Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Haroon-ur-Rasheed s/o Mir Zaman Awan, r/o Challah Bandi,2017 SC AJK 287 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Haroon Zia Malik vs Mst. Fariha Razzak2017 SHC 351 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-21Read full judgment →
• Haroon Rashid vs The State2017 PHC 1067 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
• Haroon Munir vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 328 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-01
  pre-arrest bailSales Tax ActAppellate Tribunal Inland Revenuemala fidecriminal investigationbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by Haroon Munir, Mushtaq Ahmad, and Naseer Ahmad in connection with FIR No. 11/16, registered at Police Station I&P Branch, RTO, Faisalabad, for alleged offences under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given that the underlying order passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue, which formed the basis of the criminal case, had been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal, Inland Revenue. The court observed that the Department (FBR) had not challenged the Appellate Tribunal's order, rendering the prosecution's case currently unsustainable. Furthermore, the petitioners were noted to be previous non-convicts who had fully cooperated with the investigation. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that the existence of the Appellate Tribunal's order, which nullified the basis of the criminal proceedings, created a strong case for mala fide implication. The court granted liberty to the Department to seek cancellation of bail should the Appellate Tribunal's order be subsequently overturned by a higher forum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the underlying administrative order forming the basis of the FIR has been set aside by an appellate authority?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to challenge an appellate order that nullifies the basis of a criminal case entitle the accused to bail?
  • Can the prosecution seek cancellation of bail if the appellate order supporting the accused's position is subsequently set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• Haroon Khan and another vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 438 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-02
  post-arrest bailnarcotics traffickingfurther inquiryconscious knowledgerecovery from vehicleControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners, Haroon Khan and Muhammad Saeed, who were charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the alleged possession and trafficking of 8400 grams of charas recovered from a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the recovery of narcotics from the vehicle they occupied. The Court held that the driver, Haroon Khan, exercised control over the vehicle and thus reasonable grounds existed to believe he committed the offence, bringing his case within the restrictive limbs of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, leading to the dismissal of his bail plea. Conversely, regarding the co-accused, Muhammad Saeed, who was a passenger, the Court held that his conscious knowledge of the concealed narcotics remained a matter for the trial court to determine after evidence, thereby establishing a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to Muhammad Saeed while dismissing the application of the driver.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle justify the denial of bail to the driver of said vehicle?
  • Is a passenger in a vehicle containing narcotics entitled to bail when their conscious knowledge of the contraband is not immediately apparent?
  • When does a case for 'further inquiry' arise in the context of bail applications for narcotics offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Harjas Rai Makhija (D) THR. LRS. vs Pushparani Jain & Anr.2017 SCInd 33 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-01-02Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs The State2017 YLR 360 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-05-08
  qatl-e-amdwaiver of qisascompromiseta'zirfasad-fil-arzhonour killingcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge Diamer, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment for the murder of two minors. The core legal question was whether a trial court can convict an accused under Section 311, P.P.C. as ta'zir after a valid compromise and waiver of qisas by the legal heirs under Sections 309 and 310, P.P.C., and whether a compromise can be treated as incriminating evidence. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that once a genuine compromise and waiver of qisas are effected by the legal heirs, and the statutory pre-requisites or disqualifying criteria under Section 311, P.P.C. and its explanation are not met, the trial court is bound to acquit the accused pursuant to Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down that a compromise in a criminal case cannot be used as incriminating evidence against the accused, and that Section 311, P.P.C. cannot be applied to render the composition provisions redundant or misapplied to cases lacking the requisite aggravating factors of fasad-fil-arz or previous criminality.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court convict an accused under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after a valid compromise and waiver of qisas by the legal heirs?
  • Whether a compromise effected between the parties in a criminal case can be treated as incriminating evidence against the accused?
  • What are the pre-requisites and disqualifying criteria for the application of Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 as ta'zir after the waiver or compounding of qisas?
  • Is the trial court under a legal obligation to order an acquittal under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the composition of the offence by the legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Haq Dad vs The Customs, Sales Tax and Federal Excise Appellate2017 PTD 488 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-12
  Customs ReferenceAdjudication proceedingsProsecution proceedingsConfiscation of goodsAppellate TribunalRemandCustoms Act 1969
  Summary & questions settled

  This Customs Reference challenged an order passed by the Customs, Sales Tax and Federal Excise Appellate Tribunal regarding the confiscation of gold ornaments. The core legal question was whether the Appellate Tribunal could rely on findings from separate criminal prosecution proceedings to determine factual disputes in adjudication proceedings, or if it was required to render an independent finding. The Peshawar High Court held that adjudication proceedings and prosecution proceedings under the Customs Act, 1969 are distinct, separate, and must operate independently of one another. The Court determined that the Tribunal erred by basing its decision on the findings of the Special Judge Customs rather than conducting its own independent factual assessment. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh, independent determination of the factual issues involved. The principle established is that the Appellate Tribunal, as the final forum for factual disputes, must independently adjudicate matters rather than relying on the outcome of separate criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Are adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1969 distinct and separate from criminal prosecution proceedings?
  • Is the Appellate Tribunal required to render an independent determination of factual disputes rather than relying on findings from separate criminal proceedings?
  • Does the failure of the Appellate Tribunal to independently consider the contentions of a petitioner in adjudication proceedings constitute a legal error?
  Read full judgment →
• Haq Bahu Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad and others2017 PLC 90 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-06
  constitutional petitionsine die adjournmentcontempt petitionreview petitionstay of proceedingslabour court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court to challenge an order passed by the Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, which had adjourned a contempt petition sine die based solely on a party's oral statement that a review petition had been filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether a court can adjourn proceedings sine die merely upon the filing of a review petition in a higher forum without proof or a stay order. The High Court held that the mere filing of a review petition before the Supreme Court does not operate as an automatic stay or warrant adjourning pending proceedings for an indefinite period. Consequently, the petition was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the Labour Court was directed to decide the pending matter within three months. The key principle laid down is that pending proceedings before any court cannot be adjourned sine die without a formal stay order or valid legal justification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere filing of a review petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan operate as an automatic stay of proceedings in a lower court?
  • Can a court adjourn a case sine die solely on the verbal statement of a party regarding pending proceedings in a higher forum?
  • Whether proceedings before a court of law can be adjourned for an indefinite period without valid legal justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Hanzla Ahsan vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 79 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-28
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurderpolice investigation reportcriminal conspiracyocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Hanzla Ahsan, who was accused of murder alongside several co-accused. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, armed with a chhura, participated in the attack on the deceased, Nasir Mehmood. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the lack of specific injury attribution and the findings of the police investigation. The Court observed that the injuries attributed to the petitioner were not descriptive of specific locales on the victim's body. Furthermore, the report prepared under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 indicated that the petitioner was found empty-handed during the investigation. The Court held that police opinion regarding the petitioner's involvement could be considered at the bail stage. Finding that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's own investigation casts doubt on the specific role or weapon possession of an accused, the case warrants further inquiry for bail purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Can police opinion regarding an accused's involvement be considered during the disposal of a bail application?
  • Does the lack of specific injury attribution to an accused justify the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Is a bail application maintainable when the police investigation report contradicts the prosecution's allegations regarding weapon possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamood Mehmood vs Mst. Shabana Ishaque and others2017 SCMR 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-08-25
  Specific performanceAgreement enforcementDefiance of court orderDeposit of amountDismissal of suitLeave to appealSpecific Relief Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a petition seeking the reversal of a High Court of Sindh judgment dated 23.6.2017, pertaining to specific performance of an agreement. The core legal question addressed was whether a petitioner, who had shown complete defiance to court orders and failed to deposit the balance amount for property sought to be acquired through an agreement, was entitled to relief. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner had not complied with the court's order to deposit the balance amount, even after being given an opportunity. The Court held that it is mandatory for any person, whether plaintiff or defendant, seeking enforcement of an agreement under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, to apply to the Court for permission to deposit the balance amount on first appearance or on the date of institution of the suit. Any contumacious omission in this regard would lead to the dismissal of the suit or its decretal if filed by the other side. Finding no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declined leave to appeal.

  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Mehmood vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 72 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-02
  post-arrest bailSection 497 CrPCSection 302 PPCfurther inquiryunexplained delayeyewitness credibilitydelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in an FIR registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The central issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the unexplained delay by prosecution eye-witnesses in identifying the accused and discrepancies in their statements before the trial court. The High Court noted that the eyewitnesses remained silent for several days after the incident before informing the deceaseds' father, failed to explain how they identified the deceased girls, and one witness testified that his signature was obtained on a blank paper by the Investigating Officer. The Court held that these circumstances rendered the guilt of the petitioner a matter requiring further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on the principle that unexplained delays and contradictory witness statements justify bail under the doctrine of further inquiry. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay by alleged eye-witnesses in reporting the occurrence bring the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • Whether contradictions in prosecution witness testimonies during trial entitle an accused person to post-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when key prosecution witnesses allege that police obtained their signatures on blank papers?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameed, etc. vs Abdul Qadeer, etc.2017 LHC 2766 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-07
  civil revisionlimited ownerfull ownerrefugee female allotteemutation of inheritancecollateral successionlimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts in favor of the respondents, declaring them entitled to inheritance as collaterals of the deceased owner, Allah Bakhsh. The core legal question involved whether a refugee female allottee holding land as a limited owner under custom becomes a full owner by operation of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Doubts) Act, 1975, when no prior decree or order existed declaring her a full owner, and whether the one-year limitation period to challenge the same bars the collaterals' suit filed after her death. The court held that in the absence of any prior judicial or administrative order declaring the widow a full owner during her lifetime, the one-year limitation period under Sections 2 and 3 of the Act of 1975 does not apply to time-bar a challenge brought upon her death when the inheritance mutation was first sanctioned. The key principle laid down is that the limitation period for challenging a refugee female's status under the 1975 Act is triggered only where a prior decree, judgment, or order has explicitly treated her as a full owner, and civil courts retain jurisdiction to determine the true nature of her holding upon her death.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the one-year limitation period under Sections 2 and 3 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Doubts) Act, 1975 applies to bar a suit where no prior decree, judgment, or order declared a refugee female allottee as a full owner during her lifetime?
  • Does a civil court possess jurisdiction to determine the validity of an alienation and the status of a deceased refugee female widow as a limited or full owner?
  • Are collaterals entitled to inherit from the estate of a deceased male owner whose widow held the property as a limited owner under custom upon the death of such widow?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameed, etc vs Abdul Qadeer, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1696 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-07Read full judgment →
• Hameed Ullah Khan, etc vs Divisional Superintendent Pakistan2017 PLJ Lahore 289 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-20Read full judgment →
• Hameed Khan and Co., Chartered Accountant vs Head of Department2017 CLD 1049 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2015-08-11Read full judgment →
• Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences And Research (Himsr) & Anr vs Union of India and Ors2017 SCInd 1302 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-09-08Read full judgment →
• Hamad Ahsan Farid vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited through its2017 [M] C.L.R. 758 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-16Read full judgment →
• Halima vs Sift Khan and 3 others2017 YLR 2456 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-08-24Read full judgment →
• Haleem and others vs The State2017 SCMR 709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-10-19
  acquittalreappraisal of evidencedoubtful FIRdelayed autopsyinconsistent evidenceocular accountmedical evidenceweapon recoveryforensic evidencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns appeals filed by Haleem and others against a Lahore High Court judgment that converted their convictions from sections 302, 148, 149, and 460 PPC to section 396 PPC, altering some death sentences to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court undertook a reappraisal of the entire evidence. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's case, particularly concerning the delayed FIR, inconsistent ocular account with medical evidence regarding the distance of the gunshot, non-recovery of the alleged light source (lantern), and questionable weapon and crime empty recoveries. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to these significant inconsistencies and doubts. Consequently, all appellants were acquitted, and their convictions and sentences were set aside. The judgment emphasizes that unexplained delays in FIR and autopsy, material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and dishonest investigation render the prosecution's narrative unreliable, benefiting the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can unexplained delay in conducting postmortem examination cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Whether inconsistencies between ocular account and medical evidence can negate the presence of witnesses at the crime scene?
  • Can non-recovery of a crucial light source mentioned by witnesses render identification of assailants doubtful?
  • Does dishonest improvement in witness statements regarding specific roles of accused make their testimony unreliable?
  • When can the recovery of alleged crime empties and weapons be considered inconsequential in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Halappa vs Malik Sab2017 SCInd 1363 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-12-15Read full judgment →
• Hakmin Zafar and anothers vs The State and others2017 YLR 232 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-06
  vicarious liabilitycommon intentionbenefit of doubtovert actanti-terrorismcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions of Hakmin Zafar and Imran Arshad, who were sentenced by an Anti-Terrorism Court for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the appellants, who were admittedly empty-handed and performed no overt acts during the incident, could be held vicariously liable for the crimes committed by their co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that mere presence at the scene of an occurrence, without evidence of an overt act or a shared common intention, is insufficient to invoke the principle of vicarious liability under Section 34 or Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms that vicarious liability requires proof of a common intention, which must be inferred from external acts, not mere association.

  Questions settled

  • Is mere presence at the scene of a crime sufficient to establish vicarious liability under Section 34 or Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Must the prosecution prove an overt act to establish common intention for vicarious liability?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to attribute any specific act or motive to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali vs The State and others2017 P Cr. L J 603 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-12
  pre-arrest bailtheft of electricitydetection billcriminal misappropriationnational resourcesmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Hakim Ali seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 152 registered under section 462-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ahmad Yar, Pakpattan, concerning the theft of electricity. The core legal question is whether the deposit of a detection bill by an accused charged with electricity theft constitutes a sufficient ground for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the mere deposit of a detection bill, even if paid in full, does not furnish a valid ground for granting pre-arrest bail for the theft of national resources, particularly when the petitioner fails to establish mala fide or malice on the part of the complainant department or the police. The court laid down the principle that granting pre-arrest bail under such circumstances would encourage offenders to evade accountability, and consequently, the petition for pre-arrest bail was dismissed and the interim pre-arrest bail was recalled.

  Questions settled

  • Does the payment of a detection bill constitute a valid ground for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in cases of electricity theft?
  • Is proof of mala fide or malice on the part of the complainant department or police a prerequisite for the grant of pre-arrest bail under section 462-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Coal Mines2017 CLC 979 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-18Read full judgment →
• Hajj Organizers Association of Pakistan through Authorized Officer2017 MLD 1616 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-16
  Hajj policyquota allocationvested rightspromissory estoppeljudicial reviewfundamental rightsadministrative lawinjunction
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs, an association of Hajj Group Organizers (HGOs), challenged the government's decision to reduce the private sector Hajj quota from 50% to 40% for the 2017 Hajj Policy, arguing it violated vested rights under a 2013 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and their fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether the government could unilaterally alter the quota system despite the MoU and whether such reduction constituted an arbitrary exercise of power. The court dismissed the injunction application, holding that the government possesses the exclusive authority to review and reframe Hajj policies annually based on public interest and changing expediencies. The court ruled that the MoU did not create an eternal vested right that would preclude the government from adjusting quotas. Emphasizing the principle of trichotomy of powers, the court held that policy-making is an executive domain, subject to judicial review only if mala fide, arbitrary, or unconstitutional. The court further affirmed that the freedom of trade under Article 18 is a qualified right, subject to reasonable state regulation in the public interest.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) create an eternal vested right that prevents the government from adjusting Hajj quotas in future policies?
  • Is the allocation of Hajj quotas a policy-making domain of the executive that is generally immune from judicial interference?
  • Can the freedom of trade and business under Article 18 of the Constitution be restricted by the government in the interest of public policy?
  • Does the doctrine of promissory estoppel apply to prevent the government from altering Hajj quota policies based on public interest and changing circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Hajj Organizers Association of Pakistan & others vs Federation of Pakistan2017 SHC 248 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Shahid Hussain and others vs The State and another2017 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-02-22
  bail petitionHajj fraudfake travel agencyconstitutional jurisdictionsuo motu directivesstatutory obligationsMinistry of Religious Affairs
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing their pre-arrest bail petition in a case involving charges of fraud and running a fake travel agency that collected millions from citizens under the guise of arranging Hajj pilgrimages. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the gravity and prevalence of widespread Hajj and Umrah frauds. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners were prima facie connected to the heinous crime and that courts must treat such religious frauds with strictness. The Court laid down the principle that regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies, and the Ministry of Religious Affairs have a strict constitutional and statutory obligation to proactively prevent unauthorized Hajj tour operations, and issued comprehensive directives under Articles 184(3), 187, and 5(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan to mandate public awareness campaigns, updated official registries, and strict monitoring to curb fraudulent travel scams.

  Questions settled

  • Whether petitioners accused of running a fake Hajj travel agency and defrauding the public are entitled to the concession of bail?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the power under the Constitution to issue directives to government ministries and law enforcement agencies to curb fraudulent tour operations?
  • What are the statutory and constitutional obligations of state authorities and ministries in preventing widespread public scams relating to religious pilgrimages?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Rab Nawaz vs Chief Executive (PESCO) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 7 others2017 YLR 839 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Nek Amal vs Dr. Suhail Baluch and others2017 MLD 711 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-03-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Naib Shah vs Dastgul2017 MLD 872 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-11-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Yunus vs (1) Haji Usman (2) Abdul Sattar2017 SHC 392 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Umar---Appellant vs Taj Muhammad and another---2017 MLD 1691 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-17
  acquittal appealdishonoured chequedouble presumption of innocencecivil liabilityappraisal of evidencemala fide intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Quetta, which set aside the trial court's conviction of respondent No. 1 for issuing dishonoured cheques arising from a buffalo sale transaction and acquitted him. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the appellate court was justified in acquitting the respondent and whether interference was warranted in an appeal against acquittal where cheques were presented long after expiry and civil disputes existed between the parties. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an accused acquitted by a competent court enjoys a double presumption of innocence, and interference is unwarranted unless the acquittal order is arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or based on a misreading of evidence. The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil liabilities, especially when cheques are presented beyond the statutory limitation period with mala fide intent.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of appraisal of evidence in an appeal against acquittal compared to an appeal against conviction?
  • Does an order of acquittal attach a double presumption of innocence to the accused?
  • Can criminal proceedings be maintained for dishonoured cheques presented long after their date of expiry when civil litigation exists between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Nawaz vs Samina Kanwal and others2017 SCMR 321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-08
  Execution of decreeDowry articlesFamily CourtMarket valueGolden ornamentsDelay in executionEquity and justiceCode of Civil ProcedureWest Pakistan Family Courts ActLeave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from execution proceedings of a Family Court decree for the recovery of dowry articles. The central legal question concerned whether an executing court could direct payment of the market value of golden ornaments at the date of payment, rather than the value fixed in the original decree, especially after a decade-long delay in execution. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the executing court was fully justified in ordering payment of the current market value of golden ornaments to ensure the decree's enforcement in its true spirit. It was clarified that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not strictly apply to Family Court proceedings, which are governed by general principles of equity, justice, and fair play. The Court reasoned that the alternative monetary value for dowry articles, fixed at the time of the decree, cannot remain static indefinitely, and directing payment at the prevalent market rate does not constitute going beyond the terms of the decree.

  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Naeem vs Siraj-Ud-Din and 6 others2017 PLD Balochistan 65 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-04-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Naeem vs Muhammad Younas and others2017 P Cr. L J 1113 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-01-01
  criminal acquittal appealbenefit of doubtcontradictions in evidenceocular accountmedical evidencerecoverydouble presumption of innocencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case alleged that the respondents shot and killed the complainant's brother and were apprehended at the scene by Levies personnel. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular and corroborative evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses suffered from glaring contradictions, dishonest improvements, and unnatural conduct, rendering their presence at the scene highly doubtful. The court reaffirmed that medical and corroborative evidence, such as recoveries, cannot sustain a conviction when the primary ocular account is untrustworthy, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal order and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor contradictions and improvements in the statements of eyewitnesses destroy the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Can corroborative evidence like medical reports and weapon recoveries sustain a conviction when the ocular account is rejected?
  • What is the legal effect of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person regarding the guilt of the accused?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Mir Ilyas and others vs Haji Gul Badshah and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 286 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Lal Muhammad vs State through Advocate General of KPK and 52017 PLJ Peshawar 8 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Khan Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs, and others vs Muhammad2017 YLR 942 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan Bhatti vs Province of Sindh through Provincial Election2017 PLJ SC 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  local government electionsreserved seatsdistrict councilurban and rural areaselectoral rollsnomination papers rejectionsindh local government act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for a reserved seat for the District Council, Naushero Feroz, under the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013. The Returning Officer, Appellate Authority, and High Court concurrently held that the petitioner, being an enrolled voter in an urban area (Municipal Committee, Moro), was ineligible to contest a reserved seat on a District Council constituted exclusively for the rural area. The core legal question was whether a candidate for a reserved seat of a District Council must be an enrolled voter within the rural area of the District or could be drawn from any electoral roll across the entire revenue District, including urban areas. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 35(1)(c) of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013 requires a candidate for an indirectly elected reserved seat of a Council to be an enrolled voter within the local limits and constituency of that very Council. The key principle laid down is that representation on a reserved seat is restricted to the local limits and specific constituency of the Council, thereby barring voters of urban councils from contesting reserved seats in rural District Councils.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate for a reserved seat of a District Council must be an enrolled voter of the rural area of the District?
  • Does Section 35(1)(c) of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013 permit an urban voter to contest a reserved seat in a rural District Council?
  • What is the distinction between the terms 'Ward' and 'the Council' under Section 35(1)(c) of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Faqir Khan vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 1017 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-04
  post-arrest bailemigration fraudfurther inquirypreliminary inquirydelay in FIRalternative punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Haji Faqir Khan, who was charged under sections 18(b) and 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly extorting money under the false promise of employment abroad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps and the nature of the alleged offence. The Court observed that the prosecution's case relied on an agreement deed involving a witness whose statement had not been recorded, and there was ambiguity regarding whether the complainant was cheated or traveled abroad voluntarily. Furthermore, the Court noted that the accused was not directly named in the FIR and was charged only after a significant delay of two and a half years. Holding that the offences carried alternative punishments of fine and that refusing bail would effectively amount to punishment without trial, the Court granted the bail petition. The key principle established is that where the prosecution's case requires further inquiry and the potential punishment includes a fine, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the offence charged carries an alternative punishment of a fine?
  • Does a significant delay in charging an accused in the FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Should bail be granted when the prosecution's evidence regarding the alleged extortion remains uncorroborated by witness statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Bakhtiar and 11 others vs Syed Munawar Shah Bacha2017 YLR 388 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Bahadar Hilal vs Managing Director, F.D.C. Offices Hayatabad, Peshawar and 9 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 257 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Amir Rahman and others vs Government QF Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 YLR 564, PLJ 2D17 Peshawar 90 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Amir Rahman and 3 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 YLR 564 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-07Read full judgment →
• Haider Zaman vs The State etc2017 PHC 870 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
• Haider Industries vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2017 CL. 332 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-12Read full judgment →
• Haider Ali vs The State & another2017 PHC 911 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-26Read full judgment →
• Haider Abbas vs FPSC through its Chairman2017 PLJ SC 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-24
  CSS Competitive Examinationquota allocationmerit quotawomen's quotaFederal Public Service Commissionrecruitment policyservice vacancy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a candidate in the CSS Competitive Examination-2011 from the Gilgit-Baltistan-FATA region, sought reallocation from the Inland Revenue Service to the Foreign Service. He argued that a vacancy in the Foreign Service, originally allocated to a female candidate under the women's quota who failed to join, should have been offered to him as a merit candidate. Additionally, he contended that a vacancy in the Foreign Service during the 2010 examination was improperly created due to insufficient quota fractions and should have been carried forward to 2011. The Supreme Court held that vacancies allocated to specific quotas, such as the women's quota, must be filled by candidates from that same category and cannot be transferred to merit quota candidates. Furthermore, the Court found that the allocation of vacancies in the 2010 examination was consistent with the established recruitment policy and rules. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Federal Public Service Commission's rejection of the petitioner's claim, noting that the representation was also time-barred, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vacancy reserved for a specific quota, such as the women's quota, be filled by a candidate from the merit quota if the original selectee fails to join?
  • Is the allocation of vacancies based on quota fractions in competitive examinations subject to judicial interference if it complies with the recruitment policy?
  • Does a candidate have a legal right to claim a vacancy that was reserved for a different quota category in a competitive examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider Abbas vs FPSC through Chairman2017 PLJ SC 344, 2017 SCMR 612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-24
  CSS competitive examinationquota systemallocation of vacanciesmerit quotawomen quotacivil servicereallocationSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed by a candidate who appeared in the CSS Competitive Examination-2011 from the Gilgit-Baltistan-FATA region, seeking reallocation from the Inland Revenue Service to the Foreign Service. The core legal questions involve whether a lapsed vacancy originally allocated under a specific quota (women's quota) can be claimed by a candidate belonging to a different quota (merit quota), and whether the calculation and creation of vacancies based on fractions in a prior examination year were legally flawed. The Supreme Court held that vacancies remaining unutilized under a specific quota must be filled by a candidate belonging to the same quota category and cannot be shifted to another category, and that the calculation of fractions and creation of vacancies in the preceding examination were in accordance with the recruitment policy. The court laid down the principle that quota-specific vacancies must strictly adhere to their designated categories upon lapsing or reallocation, and belated representations challenging prior examination allocations are untenable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate on the merit quota claim a vacancy that originally fell vacant under the women's quota?
  • Whether a vacancy remaining unfilled under a specific quota can be allocated to a candidate from a different quota category?
  • Are representations challenging vacancy allocations made years after the selection process barred by time?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Nawaz, etc. vs Director Colleges, etc.2017 LHC 2790 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-17
  civil service recruitmentreserved quotastatutory interpretationremedial legislationemployment policyRule 17-Aconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the exclusion of the petitioners from the recruitment process for Class-IV government posts. The petitioners, children of retired or serving civil servants, were denied consideration under the 20% reserved quota because a sibling had previously secured employment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The core legal question was whether the benefit of Rule 17-A (special relief for families of deceased or incapacitated civil servants) precludes other children of the same parent from applying for the 20% general quota reserved for children of serving or retired employees. The Court held that the two benefits are distinct and independent. It ruled that the restriction only applies to the specific individual who already availed the Rule 17-A benefit, not to other family members. The Court emphasized that in the absence of an express statutory prohibition, rules and policies should be interpreted in a manner that favors employment and advances the remedial purpose of the legislation, ensuring that intended relief is not denied through overly technical or restrictive interpretations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appointment of one child under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1974 disqualify other children of the same civil servant from applying under the 20% reserved quota?
  • Are the benefits provided under Rule 17-A and the 20% reserved quota for children of serving/retired civil servants mutually exclusive for the entire family?
  • Should recruitment policies be interpreted in favor of employment when no express statutory restriction exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Ilyas and 6 others vs Government of Khyber2017 PLJ Peshawar 73 · Peshawar High Court
  terms and conditions of serviceconstitutional barArticle 212Service Tribunalministerial staffpolice departmentspecial allowanceemolumentsservice structurewrit petition maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil servants serving in the ministerial wing of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Department filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking directions for the grant of various allowances (including special/secretariat allowances, risk allowance, and fixed daily allowance) at par with uniformed police personnel and secretariat staff, as well as the formulation of a proper service structure for promotions and time-scale up-gradation. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petition was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether claims for allowances, pay, and service structures constitute 'terms and conditions of service', thereby barring the High Court's jurisdiction. The Peshawar High Court held that under Section 2(e) and Section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act 1973, 'pay' encompasses emoluments and allowances. Consequently, claims relating to pay and service structure fall squarely within terms and conditions of service, over which the Service Tribunal exercises exclusive jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act 1974. The constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution applies fully, even where violations of fundamental rights or discrimination under Article 25 are alleged. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Do claims for allowances and emoluments fall within the definition of pay and thereby constitute terms and conditions of service under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan bar the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 in matters relating to the pay, allowances, and service structure of civil servants?
  • Can a civil servant bypass the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by asserting a violation of fundamental rights or discrimination under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Junaid Mahmood vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 187 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-19Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Junaid Mahmood vs Government of Punjab and others2017 PLJ Lahore 187, 2017 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-19
  constitutional petitiondisability discriminationrecruitment policyreasonable accommodationright to workfundamental rightsequality before lawjudicial reviewdisabled persons quotablindness
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerned a constitutional petition challenging the "Recruitment Policy-2013 for Educators" issued by the School Education Department, Government of Punjab, which barred blind persons from applying for Senior Elementary School Educator (SESE) posts and restricted persons with disabilities to a 3% quota. The core legal questions involved the policy's legality in light of the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981, and its conformity with fundamental rights under the Constitution of Pakistan, particularly when interpreted through the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The Lahore High Court held that paragraph 4D of the Recruitment Policy was unconstitutional and illegal. The Court ruled that the Constitution, read with the CRPD, mandates non-discrimination and obligates the State to provide "reasonable accommodation" to persons with disabilities, enabling their full enjoyment of fundamental rights, including the right to work. It affirmed that persons with disabilities are entitled to apply on open merit, with the 3% quota being an additional benefit, not a limitation. The respondents were directed to reframe the policy and consider the petitioner's candidacy on open merit.

  Read full judgment →
• Hafeezullah alias Hafiz Khan vs The State2017 SHC 338 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-04
  explosive substancesillegal armsanti-terrorismcriminal appealsentence reductionpossession of explosivesappellate power
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant by an Anti-Terrorism Court for possessing explosives and illegal arms. The core legal question concerned whether the evidence supported a conviction under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, or if it merely constituted an offense under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The Court held that while the prosecution proved the possession of explosives, it failed to establish the specific intent to endanger life or property required for Section 4, nor did the circumstances meet the criteria for Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 applicability. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction to Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and reduced the sentences for both the explosive and arms offenses to five years rigorous imprisonment each. The judgment affirms that mere possession of explosives, absent proof of malicious intent, falls under Section 5, and appellate courts have the authority under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to modify convictions and sentences accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere possession of explosive substances without proof of intent to endanger life or property constitute an offense under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction from Section 4 to Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, based on the evidence presented at trial?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish an offense under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • Does the possession of firearms and explosives in a public place automatically trigger the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Ullah and others vs The State and others2017 YLR 320 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-25
  criminal appealbenefit of doubteyewitness testimonycorroborationmurderappreciation of evidenceimprovements in testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Sections 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), and 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to death for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s evidence, primarily based on eyewitness testimony, was sufficient to sustain a conviction given the significant improvements made by witnesses during trial and the acquittal of co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court observed that the eyewitnesses had significantly deviated from their initial statements in the FIR, attempting to attribute fatal roles to the appellant that were not originally alleged. Emphasizing that one tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another, the court ruled that the testimony was unreliable and lacked independent corroboration, especially in the context of long-standing enmity. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, and acquitted him. The key principle laid down is that where eyewitness testimony is inconsistent and improved upon to implicate an accused, it requires stringent scrutiny and independent corroboration to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when eyewitnesses significantly improve their statements to implicate an accused?
  • Is it permissible to use one tainted piece of evidence to corroborate another tainted piece of evidence?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused in the absence of independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Hadayat Ullah vs DPO Vehari etc.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 3 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-28
  habeas corpusillegal detentionfactual controversycriminal revisionliberty of detenuesummary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged orders passed by the Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, which dismissed multiple applications filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the recovery of a woman, Mst. Asia, and her minor son from alleged illegal custody. The petitioner sought to recover the detenue from respondents, alleging unlawful detention. During the proceedings, the detenue appeared and recorded a statement detailing forced marriages, being sold, and threats to her life, while expressing a desire to live with the petitioner. The Court, upon hearing the detenue, set her at liberty, allowing her to go wherever she wished. The Court held that allegations regarding the sale and purchase of a person and disputes concerning the validity of a divorce deed involved complex factual controversies that could not be resolved within the summary jurisdiction of a revision petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the parties to seek appropriate remedies before the relevant forums for their respective grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Can allegations of sale and purchase of a person be adjudicated in a summary proceeding under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a revision petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 the appropriate forum for resolving disputed questions of fact regarding marital status or divorce?
  • What is the scope of the Court's power when a detenue expresses a desire to be set at liberty in a habeas corpus petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs The State2017 MLD 1565 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-03-03
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencymurdercriminal trialeyewitness testimonybail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from the refusal of the Sessions Judge, Diamer, to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 in connection with FIR No. 06/2014 and FIR No. 10/2015. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, particularly invoking the rule of consistency, given that a co-accused had been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The court observed that the prosecution had initiated proceedings challenging the release of the co-accused, and the statements of two eyewitnesses consistently implicated the petitioner. Furthermore, the court noted that the trial had already commenced and two prosecution witnesses had been examined. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing that the rule of consistency does not automatically apply when the release of a co-accused is itself under legal challenge by the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to a bail application when the release of a co-accused is currently being challenged by the prosecution?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when eyewitnesses consistently implicate the accused and the trial has already commenced?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Khan and another vs Mst. Bibi Amina and 2 others2017 CLC 458 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-18Read full judgment →
• Habib Ur Rehman vs The State and others2017 YLR 32 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-29
  murdercircumstantial evidencebenefit of the doubtchain of circumstanceswaj takkarcriminal appealmurder referencedeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Habib-ur-Rehman, was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death by the trial court for the murder of his wife, Mst. Munawaran Bibi. He challenged his conviction through an appeal, while the trial court submitted a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence, and the complainant filed a revision for enhancement of compensation. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including delayed 'Waj Takkar' testimony, an alleged conspiracy, motive, and the recovery of a weapon. Upon reviewing the record, the Lahore High Court found the prosecution's circumstantial evidence to be weak, contradictory, uncorroborated, and fraught with unexplained delays and improvements. The court reiterated the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be conclusively proven to touch the deceased and the accused, and any missing link shatters the case. Holding that multiple circumstances created profound doubts in the prosecution's case, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside his conviction and sentence, acquitted him, dismissed the revision petition, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • What are the evidentiary requirements for establishing guilt based entirely on circumstantial evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution witnesses' statements are subject to unexplained inordinate delays and material improvements?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Ullah vs The State etc.2017 LHC 1217 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-21
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabscondancecommon intentionmedical evidence discrepancycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case involving charges under Sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where the petitioner and co-accused allegedly fired upon the complainant party, resulting in one death and one injury. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the discrepancy between the number of alleged assailants and the number of injuries sustained by the victims, and the petitioner's status as a fugitive from law for five years. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, finding that the discrepancy between the FIR's allegations and the medical evidence rendered the petitioner's specific role unclear, necessitating further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court held that abscondance alone is not a sufficient ground to deny bail if the case otherwise warrants further inquiry into the accused's guilt. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that the case fell within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the lack of trial progress.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the number of alleged assailants and the number of injuries sustained by victims entitle an accused to further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can bail be denied solely on the ground that the accused remained a fugitive from law for a significant period?
  • Does the lack of substantial progress in the conclusion of a trial constitute grounds for granting post-arrest bail under the category of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Ullah vs State, etcPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 648 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-05
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabscondancemedical discrepancycommon intentioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of murder and attempted murder. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite allegations of his participation in the firing incident and his subsequent status as a fugitive from law for five years. The Court observed a discrepancy between the number of injuries alleged in the FIR and those recorded in the medical reports, suggesting that the injuries might have been attributed to the accused to match the number of participants. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that where it is not decipherable which accused caused the injuries, the case warrants further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court held that bail cannot be withheld solely due to abscondance if the case otherwise calls for further inquiry into the accused's guilt. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, finding that his case fell within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the number of injuries alleged in the FIR and the medical report entitle an accused to further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld solely on the ground that the accused remained a fugitive from law for a significant period?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when it is not decipherable from the record which of the multiple accused caused the specific injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib ullah vs Sakhawat Shah and others2017 PHC 1184 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-14Read full judgment →
• Habib Qadir vs Station House Officer Saddar, Khuzdar and others2017 PLJ Quetta 60 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-14Read full judgment →
• Habib Metropolitan Bank Limited vs Messrs Dagra Textiles (Pvt.) Limited2017 CLD 1256 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-11Read full judgment →
• Habib Metropolitan Bank Limited vs Faizan Ali and Company (Pvt.) Ltd.2017 CLD 1583 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-17
  Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) OrdinanceLeave to defendBankers' Books Evidence ActPledged stockRecovery suitComputer-generated ledgersMark-upExecution proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was filed under Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, for the recovery of outstanding finance facilities. The defendants sought leave to defend, challenging the competency of the suit's filing, the validity of computer-generated bank statements, and the bank's right to recover funds given the alleged misappropriation of pledged stock. The Court held that the suit was filed by authorized personnel and that computer-generated ledgers do not require certification under Section 2(8) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. Furthermore, the Court determined that disputes regarding pledged stock do not constitute a valid defense to a recovery suit and are instead matters for execution proceedings. Regarding the mark-up, the Court ruled that while the bank is entitled to recover the principal, it cannot charge mark-up beyond the expiry date of the finance agreements, though it may recover the cost of funds. Consequently, the application for leave to defend was dismissed, and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, excluding the excess mark-up charged.

  Questions settled

  • Does a computer-generated bank ledger require certification under Section 2(8) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891?
  • Can a defendant in a recovery suit raise the misappropriation of pledged stock as a valid defense to prevent the decreeing of the suit?
  • Is a bank entitled to charge mark-up beyond the expiry date of a finance agreement?
  • Does an evasive denial in a leave to defend application constitute a valid rebuttal to a financial institution's claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Khan vs Sajid Mehmood and another2017 YLR 69 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-30
  murdercriminal appealacquittal of co-accusedindivisible evidenceindependent corroborationbenefit of doubtimproving testimonyappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The core legal question was whether a conviction can be sustained on the same set of indivisible evidence that led to the acquittal of co-accused persons, in the absence of independent corroboration. The Peshawar High Court held that where the role of the appellant is indistinguishable from that of acquitted co-accused and the testimony of the sole eye-witness is indivisible and tainted with dishonest improvements, conviction cannot be maintained. The Court laid down the principle that the same set of evidence disbelieved against acquitted co-accused cannot form the basis of a capital conviction against a co-accused without strong, independent corroboration from an unimpeachable source. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained on the same set of evidence that was disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused whose acquittals have attained finality?
  • Whether the testimony of a solitary eye-witness whose role is identical to acquitted co-accused is divisible without strong independent corroboration?
  • Does a material improvement in the testimony of an eye-witness create serious doubt regarding his presence at the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Jute Mills Limited vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Industries, Islamabad and another2017 CLC 1783 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-26Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd., Hafizabad Branch through Authorized Officer vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 129 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-16Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Rais Ahmed Khan and 6 others2017 PLD Sindh 542 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-24
  fair rentrent fixationcommercial tenancysindh rented premisesrent controllerincrease in rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from concurrent orders passed by the Rent Controller and the appellate court fixing the fair rent of commercial premises occupied by the petitioner bank at a substantially higher rate pursuant to an application filed by the respondent landlords under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerned whether the Rent Controller acted arbitrarily in enhancing the rent significantly and whether reliance could be placed on the rent of similar premises situated in the same building or locality. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Rent Controller is fully empowered to fix fair rent based on the statutory factors enumerated in Section 8 of the Ordinance, and that the existence of all four factors is not mandatory for such determination. The Court established that the comparative rent of similar premises in the same building or vicinity serves as a valid guiding principle for determining fair market rent, and percentage increases alone do not render a fixation arbitrary if justified by prevailing market conditions and rising construction costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether all four statutory factors under Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 must be fulfilled cumulatively for the fixation of fair rent?
  • Can the rent of similar premises situated in the same building or adjoining locality be made the basis for determining fair rent?
  • Does a high percentage increase in rent alone render the fixation of fair rent by a Rent Controller arbitrary or unlawful?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding fair rent rendered by the courts below without proof of misappreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Liquidator National Construction Company2017 CLC 17 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-19Read full judgment →
• Hakeem and others vs The State2017 SCMR 1546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-06-19
  murderidentification paradeevidentiary valuebenefit of doubtPolice Rules 1934criminal appeallife imprisonmentblood feud
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a criminal case involving the murder of ten persons and injuries to fifteen others during an armed attack on a residence. The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302(b), 307 (now 324), and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment, which was subsequently maintained by the High Court. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court concerned the reliability of identification evidence and the procedural validity of the identification parade. The Supreme Court observed that the identification parade violated Rule 26.32(1)(d) of the Police Rules, 1934, as seven accused were mixed with only twenty-two dummies, and witnesses failed to assign specific roles to the accused during the process. The Court held that an identification parade conducted without attributing specific roles to the suspects or mixing multiple accused in a single parade is legally laconic and lacks evidentiary value. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Haider Ladhu Jaffer and others2017 SCMR 466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-18
  dismissal for defaultrestoration of suitleave to appealcivil procedurestay of proceedingslimitationservice of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Habib Bank Limited against the restoration of a suit that had been dismissed for default. The Supreme Court of Pakistan identified several significant legal questions requiring extensive debate, specifically regarding the maintainability of a petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against a decree following a dismissal for default. The Court also sought to examine the diligence of the respondents in pursuing their remedy, the issue of limitation regarding the restoration application, the presumption of service of court processes, and the consequences of failing to file a form of address under Order VI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Finding these points to be of serious legal import, the Court granted leave to appeal. Furthermore, to prevent the appeal from becoming infructuous, the Supreme Court ordered the suspension of the trial court proceedings pending the final adjudication of the appeal, rejecting the request to allow the trial to continue up to the point of final judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable against a decree passed after the dismissal of a suit for default?
  • Does the failure to file a form of address under Order VI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 carry adverse legal consequences?
  • Can trial court proceedings be suspended pending the outcome of an appeal to prevent the appeal from becoming infructuous?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited and another vs Haji Riaz Ahmed and another2017 CLC 1671 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-26
  original civil jurisdictionterritorial jurisdictionreturn of plaintrejection of plaintprincipal officecause of actionHigh Court Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal challenged an order dismissing an application under Order VII, Rule 10 and Rule 11, C.P.C., which sought the return or rejection of a plaint filed in the High Court's original civil jurisdiction. The appellants argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the cause of action arose entirely in Panjgur, Balochistan, and that Section 120, C.P.C. excluded the applicability of Sections 16, 17, and 20, C.P.C. to the High Court. The respondent contended that the bank's principal office in Karachi conferred jurisdiction. The Court held that Section 120, C.P.C. does not restrict the High Court's original civil jurisdiction but rather enlarges it by removing the technical limitations imposed by Sections 16, 17, and 20. The Court affirmed that the presence of a defendant's principal office within the court's jurisdiction is a sufficient jurisdictional fact to entertain a suit on the original side, regardless of where the cause of action accrued. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the High Court's authority to adjudicate the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure restrict or enlarge the original civil jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Can a suit be filed in the High Court's original civil jurisdiction if the defendant's principal office is located within the court's jurisdiction, even if the cause of action arose elsewhere?
  • Are the provisions of Sections 16, 17, and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Akbar vs Pir Azam Syed2017 YLR 26 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-31Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmad alais Habibi vs State2017 PLJ SC 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-06
  murderreduction of sentencemitigating circumstancesunproved motivedeath sentenceimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose from the conviction of the appellant for qatl-i-amd under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code and his consequent sentence of death, which had been confirmed by the High Court. The core legal question was whether mitigating circumstances existed to warrant the reduction of the appellant's death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction on merits as the appellant did not press the appeal against conviction, noting the admission of firing, matching forensic evidence, and lack of independent proof for the plea of grave and sudden provocation. However, the Court held that the prosecution's failure to establish the asserted motive, coupled with previous conduct by the deceased insulting the appellant a couple of hours prior to the incident, contradictions in medical evidence, and the acquittal of a co-accused creating a dent in the eye-witnesses' veracity, constituted mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the conviction and compensation orders, and extended the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the asserted motive serve as a mitigating circumstance for reducing a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether inconsistencies in the medical evidence and acquittal of a co-accused can create a dent in eye-witness testimony warranting caution in sentencing?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment when the appellant does not press the appeal on the merits of the conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Gun and Country Club Islamabad through Secretary vs National2017 PLC 130, 2017 KLR Labour and Service Cases 185 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-04-13
  Industrial RelationsContempt of CourtInterim InjunctionWrit JurisdictionUnfair Labour PracticeNational Industrial Relations CommissionTermination of Service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) in contempt proceedings, which suspended termination notices issued by the petitioner to its employees. The petitioner contended that the NIRC lacked jurisdiction to grant interim relief, such as suspending terminations, within the scope of contempt proceedings, and that such orders were not appealable. The Court examined the scope of the NIRC's powers under the Industrial Relations Act 2012. It held that Section 57(2)(c) of the Act confers broad authority upon the NIRC to grant interim relief, including injunctions, in any proceedings before it, distinguishing this from the limited powers under the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003. Consequently, the NIRC acted within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioner possessed an alternative remedy of revision before the Full Bench of the NIRC under Section 58(2)(d) of the Act. As the impugned orders were not patently illegal or without jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is not appropriate for challenging interlocutory orders where statutory remedies exist.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have the authority to grant interim relief in contempt proceedings under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be maintained against an interim order passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  • Does the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission possess revisional jurisdiction over interlocutory orders passed by a Bench of the Commission under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• Gun & Country Club Islamabad through its Secretary vs National Industrial2017 KLR Labour and Service Cases 185 · Islamabad High Court
  National Industrial Relations Commissioncontempt proceedingsinterim reliefindustrial disputeunfair labour practicerevisional jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Islamabad High Court assailing interlocutory orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission suspending the termination of certain employees and a suspension notice. The core legal questions involved whether the Commission had the jurisdiction to grant interim relief in contempt proceedings and whether an adequate alternate remedy by way of revision existed under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court held that unlike general contempt statutes restricting courts strictly to penalizing contemnors, Section 57 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 confers wide additional powers upon the Commission—including the power to grant interim injunctions across any proceedings. Furthermore, the Court held that the Full Bench of the Commission possesses revisional jurisdiction over interim orders under Section 58(2)(d). The petition was accordingly dismissed on the grounds that the impugned orders were within jurisdiction and an alternate remedy was available.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has the jurisdiction to grant interim relief or injunctions in contempt proceedings under Section 57 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission have revisional jurisdiction over interim or interlocutory orders under Section 58(2)(d) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 maintainable against an interim order passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission when an alternate statutory remedy is available?
  • Does an employer who issued termination notices suspended by the Commission have the locus standi to maintain a writ petition despite not being formally arrayed as a party in the contempt proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Muhammad, etc vs Muhammad Tariq, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1343 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-03
  inheritance mutationdeclaratory suitlocus standiburden of proofrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findingspleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a declaratory suit challenging three mutations: an inheritance mutation from 1952 and two subsequent mutations from 1962 and 1968. The petitioners alleged that the 1952 inheritance mutation improperly excluded three daughters of the deceased, and that the subsequent mutations were fraudulent. The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit, finding that the petitioners failed to prove the excluded individuals were legitimate heirs and failed to substantiate allegations of fraud. The Lahore High Court upheld these concurrent findings. The Court held that the burden of proof lies on the party alleging a fact, and the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as a pedigree table, to establish the disputed lineage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that legal heirs lack locus standi to challenge a mutation that their predecessor-in-interest did not challenge during their lifetime, especially after a significant lapse of time. Additionally, the Court reiterated that evidence cannot be led beyond the scope of pleadings, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction absent misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof lie on the party alleging that specific individuals were excluded from an inheritance mutation?
  • Can legal heirs challenge a mutation that their predecessor-in-interest did not challenge during their lifetime?
  • Is a party permitted to lead evidence on facts not pleaded in the plaint?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Khan, etc vs Roshan Khan etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 453 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-06Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 457 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-05Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Khan etc. vs Roshan Khan etc.2017 YLR 1170, 2017 PLJ Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-06Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Khan and 2 others vs Roshan Khan and 10 others2017 YLR 1170 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-06Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmed alias Birjo vs The State2017 MLD 829 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-14
  post-arrest bailmurderprohibitory clausesubstitution of accusedfurther inquiryfirearm injurycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant/accused Gulzar Ahmed alias Birjo challenging the dismissal of his post-arrest bail by the trial court in a case registered under sections 302, 337-H(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry, mistaken identity, and alleged substitution. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was nominated in the FIR with a specific role of firing at the deceased, the complainant's version was supported by eyewitness statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, medical evidence, and weapon recovery, and the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court dismissed the bail application while directing the trial court to examine eyewitnesses within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when named in the FIR with a specific role of firing at the deceased in an offence falling within the prohibitory clause?
  • Can a plea of mistaken identity or substitution raised for the first time in a subsequent bail application without being raised before the investigating agency be a ground for further inquiry?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon and corroborating medical evidence justify the dismissal of a bail application in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulzada Khan and others vs Tehsil Municipal Administration etc2017 LHC 1932 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-02Read full judgment →
• Gulshan Shaikh vs The StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Karachi) 310 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-19Read full judgment →
• Gulfraz and others vs Mir Dad and another2017 PLJ Islamabad 52, 2017 MLD 453 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-09-27Read full judgment →
• Gulfraz & others vs Mir Dad & another2017 PLJ Islamabad 52 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-09-27Read full judgment →
• Gulfaraz Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2017 PLD Peshawar 23 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-10Read full judgment →
• Gulfam and another vs The State2017 SCMR 1189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-04-12
  murderrobberyjoint identification paradechance witnessesbenefit of doubtreappraisal of evidencecapital punishmentrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals arose from the conviction and death sentences awarded to the appellants for murder and robbery under Sections 302(b) and 394 PPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellants murdered two individuals during an attempted robbery at a medical store at night. The Supreme Court, upon reappraising the evidence, identified several fatal flaws in the prosecution's case. Firstly, the source of light at the crime scene was never established, and the court held that criminal convictions cannot rely on mere presumptions of visibility. Secondly, the eye-witnesses were classified as 'chance witnesses' whose presence at the scene was doubtful and contradicted by medical evidence regarding who transported the deceased to the hospital. Thirdly, the court invalidated the joint identification parade, reiterating that holding a single parade for multiple accused persons is legally defective. Finally, the court found the recovery of weapons and a motorcycle to be inconsequential due to the lack of forensic linkage. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, setting aside the convictions by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants.

  Read full judgment →
• Gul Zaman vs The State2017 YLR 1338 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-17
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtrule of consistencyocular evidencemedical evidenceFIR delayacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Gul Zaman, for the murder of his wife, Mst. Mami, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot the deceased following a dispute, while co-accused were acquitted by the trial court. The appellant contended that the prosecution case was fabricated due to a prior love marriage and civil litigation, highlighting significant delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination. The High Court observed material contradictions in the ocular evidence regarding the number of injuries and the position of the deceased, as well as the absence of corroborative evidence regarding the alleged light source. Furthermore, the court noted the medical officer's unreliable testimony regarding the nature of the injuries and the unexplained delay in the post-mortem. Applying the rule of consistency, the court held that the evidence disbelieved for the acquitted co-accused could not sustain the appellant's conviction. Consequently, the court found the prosecution's case riddled with reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency require the acquittal of an accused when co-accused charged with similar allegations have been acquitted on the same set of evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a significant, unexplained delay in the post-mortem examination suggesting potential fabrication of evidence?
  • Is the discovery of a weapon on the pointation of an accused admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, notwithstanding non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR cast a cloud of doubt on the entire prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Wali---Petitioner vs Umar and another---Respondents2017 P Cr. L J 1709 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-25
  post-arrest bailnocturnal incidentfurther inquiryabscondencemurderFIR
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Gul Wali, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the murder of Muhammad Wali. The incident occurred at night, and the initial FIR was registered against unknown persons. The complainant subsequently implicated the petitioner and a co-accused in a statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 over a month later, without disclosing the source of his information. The Court observed that there was no ocular account of the incident, no judicial confession, and no incriminating recovery from the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner's participation in the offence required further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court ruled that mere abscondence does not preclude the grant of bail when the case otherwise merits it on the basis of available material. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere abscondence of an accused preclude the grant of bail when the case otherwise merits it?
  • Can bail be granted when the initial FIR is against unknown persons and the subsequent implication lacks a disclosed source of information?
  • Does the absence of incriminating recovery and judicial confession entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul vs Jumo and 5 others2017 MLD 1878 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-07Read full judgment →
• Gul Safaid vs The State2017 YLR 1712 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-07-28Read full judgment →
• Gul Rehman vs Khadim Hussain and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 152 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-16Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad Khan vs Returning Officer and 9 others2017 MLD 733 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-26Read full judgment →
• Gul Faraz vs Muhammad Faraz and 2 others2017 YLR 2074 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-30Read full judgment →
• GuI Zaman vs Pakistan Rangers Sindh and others2017 P.S.C. 623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-30
  condonation of delaylimitationprocedural lawdismissal for non-prosecutionlegal representation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal. The primary legal questions addressed by the Court were whether a petition filed with a delay of one day could be condoned based on an assertion of a technical computer error, and whether the petition could proceed in the absence of instructions from the petitioner. The Court held that the explanation provided for the delay—a technical error of the computer—did not constitute a valid or sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Consequently, the application seeking condonation of delay was dismissed as misconceived. Furthermore, the Court observed that the learned counsel for the petitioner had no contact with the petitioner for six months and lacked fresh instructions to pursue the matter. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition on the dual grounds of being barred by time and for lack of instructions. The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural delays require substantive justification and that legal representation requires active, current instructions from the client to maintain the viability of a petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a claim of a technical computer error constitute a valid ground for the condonation of a one-day delay in filing a petition?
  • Can a petition be dismissed when the petitioner's counsel lacks instructions to pursue the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Govt. of KPK through Secretary Home & Tribal Affairs Department Peshawar2017 SCP 1000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-11-17
  Section 382-B Cr.P.C.remission of sentencepre-conviction detentionjudicial dutydiscriminatory treatmentjail manualcriminal justice system
  Summary & questions settled

  The Government of KPK sought leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment that granted a prisoner the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, along with general and special remissions, despite the original sentencing judgment being silent on these matters. The petitioner argued that seeking such benefits post-judgment amounted to an impermissible review of the original order and that the prisoner was ineligible for remissions due to the recovery of a mobile phone without a SIM card. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly rectified a technical omission. The Court established that judges have an obligatory duty to apply the law correctly, regardless of whether parties specifically plead it. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the benefit of pre-conviction detention under Section 382-B is mandatory unless the sentencing court records cogent reasons for refusal. Regarding remissions, the Court ruled that denying them without proper inquiry into the alleged possession of a non-functional mobile phone constitutes discriminatory treatment, violating Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court permitted to rectify a technical omission regarding the grant of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. benefits after the original sentencing judgment?
  • Does the duty to apply the correct law to a case lie with the judge or the litigant?
  • Can a prisoner be denied general and special remissions solely on the basis of possessing a mobile phone without a SIM card?
  • Is the benefit of pre-conviction detention under Section 382-B Cr.P.C. mandatory for a sentencing court?
  Read full judgment →
• Govt. of KPK through Secretary Communication & Works Department, Peshawar and others vs Haji Safirullah and others2017 PHC 674 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-13Read full judgment →
• Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary Energy & Power2017 P.S.C. 1154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  regularization of servicecivil servantcontract employmentproject employeessemi-autonomous bodystatutory interpretationdiscrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns whether contract employees of the Sarhad Hydel Development Organization (SHYDO), now the Pakhtunkhwa Energy Development Organization (PEDO), are entitled to regularization under Section 19(2) of the KPK Civil Servants Act 1973. The Peshawar High Court had previously ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering their regularization. The Supreme Court set aside this judgment, holding that Section 19(2) of the KPK Civil Servants Act 1973 applies exclusively to civil servants of the provincial government, not employees of semi-autonomous bodies like SHYDO/PEDO. The Court emphasized that the statutory definition of "civil servant" excludes contract and project-based employees. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the legislative intent behind the 2005 amendment was to address disparities for government employees on sanctioned posts, not project staff. Consequently, the Court held that project employees in semi-autonomous entities do not qualify for regularization under the cited provision. However, the Court granted the respondents a limited opportunity to present evidence of any similarly situated project employees who were regularized, allowing for potential relief if such discrimination is proven.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 19(2) of the KPK Civil Servants Act 1973 apply to employees of semi-autonomous bodies?
  • Are project-based employees eligible for regularization under the KPK Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Does the definition of 'civil servant' under the KPK Civil Servants Act 1973 include persons employed on a contract or project basis?
  • Does the KPK (Regularisation of Services) Act, 2009 apply to project employees?
  Read full judgment →