coercive measures or harassment to separate spouses. The court laid down the principle that tribal customs, social taboos, or parental disapproval must yield to constitutional commands, and that depriving a married couple of their right to live together constitutes a grave violation of their fundamental right to security of person and life.
Questions settled- Whether major and sane individuals have a fundamental right to contract marriage of their own free will under the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does compelling a married couple to separate through coercive measures violate Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- What is the legal duty of the police and state functionaries when a married couple faces harassment and threats over a free-will marriage?
- Mst. Anwar Begum vs Akhtar Hussain alias Kaka and 2 others2017 SCMR 1710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerned an appeal by leave against a High Court judgment that acquitted two respondents of murder charges, setting aside their death sentences. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's decision to acquit, based on benefit of doubt, was arbitrary, fanciful, or capricious, warranting interference. The High Court had found the ocular account from chance witnesses uncorroborated, noted discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding firearm injuries, and determined that a forensic report was inconsequential as it was not put to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. The Court reiterated that conviction on a capital charge based on chance witness testimony requires corroboration, and medical evidence must be consistent with the ocular account. It was also emphasized that evidence not presented to an accused during examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C. cannot be used for conviction. Furthermore, the presumption of innocence is strengthened upon acquittal, requiring strong and cogent reasons to overturn such a finding.
- Mst. Anwar Begum through L.R. vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and another2017 CLD 650 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Anwar Bashir vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 330 · Lahore High Court · 2016-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from Mst. Anwar Bashir seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Kabirwala, District Khanewal, on allegations of abduction and facilitation of zina bil jabr. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the delay in reporting, her status as a woman, the lack of overt acts assigned other than facilitation, and the finding of innocence of co-accused during investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the case called for further inquiry under the facts and circumstances, noting that malice or ulterior motives could not be ruled out and that no recovery was to be made from the petitioner. The court laid down the principle that while deciding pre-arrest bail, the court must examine the accusation, the investigation report, touch prima facie upon the merits, and give proper attention to the defence plea taken by the accused alongside the prosecution material.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the accused is a woman assigned only a role of facilitation and no recovery is to be made from her?
- Can the court consider the finding of innocence of co-accused by the police investigation agency at the bail stage?
- Whether the defence plea of the accused must be given proper attention alongside prosecution evidence when deciding a bail petition?
- Mst. Amtul Fatima & Ors vs Syed Tahir Ali Jafri & Ors.2017 SHC 187 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-20Read full judgment →
- (1) Mst. Amiran etc (2) The State vs (1) The State etc (2) Muhammad Munir2017 P Cr. L J 1591, 2017 LHC 1778 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal against conviction and a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant delay in reporting the crime, the failure to prove the alleged motive, and the unreliable ocular testimony of witnesses who remained silent during the initial police investigation. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as the motive was unsubstantiated and the eye-witnesses' presence and testimony were highly dubious, particularly given their silence when the police first visited the crime scene. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants and the absconding convict. The judgment lays down the principle that once the prosecution sets up a motive, it must be proved; failure to do so undermines the case. Furthermore, it affirms that the High Court possesses the authority to decide a murder reference under Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, even in the absence of an absconding convict, ensuring justice is administered on the merits of the case.
Questions settled- Can the High Court decide a murder reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of an absconding convict?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a set-up motive result in the failure of the entire prosecution case?
- Is the ocular testimony of witnesses reliable if they remained silent during the initial police investigation of the crime?
- Mst. Amiran and others---Appellants vs The State and others---2017 P Cr. L J 1591 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from a trial court judgment convicting the appellants and a co-convict for murder. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of ocular evidence provided by witnesses who remained silent for 25 days despite being present at the crime scene during initial police investigations, and whether a murder reference could be decided for an absconding convict. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to the unexplained inordinate delay in filing the private complaint and the failure to prove the alleged motive. The court emphasized that when the prosecution sets up a specific motive, it must be established; failure to do so weakens the case. Furthermore, the court held that under Sections 374 and 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a High Court has the authority to decide a murder reference and acquit an absconding convict based on the merits of the case, without requiring their personal presence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted all accused, answering the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Can a High Court decide a murder reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of an absconding convict?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a set-up motive weaken the overall case against the accused?
- Is the ocular testimony of witnesses reliable if they remained silent during the initial police investigation despite being present at the crime scene?
- Mst. Amina Bibi and 2 others vs The State through Additional Advocate2017 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 66 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an application filed for the quashment of FIR No. 61 of 2017 registered at Police Station Islamgarh under sections 10, 11, 16, and 19 of the ZHA, on the complaint of Muhammad Waseem alleging abduction. The core legal questions involved whether an FIR can be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the submission of a challan, and whether criminal proceedings can be quashed when an adult female explicitly deposes that she contracted a valid marriage of her own free will. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the High Court possesses wide inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR at any stage to prevent the abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, without waiting for the trial court. The court laid down the key principle that the statement of an adult sui juris woman affirming a voluntary marriage holds vital importance, rendering allegations of abduction baseless, and warranting the quashment of criminal proceedings to protect citizens from unnecessary harassment.
Questions settled- Can the High Court quash an FIR under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the submission of a police challan?
- Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed when an adult female personally appears and affirms a voluntary marriage?
- Do the inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 include interfering in investigation to secure the ends of justice?
- Mst. Amena Gulnaz alias Amena vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1417 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The trial court had acquitted the co-accused but convicted the appellant under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relying solely on her statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where she admitted to shooting the deceased after he allegedly raped her at gunpoint. The core legal question was whether an accused can be convicted based solely on an inculpatory statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when the prosecution's evidence has been rejected in its entirety. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the trial court had already disbelieved the prosecution's ocular account, motive, and recovery evidence. Applying the principle that if the prosecution fails to prove its case, the accused must be acquitted regardless of their plea, the Court set aside the conviction. The key principle laid down is that a statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, must be accepted or rejected in its entirety; it cannot be used to convict an accused if the prosecution's evidence is otherwise unreliable.
Questions settled- Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of their statement recorded under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the prosecution's evidence is rejected in its entirety?
- Does a statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, have to be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
- What is the evidentiary value of a Forensic Science Laboratory report when crime empties are sent with significant delay after the arrest of the accused?
- Must an accused be acquitted if the prosecution fails to prove its case, even if the accused has admitted to the killing in their statement?
- Mst. Aila Nawaz vs Judge Family Court etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 907 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Afzala Virk vs Mian Fazal Haq2017 MLD 2066 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Afshan Bibi vs Judge Family Court/Guardian Judge Kabirwala2017 PLJ Lahore 115 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aajzan Bibi vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 1483 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Mst. Aajzan Bibi, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of her two minor grandsons and sentencing her to death on two counts, alongside compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involve determining whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through credible ocular testimony, a proven motive, and a prompt first information report. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case, noting a significant and unexplained delay in reporting the incident, dubious presence of the alleged eyewitnesses, an unproven and illogical motive, and contradictions in the evidence. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside her conviction and death sentence, and acquitted her of the charges. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must stand on its own legs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in reporting a crime to the police cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story?
- Whether the prosecution is relieved of proving its case when the accused fails to appear as a witness in her defense?
- Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
- Whether medical evidence can point an accusing finger at a culprit in an unwitnessed murder case without independent corroboration of ocular testimony?
- Mst Tahira vs Muhammad Irfan2017 PHC 750 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-19Read full judgment →
- Mst Rehanan & Dawood vs State & another2017 PHC 589 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-03Read full judgment →
- Ms. Z vs The State of Bihar and Others2017 SCInd 1294 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the High Court’s refusal to permit the medical termination of pregnancy for a destitute rape victim. The core legal question concerned whether the State authorities and the High Court were justified in delaying the termination, and whether the victim was entitled to compensation for the resulting mental agony. The Supreme Court held that the authorities were negligent in delaying the procedure, causing the victim grave mental injury. The Court set aside the High Court's order, ruling that the victim, as a major, had the sole right to consent to the termination, and the involvement of her husband or father was unwarranted. The Court awarded Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation under public law remedy, emphasizing that a woman's reproductive choice is a dimension of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment establishes that state authorities must act with promptitude in medical termination cases to avoid grave injury to mental health, and failure to do so renders the State liable for compensation for the violation of fundamental rights.
Questions settled- Does a major woman require the consent of her husband or father for the medical termination of pregnancy?
- Is the State liable to pay compensation under public law remedy for the negligence of its authorities in delaying the medical termination of pregnancy of a rape victim?
- Does the allegation of rape constitute a presumption of grave injury to the mental health of a pregnant woman under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971?
- Can the doctrine of 'best interests' be used to override the reproductive autonomy of a major woman who is a victim of rape?
- Ms. Shabnam Irshad Ahmed and others vs Muhammad Muneer Malik and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 1263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Islamabad High Court which set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Director due to a lack of required experience. The core legal question was whether the petitioner met the mandatory statutory eligibility criteria of having 12 years of experience in the specific field of production, and whether the High Court could interfere with the Selection Board's recommendation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's experience in the field of Design could not be equated with experience in Production, and that her experience fell well short of the mandatory 12 years. The Court ruled that while a High Court cannot normally substitute its view for that of a Selection Board, it is fully justified in interfering with and setting aside a conclusion based on a wrong arithmetical calculation and a departure from explicit statutory criteria. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether experience in the field of Design can be treated as equivalent to experience in the field of Production for the post of Deputy Director?
- Can the High Court interfere with the recommendation of a Selection Board when the conclusion is based on a wrong calculation or misinterpretation of eligibility criteria?
- Whether an appointment made in violation of statutory criteria and the principle of transparency is liable to be set aside?
- Ms. Raheesa Zeb vs Khyber Girls Medical College through Principal/Dean2017 MLD 294 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-06Read full judgment →
- MS. Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court of India through Secretary2017 SCInd 1266 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-10-12Read full judgment →
- Ms. Eera vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr2017 SCInd 1342 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-07-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arose from an appeal challenging the High Court's refusal to transfer a criminal case to a Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The appellant, a 38-year-old woman with a mental age of approximately 6-8 years, sought to be treated as a "child" under the POCSO Act to benefit from its child-friendly procedures. The core legal question was whether the definition of "child" in Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, which specifies a person below 18 years of age, could be interpreted to include "mental age" for intellectually challenged individuals. The Supreme Court held that the definition of "child" is strictly based on chronological or biological age. The Court ruled that it cannot expand the statutory definition to include mental age, as that would amount to judicial legislation. The Court emphasized that while purposive interpretation is a tool for construction, it cannot be used to rewrite statutes or ignore clear legislative intent. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the POCSO Act's protections are limited to persons biologically under 18 years of age.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'child' under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 include persons with a mental age below 18 years regardless of their biological age?
- Can a court expand the scope of a statutory definition through purposive interpretation if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous?
- Is the chronological age the sole criterion for determining the status of a 'child' under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012?
- Ms Shagufta Hashmat, etc. vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary2017 IHC 241 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated petition involves various contract, daily wage, and contingent staff, predominantly teaching personnel in public schools or colleges, seeking regularization of their services against permanent posts. The core legal questions relate to the validity of competing regularization policies of the Federal Government, the binding nature of the Civil Servants Act 1973 and the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973, and whether non-transparent appointments can confer a vested right to regularization. The Islamabad High Court held that appointments to public posts must strictly adhere to statutory mechanisms and principles of competitive transparency, and that executive policies cannot override primary or delegated legislation. The court declared that the first regularization policy (2008) and the new policy (2017) were valid, while an intervening committee policy approved only by the Prime Minister without Cabinet approval was void. The court laid down the key principle that public employment is a sacred trust requiring transparent recruitment on merit, and that illegal or non-transparent appointments cannot be regularized in violation of fundamental rights and statutory rules.
Questions settled- Whether an executive policy of the Federal Government can override or bypass the provisions of the Civil Servants Act 1973 and the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973?
- Does an appointment made in a non-transparent manner without advertising the post create a legal right or legitimate expectancy to regularization?
- Whether a regularization policy approved solely by the Prime Minister without the approval of the Federal Cabinet carries lawful authority?
- Are appointments made to public posts in violation of prescribed statutory rules void ab-initio?
- Ms Naheed Khan. vs Election Commission of Pakistan, etc.2017 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2017-02-06Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Tasleem Tahir vs Punjab Health Care Commission through Secretary and another2017 PLJ Lahore 443 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-13Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Shahida vs VII-Additional District Judge, Karachi and 2 others2017 YLR 1221 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-02Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Sara Ahmed Soomro Applicant vs Mrs. Sarwat UN Nisa and 4 others2017 YLR 582 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-28Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Roquaiya Farid vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and another2017 CLC 1366 · Sindh High Court · 2014-01-19Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Nusrat Kausar Gillani vs Aftab Ahmed Khan and another2017 IHC 165 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-02-24Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Nighat Saimi and another vs Province of Sindh through Secretary2017 PLD Sindh 596 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Kausar Rashid through Attorney vs Karachi Building Control2017 MLD 1363 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-11Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Kathleen M. Afzal vs Moiz Sabuwalla and 2 others2017 MLD 1137 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-23Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Ishrat Malik through Special Attorney vs Jamil Ahmad Manj and another2017 YLR 1788 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-07Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Hijab Fatima Tariq and 2 others vs Kohat Cement Co. Ltd. and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 146, 2017 CLD 436 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-14Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Hamida Suleman and another vs Sindh Building Control Authority2017 MLD 1391 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-20Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Farzana Farrukh and others vs Administrator, Pakistan Defence2017 YLR 1275 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a series of connected suits filed by college professors employed by the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, challenging an inter-office note and a policy directive that required employees who completed ten years of service to vacate staff accommodations. The core legal question was whether the allotment of official accommodation constitutes an enforceable term and condition of service, and whether civil suits for declaration and injunction against a policy directive regarding staff housing are maintainable. The Sindh High Court held that the allotment of official accommodation is not guaranteed in the employment contracts and is not a part of the statutory or contractual terms and conditions of service; rather, the employees' occupation is merely that of a licensee or tenancy at will. The Court laid down the principle that the provision of staff accommodation is a service benefit subject to policy decisions of the employer rather than an enforceable legal right, and consequently, plaints seeking to challenge such housing policies are barred and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Whether the allotment of official accommodation to an employee forms part of the terms and conditions of service?
- Can an employee maintain a civil suit to enforce the retention of staff accommodation against a policy directive of the employer?
- What is the legal status of an employee occupying staff accommodation provided by their employer?
- When is a court under an obligation to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mrs. Farhana Muzaffar vs National Accountability Bureau and 42017 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a constitutional petition initially filed for the recovery of the petitioner's husband, Muzaffar Ali Zuberi, who was subsequently found to be in the detention of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) facing allegations of massive financial corruption, embezzlement, and establishing a parallel banking system at the National Bank of Pakistan Airport Branch. The core legal questions addressed the validity of a delegation of powers notification issued by a former Chairman of NAB during the interregnum before a new Chairman took charge, and whether the accused was entitled to bail. The court held that delegated powers continue until expressly revoked and that the law knows no vacuum, meaning the interregnum between chairmen does not invalidate ongoing investigations or prosecutions. The court further established that the accused failed to provide plausible explanations or legitimate sources for numerous heavy credit entries in personal accounts during the relevant period. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, recalled the earlier post-arrest bail granted to the accused, and allowed NAB's application for bail cancellation.
Questions settled- Whether the notification issued by a former Chairman of NAB delegating powers survives the departure of the Chairman and remains valid during the interregnum until a new Chairman takes office?
- Does a gap or vacancy in the office of the Chairman NAB create a legal vacuum that invalidates inquiries and investigations initiated during such period?
- Whether bail once granted to an accused facing allegations of massive financial embezzlement under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 should be cancelled when incriminating material and unexplained bank deposits prima facie link the accused to the crime?
- Mrs. Atteeya Mahmood vs Nighat Muzaffar and Dr. Arif Shafie2017 SHC 282 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-12Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Asma Alamgir vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 IHC 88 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-04-10Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Afia Baig w/o Mirza Fawad Baig: In re vs Not2017 MLD 460 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-14Read full judgment →
- Mrs Asma Alamgir vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 IHC 88, 2017 YLR 1626 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution by a former Member of the National Assembly, Mrs. Asma Alamgir, seeking protective/transitory bail to prevent her arrest upon her return to Pakistan from abroad. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had initiated an inquiry against her regarding assets beyond means and issued a call-up notice. The petitioner sought transitory bail to safely return and surrender before the competent court and cooperate with the inquiry. NAB opposed the petition, arguing that bail cannot be granted in the absence of the accused and that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Islamabad High Court, relying on established precedents, held that protective or transitory bail is granted for a limited period solely to enable an accused to surrender before the competent court without discussing the merits of the case. Consequently, the Court granted transitory bail for 15 days, directing her to appear before the inquiry officer within 48 hours of her arrival.
Questions settled- Can a High Court grant protective or transitory bail to an accused person who is currently abroad and has not physically surrendered before the court?
- What is the primary legal purpose and scope of granting protective bail to an accused?
- Does the lack of territorial jurisdiction over the main inquiry bar a High Court from granting transitory bail to enable an accused to surrender before the competent forum?
- Mr. Shakeel Ahmad & others vs Govt of KPK2017 PHC 242 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mr. Muhammad Junaid Farooqui vs Chairman, Members and officers of the Sindh Public Service Commission (“the Commission”)2017 SCP · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an application filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution concerning large-scale illegalities, corruption, and lack of requisite qualifications among the Chairman and members of the Sindh Public Service Commission during the Combined Competitive Examination (CCE-2013). The core legal questions involved whether the Supreme Court could exercise original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) in a matter affecting public importance and fundamental rights regarding civil service recruitment, and whether the flawed selection process and improperly constituted Commission vitiated the examinations. The Supreme Court held that the petition was maintainable as the integrity of the civil service directly engages fundamental rights relating to equality, non-discrimination, and lawful professions, and that pervasive irregularities, bias, and lack of transparency rendered the CCE-2013 examination process void. The Court laid down key principles mandating strict adherence to statutory qualifications for constitutional bodies, transparency in public sector recruitment, structured discretion in appointments, and equitable safeguards for candidates when setting aside compromised examinations for a fresh, transparent rerun.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court entertain a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution regarding irregularities in public service commission appointments and competitive examinations?
- Does an improperly constituted public service commission comprising unqualified members vitiate the selection and examination process conducted under its authority?
- Whether large-scale discrepancies and lack of transparency in written tests and viva voce examinations justify setting aside a competitive examination process?
- Does the appointment of the Chairman of a Provincial Public Service Commission require adherence to Article 242(1B) of the Constitution mandating appointment by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister?
- Mr. Muhammad Junaid Farooq vs (1) Government of Sindh (2) Chairman &SCP 2017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These suo motu proceedings arose under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 pursuant to an application challenging the eligibility and appointments of the Chairman and Members of the Sindh Public Service Commission under Section 3 of the Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 1989, amid allegations of corruption and mismanagement. The Supreme Court examined the service profiles of the appointees to determine whether their appointments complied with statutory qualifications. Noting that several members including the Chairman had resigned, the Court found the appointments of two members from the civil service valid under Section 3(3) of the Act. However, it held the appointment of a member purportedly from the private sector illegal under Section 3(4), as his service in a public entity disqualified him as a private-sector appointee and he lacked the required eminence. The Court directed the Sindh Government to frame rules under Section 10 to structure discretionary appointment powers through a high-powered scrutiny committee, ensuring transparency, competence, and impeccable integrity as established in precedent.
Questions settled- Does prior service in a public sector organization disqualify a candidate from appointment as a member of the Public Service Commission under a statutory quota reserved for the private sector?
- Is the government required to structure its statutory discretion through rules to establish objective and transparent selection procedures for appointing members to a constitutional or statutory commission?
- Can the Supreme Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction scrutinize the service records and qualifications of statutory commission appointees to determine their eligibility under the governing Act?
- Mr. Muhammad Azim Khan Afridi vs The President of Pakistan through the Principal Secretary President House, Islamabad & others2017 PHC 1095 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-05Read full judgment →
- Mr. Hussain Farooq Shaikh vs Dow University of Health Sciences & another2017 SHC 148 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-02Read full judgment →
- Moulvi Iqbal Haider, Advocate and another vs Federation of Pakistan2017 PLD Sindh 464 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-21Read full judgment →
- Moulvi Dilbar and others vs Federation of Pakistan, Secretary Ministry2017 P Cr. L J 1022 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, who were convicted and sentenced to death (and ten years' rigorous imprisonment in one case) by a Field General Court Martial (FGCM) for terrorism-related offenses, challenged their convictions, sentences, and transfer of custody through writ petitions before the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. They contended that the transfer of their cases to the military court was arbitrary, the procedures adopted violated statutory protections, and their subsequent transfer to different jails was unlawful. The Chief Court observed that the military courts were established through constitutional and statutory amendments specifically to combat terrorism and safeguard national security. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that the trial of hardcore terrorists by military courts does not violate fundamental rights or the concept of a fair trial. Consequently, the Court ruled that it could not act as an appellate or revisional forum over a court of competent jurisdiction, and dismissed the writ petitions in limine.
Questions settled- Whether the trial of civilians by a Field General Court Martial under the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act 2015 violates the fundamental right to a fair trial?
- Can the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court exercise appellate or revisional jurisdiction to review or set aside judgments rendered by a Military Court?
- Whether the transfer of terrorism cases to Military Courts under the Constitution (Twenty-first Amendment) Act 2015 constitutes an unlawful encroachment on fundamental rights?
- Moulana Mufti Saifullah Jameel vs National Accountability Bureau &2017 SHC 139 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-20Read full judgment →
- Moula Bux vs The State2017 YLR 1234 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application concerning offences under Sections 302, 377, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the significant delay in his implication and the lack of incriminating evidence. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, determining that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established the principle that "further" or "supplementary" statements recorded by a complainant during an investigation are not equivalent to an FIR, lack evidentiary value, and constitute an innovation not recognized by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle of parity, noting that where co-accused have been granted relief and no incriminating material was recovered from the applicant, the applicant is entitled to similar treatment. The unexplained inordinate delay in implicating the accused cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case, justifying the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Does a 'further statement' or 'supplementary statement' recorded by a complainant during investigation have the same evidentiary value as an FIR?
- Is the principle of parity applicable when granting bail to an accused if a co-accused has already been granted relief?
- Does an unexplained inordinate delay in implicating an accused in a criminal case entitle the accused to the concession of bail?
- Under what circumstances does a criminal case require 'further inquiry' for the purpose of granting bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mosam Khan vs The State2017 PHC 620 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mosam Khan vs Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission2017 PHC 509 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-13Read full judgment →
- Molvi Muhammadin vs Muhammad Bachal and another2017 CLC 1353 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-27Read full judgment →
- Moiz Abbas through Attorney vs Mst. Latifa2017 YLR 1607 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-09Read full judgment →
- Moinuddin And Another vs The State2017 MLD 2097 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to death, along with a conviction under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the failure of the trial court to put all material incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused during their examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the trial. The Sindh High Court held that omitting to put material circumstances—such as motive, crime weapons, and ballistic reports—to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a fatal illegality not curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and it vitiates the trial and conviction. The court laid down the principle that every material piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution must be put to the accused during their section 342 examination to afford them an opportunity to explain their position.
Questions settled- Does the failure to put material incriminating evidence to an accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
- Is the omission to examine the accused regarding crucial evidence under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the legal consequence when a trial court fails to put the ballistic report, motive, and recovery of crime weapons to the accused in their statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mohsin vs The State2017 MLD 674 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Control of Narcotic Substances, Balochistan Quetta, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged transportation of heroin. The core legal questions addressed by the court relate to the legal admissibility and evidentiary value of a chemical examiner's report lacking mandatory signatures and test protocols, and whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and transmission of contraband samples. The Balochistan High Court held that a chemical examiner's report that fails to comply with the prescribed statutory form, lacks the signatures of two authorized officers, and omits necessary testing protocols and procedures cannot be treated as conclusive proof or relied upon for sustaining a conviction. Furthermore, the failure of the prosecution to produce the official who transported the samples to prove safe transit is fatal to the case. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Is a chemical examiner's report admissible as conclusive proof under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, if it fails to mention the testing protocols and procedures applied?
- Does a chemical analyst report require the signatures of two authorized officers under the Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
- What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case if the official who transported the narcotic samples to the laboratory is not produced to prove safe custody and transmission?
- Can a conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, be sustained on the basis of a non-speaking and laconic laboratory report?
- Mohsin vs The State and others2017 SCMR 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Mohsin against the State and others, stemming from FIR No. 43 of 2016 registered at Police Station Jalalpur Bhattian, District Hafizabad, under sections 367-A and 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure to warrant the grant of post-arrest bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and admitted the petitioner to bail, holding that inconsistencies between the FIR, the medico-legal certificate showing a normal anus, and the victim's statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—wherein the petitioner was not specifically named—brought the case within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that where medical evidence and the victim's judicial statement create reasonable doubt regarding the specific role of the accused, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether contradictions between the FIR, medical evidence, and a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure make a case one of further inquiry under section 497(2)?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the victim's judicial statement fails to specifically name him?
- Does the absence of supporting medical findings on a medico-legal certificate justify the grant of bail in sexual assault cases?
- Mohsin Shahzad and another vs The Secretary, Food Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 4 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 730 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns the challenge by successful candidates for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer (BS-16) against their appointment on a contract basis by the Punjab Food Department, despite being recommended for regular appointment by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The core legal question is whether the government can unilaterally convert posts intended for regular recruitment into contract appointments through an executive policy, notwithstanding the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Court held that the impugned action was illegal, ruling that an executive policy cannot override the statutory framework governing civil servant appointments. The Court emphasized that the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, provide a comprehensive mechanism for recruitment that does not authorize contract-based appointments for these posts. Furthermore, the Court found the respondents' actions discriminatory, violating Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as other similarly situated candidates were appointed on a regular basis. Consequently, the Court directed the issuance of revised orders appointing the petitioners on a regular basis with consequential benefits.
Questions settled- Can an executive policy override the statutory provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Does the government have the authority to convert posts advertised for regular recruitment into contract appointments without amending the governing law?
- Is the appointment of candidates on a contract basis, while others similarly situated are appointed on a regular basis, a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Mohsin Ihsan vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 397 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Mohsin Ihsan, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 136 registered under sections 409, 419, 420, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, section 30 of the NADRA Ordinance, and section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, concerning allegations of illegally processing Computerized National Identity Cards for non-nationals. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the grant of post-arrest bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the investigation was incomplete, and the petitioner's criminal culpability required further inquiry at trial. Consequently, the court accepted the bail application and granted post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is charged with offences not falling within the prohibitory clause and investigation is ongoing, tentative assessment of the material warrants the concession of bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and investigation is incomplete?
- Do observations made by the High Court in bail disposition orders influence the trial court during the appraisal of evidence?
- Can bail granted by the High Court be recalled if the petitioner delays the investigation or departmental inquiry?
- Mohd. Yahya Mohd. Yousuf Bari vs Roomana Yousuf Ali and 2 others2017 CLC 676 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an appellate court order that had directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate the demised premises on the ground of the landlady's bona fide personal need for her husband's business. The core legal question was whether the landlady established a bona fide requirement when her husband remained employed abroad and had not yet resigned. The Court held that a landlord is not required to remain idle or unemployed while awaiting the outcome of protracted litigation to prove the bona fides of their personal need. The Court affirmed that the husband's intention to return to Pakistan upon obtaining possession of the premises was a reasonable and sufficient explanation. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the settled principle that a tenant cannot dictate or choose which premises a landlord should use for their business, as the selection of premises remains the exclusive prerogative and discretion of the landlord. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the appellate court's findings, while granting the petitioner four months to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Does a landlord need to be unemployed or idle to prove the bona fide personal need for a rented premises?
- Can a tenant or a rent controller dictate which premises a landlord must use for their business?
- Is the landlord's intention to return from employment abroad upon obtaining possession of the premises sufficient to establish bona fide personal need?
- Mohan Mal through Attorney vs Government of Sindh through Secretary2017 YLR 1052 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-22Read full judgment →
- Mohammed Karim Khan Agha, JJ Aamir Ali and 2 others vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1451 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the convictions of the appellants for kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and violations of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt despite significant evidentiary discrepancies. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with material contradictions, including the unexplained release of a co-accused from whom the alleged ransom-demanding mobile phone was recovered, the lack of independent corroboration, and the failure to establish the ransom demand. The Court found the investigation dishonest and the evidence unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any single infirmity creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.
Questions settled- Does the release of a co-accused by the police during investigation, from whom incriminating evidence was allegedly recovered, undermine the prosecution's case against other accused?
- Is a single infirmity in the prosecution's evidence sufficient to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused in a criminal trial?
- What is the impact of a dishonest investigation on the court's appraisal of the remaining prosecution evidence?
- Can a conviction for kidnapping for ransom be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the demand for ransom through independent corroborative evidence?
- Mohammed Faizal K.A. vs D. Sali and Ors.2017 SCInd 1259 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-10-04Read full judgment →
- Mohammed Ansari vs Union of India and ors.2017 SCInd 435 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-02-02Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Zulfiqar vs Court of Assistant Commissioner and 4 others2017 P Cr. L J 299 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal application filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of proceedings pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate/Assistant Commissioner, Gulberg and North Nazimabad, initiated upon a police report regarding an apprehension of breach of peace over a residential property. The applicant contended that civil litigation between the parties concerning the subject property had previously taken place and that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction. The High Court examined whether the issuance of a notice under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constituted an abuse of process warranting interference. The Court held that proceedings under Section 145 are preventive, temporary, and subservient to findings of civil courts. However, where the Magistrate merely issued a notice based on an apprehension of a breach of peace and had not passed a conflicting order regarding title or possession, such action did not amount to an abuse of court process. Finding no extraordinary circumstances, the High Court dismissed the application for quashment.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be quashed under Section 561-A CrPC where the Magistrate merely issued a notice upon an apprehension of breach of peace?
- What is the effect of pending or concluded civil litigation on the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to take preventive action under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a notice issued under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on a police report an illegal act amounting to an abuse of court process?
- Mohammad Zaheer and anothe vs Ghaffar Ahmed and another2021 [M] C L R 301, 2017 CLC 892 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-22Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Waqas Malik, Advocate vs Islamabad Bar Council through Secretary and 2 others2017 CLC 1173 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Uris vs Zawar Haji and 3 others2017 CLC 1090 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-19Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Shafiq ur Rehman vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2017 LHC 870 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-15Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Sarwar vs Government of Sindh and others2017 SHC 261 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff filed a suit for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, against government and police officials for the custodial death of his son, Muhammad Shakeel, who died due to torture while in the custody of the Crime Investigation Agency (CIA). The core legal questions involved whether the deceased died a wrongful custodial death due to the defendants' acts, whether the suit was within limitation, and whether the government was vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees. The Sindh High Court held that the deceased died from torture inflicted while in custody, that the suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was filed within the prescribed one-year limitation period, and that the provincial government and responsible officials were vicariously liable to pay compensation. The court laid down the principle that the state and its employers are vicariously liable for the wrongful acts and torts committed by public servants in the course of their duty, and that standards of proof in civil and criminal cases are distinct, meaning a criminal acquittal does not bar civil tort liability.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for damages for custodial death is maintainable under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
- Whether the acquittal of police officials in a criminal complaint bars civil proceedings for damages based on the same incident?
- Is the Provincial Government vicariously liable for the tortious acts and custodial violence committed by police officials in the course of their employment?
- What is the applicable period of limitation for filing a suit for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
- Mohammad Saleem and another vs The State through Additional2017 YLR 2170 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-03-14Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Sajjad and 2 others vs Neelum Shaheen and another2017 YLR 2481 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-03-15Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Raziq vs Mst. Farhana Bibi2017 PHC 685 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-05Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Rafique, etc vs Mohammad Mansha, etc2017 [RI] C.L.R. 1154 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-09Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Rafique vs Gui. Mohammad and others2017 YLR 308 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-14Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Mohsin vs Federal Government and 3 others2017 YLR 1229 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-10Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Maqsood Khan vs Raja Mohammad Naseer Khan & 4 others2017 SCR 1302 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-01Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Latif and 77 others vs Collector Land Acquisition Mangla2017 YLR 641 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-11-11Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Jawad and Mohammad Haseeb vs The State2017 SHC 339 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under Sections 384/386/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act 2013 for extortion and unlawful possession of arms. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and whether the Anti-Terrorism Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to try the offense. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from material contradictions, doubtful recoveries, and unconvincing evidence. Furthermore, the court held that a mere allegation of demanding extortion money (bhatta), without creating public panic, fear, or a sense of insecurity, does not attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, thereby depriving the Anti-Terrorism Court of jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, extending the benefit of the doubt to acquit the appellants.
Questions settled- Does a mere allegation of demanding extortion without creating public panic or a sense of insecurity attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Does an Anti-Terrorism Court have jurisdiction to try cases of simple extortion where the element of terrorism is missing?
- Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right?
- Mohammad Iqbal Khawaja vs Imtiaz Haider, Director (SMD), SECP and another2017 CLD 1026 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2015-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ilyas Khan vs Mohammad Hanif and 12 others2017 PLJ AJ&K 225, 2017 YLR 1039 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-01-10Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ilyas Khan vs Mohammad Hanif & others2017 PLJ AJ&K 225 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-01-10Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Hussain vs Allah Ditta2017 YLR 1249 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged concurrent judgments dismissing a declaratory suit concerning an alleged fraudulent oral sale mutation. The petitioner asserted that the subject land was intended for mortgage, not sale, and that the respondent fraudulently obtained a sale mutation. The core legal question was whether the respondent, as the beneficiary of the disputed mutation, successfully proved the sale transaction and payment of consideration after the petitioner denied the transaction. The High Court held that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof, noting that the respondent did not appear in court, failed to produce the revenue officer who attested the mutation, and relied on contradictory witness testimony. The Court ruled that mutation entries are summary proceedings and do not confer title; thus, when an executant denies the transaction, the beneficiary must independently prove the sale and payment of consideration. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it may interfere with concurrent findings under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where lower courts have misread or ignored material evidence, rendering the findings perverse.
Questions settled- Does a mutation entry in revenue records confer title to property?
- When does the burden of proof shift to the beneficiary of an oral sale mutation?
- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the admission of a thumb impression on a document automatically prove its contents when fraud is alleged?
- Mohammad Betham vs Inayat and 2 others2017 YLR 2227 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-04-26Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Azam vs Azam and 2 others2017 P Cr. L J 302 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli, which closed the evidence of several prosecution witnesses (P.W.5, 7, 8, and 9) due to the prosecution's failure to produce them. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in closing the prosecution's evidence when official witnesses failed to appear despite the issuance of court processes. The Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the trial court acted with illegality by failing to exercise its coercive powers to ensure the attendance of official witnesses. The Court emphasized that once a trial court initiates the process to summon witnesses, it is the court's duty to ensure compliance rather than shifting the burden to the complainant. The judgment establishes the principle that trial courts must utilize legal mechanisms—such as warrants, contempt proceedings, or disciplinary referrals for official witnesses—to secure attendance. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to ensure the attendance of the witnesses and conclude the trial within three months.
Questions settled- Is a trial court justified in closing prosecution evidence when official witnesses fail to appear despite the issuance of court summons?
- Does a trial court have the authority to initiate disciplinary action against official witnesses who deliberately avoid court processes?
- What legal measures can a court employ to ensure the attendance of witnesses who fail to comply with summons or warrants?
- Mohammad Ayub Fazlani vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary2017 PLJ Karachi 1, 2017 PLC (C.S.) 362 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged a notification repatriating him to his parent department, the Sindh Small Industries Corporation, after he had been permanently absorbed into the Malir Development Authority (MDA). The core legal question was whether a civil servant, validly absorbed into a new department under Rule 9-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, could be unilaterally repatriated to their parent department after being declared surplus. The High Court held that the repatriation was unlawful and contrary to the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in the case of Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh. The court found that the petitioner’s absorption was validly executed under Rule 9-A, and the subsequent attempt to repatriate him violated the settled legal position regarding the permanent absorption of surplus employees. The court affirmed that decisions of the Supreme Court regarding questions of law are binding on all courts under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and that once a civil servant is permanently absorbed under Rule 9-A, they cannot be arbitrarily repatriated.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant who has been permanently absorbed into a government department under Rule 9-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 be repatriated to their parent department?
- Is a decision of the Supreme Court regarding a question of law binding on all courts in Pakistan under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the absorption of a surplus employee under Rule 9-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 constitute a permanent appointment?
- Mohammad Anees vs Abdul Hameed and 3 others2017 YLR 325 · Sindh High Court · 2013-09-28Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Amin Shah and 24 others vs Sheraz Khan and another2017 MLD 950 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-05-04Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ali vs Karakoram Cooperative Bank Ltd. (KCBL) through General Manager Head Office, KCBL2017 MLD 2003 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ali vs Karakoram Cooperative Bank Limited (KCBL) through General Manager2017 MLD 2003, 2017 CLD 1749 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ali Akhtar and 13 others vs Provincial Government of Gilgit-Baltistan through Chief Secretary and 12 others2017 PLC (C.S) 40 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, government servants, filed a writ petition challenging the terms and conditions for the allotment of government quarters issued by the District House Allotment Committee, Skardu, and sought the cancellation of allotment orders issued to respondents Nos. 5 to 12. The core legal questions were whether the government is legally obligated to consult licensees (the petitioners) before framing allotment policies for government quarters, and whether a writ petition is maintainable to challenge the contractual relationship between the state as a custodian and the petitioners as licensees. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners, as licensees, possess no legal right to dictate the terms of allotment or demand consultation. The Court further held that the relationship between the custodian and the licensee is contractual in nature, rendering a writ petition non-maintainable. The key principle laid down is that a licensee has no inherent right to challenge the administrative policy governing the allotment of government property, provided the allotments are made in accordance with merit and the custodian's authority.
Questions settled- Is the government legally obligated to consult licensees before framing terms and conditions for the allotment of government quarters?
- Is a writ petition maintainable to challenge the contractual relationship between a government custodian and a licensee regarding the allotment of government quarters?
- Does a licensee have an inherent right to dictate or challenge the administrative policy governing the allotment of government property?
- Mohamad Nasir Khan & another vs Muhammad Ateeq and others2017 SHC 154 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-07Read full judgment →
- Moazzam Habib, etc vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1468 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zainab vs State and another2017 P Cr. L J 1241, PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 27 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the offence of fornication. The core legal question was whether a trial court could legally take cognizance of an offence under Section 496-B, PPC, based on a police report (FIR) rather than a formal complaint, given the specific procedural requirements of Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the police acted with mala fide intent by artificially inserting Section 496-A, PPC, into the FIR to bypass the non-cognizable nature of the offence of fornication and avoid the mandatory complaint procedure. The Court ruled that the trial court erred by proceeding with the trial despite the absence of a formal complaint and the failure to follow the mandatory examination procedures prescribed by Section 203-C, Cr.P.C. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment establishes that strict compliance with the complaint mechanism under Section 203-C, Cr.P.C. is a jurisdictional prerequisite for prosecuting the offence of fornication under Section 496-B, PPC.
Questions settled- Can a trial court take cognizance of an offence under Section 496-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on a police report rather than a formal complaint?
- Does the insertion of a cognizable offence in an FIR to bypass the procedural requirements for a non-cognizable offence constitute a valid legal basis for trial?
- Is strict compliance with the complaint mechanism under Section 203-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, mandatory for the prosecution of fornication?
- Mist. Hakim Jan, widow of Ali Dad Khan, r/o Rajpothi, Tehsil & District2017 SC AJK 63 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Miss Zaibunisa Khan and others vs The University of Health Sciences2017 MLD 617 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-09Read full judgment →
- Miss Tayaba vs Vice-Chancellor, Quaid-Awam Engineering University2017 MLD 1267 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-28Read full judgment →