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.

• Govt. of Balochistan through Secretary Education Department, Civil2017 CLC 1298, 2017 PLJ Quetta 23 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-02Read full judgment →
• Govt vs Nizam Gul2017 PHC 881 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-05Read full judgment →
• Govt of KPK through Chief Secretary, Peshawar, Etc vs (in C.A.2017 NLR Service 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service quotadiscriminatory treatmentprovincial management servicerule amendmentcivil servantsequal protectionjudicial review of rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the validity of an amendment to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Management Service Rules, 2007, which restricted a 10% reserved quota for BPS-17 posts exclusively to ministerial staff of the Civil Secretariat, thereby excluding employees of attached departments. The respondents, employees of attached departments, challenged this exclusion as discriminatory and violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The High Court struck down the notification, viewing the amendment as discriminatory and mala fide. The core legal questions addressed are whether the government possesses the authority to restrict the quota to Secretariat staff via rule amendment, whether such an amendment constitutes discriminatory treatment under Article 25, and whether the High Court has jurisdiction to strike down such rules. The judgment examines the scope of the rule-making power under the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the extent to which the judiciary can interfere with policy-based rule amendments. The court evaluates whether the exclusion of similarly situated employees from a competitive quota, despite performing comparable functions, violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

  Questions settled

  • Does the restriction of a 10% reserved quota for BPS-17 posts exclusively to Civil Secretariat staff, excluding attached department employees, constitute discriminatory treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to strike down statutory rules or notifications on the grounds of mala fides or discrimination?
  • Is the government competent to amend the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Management Service Rules 2007 to restrict eligibility for a reserved quota to a specific class of employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab, Secretary Home Department through Deputy2017 LHC 3567 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-02Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab etc vs Ishtiaq Ahmad Butt and others2017 PLJ Lahore 623 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-01Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab and others vs WaqaS Ashraf2017 PLC (C.S.) 613 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-12
  Intra Court AppealAdministrator Market CommitteePunjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance 1978interim appointmentvested rightpublic interestwrit petition maintainabilityremoval of administrator
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal was filed by the Government of Punjab challenging the Single Judge's judgment dated 16.10.2009, which had set aside the removal of the Respondent from his post as Administrator, Market Committee, Gujrat. The Respondent was originally appointed on an interim basis until the constitution of a new committee. Subsequently, the Government issued a notification under Section 33 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance 1978, removing all politically appointed private administrators and replacing them with Agriculture Department officers in the public interest. The Single Judge held that powers under Section 33 could only be exercised in emergencies where misconduct was established. Reversing the Single Judge, the Division Bench held that the Respondent had no vested right to hold the office as his appointment was merely a temporary, interim arrangement. The Government acted within its lawful authority in the public interest to ensure smooth functioning of market committees. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the Single Judge's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an administrator appointed as an interim measure has a vested right to remain in office until a new market committee is constituted?
  • Can the Provincial Government remove private administrators and replace them with departmental officers under Section 33 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance 1978 in the public interest?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable to challenge removal from a temporary, interim appointment when no vested right exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab and others vs Ishtiaq Ahmad Butt and others2017 PLJ Lahore 623, 2017 MLD 832 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-01Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Tourism2017 MLD 1226 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-03-03Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Senior Member Board of Revenue and 3 others vs Nawabzada Muhammad Shahabuddin through legal Heirs and others2017 YLR 1887 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-17Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secy. Agriculture and other_3fb245702017 PLC (C.S) 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-24
  regularization of servicescontract employeesproject employeesProvincial Budgetcivil servantsconstitutional petitionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment resolves multiple appeals and petitions arising from disputes concerning the regularization of contract and project-based employees by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal question is whether employees appointed on contract or project posts whose projects were subsequently brought under the regular Provincial Budget are entitled to regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009. The Supreme Court held that since the respondents were holding their posts on the cut-off date stipulated in Section 3 of the 2009 Act and their respective projects were transferred to the regular provincial budget and attached departments, their status as project employees ended and they fell squarely within the ambit of the Act. The Court emphasized that the overriding effect of the special enactment entitled them to regularization and that the government could not adopt a discriminatory policy of cherry-picking employees for regularization. Except for one appeal where judgment was reserved, the appeals filed by the government were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract and project-based employees are entitled to regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, when their projects are brought under the regular Provincial Budget?
  • Does Section 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 cover employees holding contract appointments on the specified cut-off date?
  • Whether the Government can adopt a discriminatory policy of regularizing employees of certain projects while terminating similarly placed employees of other projects?
  • What is the overriding effect of Section 4A of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 regarding inconsistent laws and rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Department Peshawar and others vs Mehmood Khan2017 SCMR 2044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-09-13
  Section 382-B CrPCremission of sentencepre-conviction detentionjudicial dutydiscriminatory treatmentJail Manualrectification of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa challenged a High Court order that granted a prisoner the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and associated jail remissions, which had been omitted in the original sentencing judgment. The core legal questions were whether such an omission could be rectified post-judgment without violating the prohibition on review, and whether the possession of a SIM-less mobile phone justified the denial of remissions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the application of mandatory statutory provisions like Section 382-B is the obligatory duty of the court, and technical omissions in a judgment can be rectified at any stage. The Court affirmed that jail authorities are bound to grant statutory detention benefits unless expressly refused by a court for cogent reasons. Furthermore, the Court ruled that denying remissions based on the possession of a SIM-less mobile phone, which constitutes a useless article, is discriminatory and violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The principle established is that judges bear the primary responsibility for applying correct law, regardless of counsel's submissions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court rectify an omission to grant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the original judgment has been passed?
  • Is the possession of a mobile phone without a SIM card a valid ground for denying a prisoner's remissions under the Jail Manual?
  • Does the duty to apply the correct law to a case lie with the judge or the litigants?
  • Is the denial of remissions to a prisoner while granting them to co-prisoners a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Energy and Power Department, Peshawar and others vs Ihsan Ullah and others2017 SCMR 1201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-05
  regularization of servicescontract employeescivil servantsemi-autonomous bodyproject employeesstatutory interpretationservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Peshawar High Court judgment that ordered the regularization of contract employees of the Pakhtunkhwa Energy Development Organisation (PEDO), a semi-autonomous body. The core legal question was whether these employees, hired on temporary project posts, qualified for regularization under Section 19(2) of the KPK Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, holding that the Respondents were not "civil servants" as defined by the Act, as they were not members of a provincial service or holding regular sanctioned posts within the provincial government. The Court clarified that Section 19(2) was enacted to address disparities for government employees on sanctioned posts, not to cover project-based employees in semi-autonomous entities. Furthermore, the Court rejected the Respondents' plea of discrimination, noting that they were not similarly situated to regularized employees. The principle established is that statutory regularization provisions for civil servants do not extend to project employees of semi-autonomous bodies, absent specific legislative inclusion. The appeals were partly allowed, with a limited opportunity for the Respondents to provide evidence of disparate treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 19(2) of the KPK Civil Servants Act, 1973 apply to employees of semi-autonomous bodies?
  • Are employees hired on temporary project posts entitled to regularization under the KPK Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the definition of 'civil servant' under the KPK Civil Servants Act, 1973 include employees of semi-autonomous bodies?
  • Can a plea of discrimination be sustained based on the inadvertent regularization of a single project employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others vs Muhammad Inam2017 YLR 174 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-17Read full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan through Secretary Education Department2017 PLJ 23, 2017 CLC 1298 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-02Read full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan through Secretary Board of Revenue and 22017 MLD 908 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-12-15Read full judgment →
• Glocal Medical College and Super Speciality Hospital & Research2017 SCInd 1297 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-08-01Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Ullah vs State2017 PHC 981 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulamuddin vs The State through ANF Gilgit2017 YLR 1134 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-06-23
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controljuvenile offenderfurther inquiryinvestigating officercomplainant as investigatorfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 following the alleged recovery of 3000 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a juvenile, was entitled to bail despite the statutory bar under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, particularly given the lack of independent witnesses and the fact that the complainant also acted as the investigating officer. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that while there is no absolute legal prohibition against a complainant investigating their own case, propriety dictates that a police official who lodges an FIR should avoid conducting the investigation to ensure fairness and impartiality. Furthermore, the Court considered the petitioner's status as a first-time offender, his age (under 18), and the lack of progress in the trial as cumulative factors justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complainant police officer also act as the investigating officer in a narcotics case?
  • Does the age of an accused being under 18 years constitute a ground for bail in narcotics cases?
  • Is the absence of independent witnesses in a recovery proceeding a factor for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Umer Memon, etc vs Jabbar Satti, etc.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 23 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-01-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sher and 6 others vs Mst. Bibi Shan and 21 others2017 PLD Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs The StateK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 236 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-07-17
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencerecovery of weaponsforensic delayidentification parademurder convictioncircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by three appellants against their conviction and sentencing for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given that the appellants were not named in the First Information Report, no identification parade was conducted, and the ocular evidence was deemed unreliable. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court ruled that recoveries of weapons are merely corroborative in nature and cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of substantive evidence. Furthermore, the court emphasized that unexplained delays in dispatching crime weapons and empties to the forensic laboratory significantly undermine their evidentiary value. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, reiterating the principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace, whenever a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of recoveries when the ocular evidence is rejected?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending crime weapons and empties to a forensic laboratory undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Is a judicial identification parade mandatory when the accused are not named in the First Information Report?
  • Does a disclosure statement made while in police custody constitute admissible evidence if no new fact is discovered?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs District Judge, Hafizabad and others2017 MLD 1908 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar & 6 others vs Fateh Muhammad & another2017 SCR 1283 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-11-30
  pre-emptionamendment of pleadingsevacuee propertyco-shareradmitted factsNOC costs
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The core legal questions were whether the appellants should be permitted to amend their written statement after the trial had concluded, and whether the cost of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) paid for the transfer of evacuee property should be included in the pre-emption decree. The Supreme Court held that an amendment to pleadings is impermissible when it contradicts previously admitted facts and evidence, as this would frustrate the administration of justice. Regarding the NOC costs, the Court held that under Section 18-A of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, the vendee is statutorily required to pay the prescribed cost to the Custodian, and therefore, such costs are recoverable as part of the sale consideration in a pre-emption decree. The Court rejected the amendment application, affirmed the plaintiff's right of pre-emption as a co-sharer, and restored the trial court's inclusion of the NOC costs in the decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can an amendment to a written statement be allowed after the trial if it contradicts previously admitted facts?
  • Is the cost of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) paid by a vendee for evacuee property recoverable as part of the sale consideration in a pre-emption decree?
  • Does a co-sharer have a preferential right of pre-emption in the sale of property?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sajjad vs Mst. Tooba2017 CLC 1294 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs District Judge Neelum & 2 others2017 SCR 265 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-01-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and others vs Noor Muhammad and others2017 SCMR 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-09-07
  bona fide purchaserSection 41 Transfer of Property Actostensible ownerrevenue recordinheritance mutationdeclaration suitco-owners
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a suit for declaration challenging an unauthorized sale of inherited property. The suit land was originally owned by a deceased individual survived by four sons as joint owners, but due to an error or omission by revenue authorities in subsequent records, two brothers were omitted, allowing the other two brothers to sell the entire property via a revenue mutation. The Trial Court dismissed the suit based on the buyers' plea of being bona fide purchasers under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but the Appellate Court and High Court decreed the suit in favour of the omitted co-owners' legal heirs. The Supreme Court affirmed the decree and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that for Section 41 to apply, four essential ingredients must co-exist, including express or implied consent of the real owners. Mere revenue entry omissions do not constitute consent, nor do they deprive true owners of title. Purchasers buying inherited land must examine the genesis of ownership, failing which they cannot claim the protection of being bona fide purchasers.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to claim protection as a bona fide purchaser under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act?
  • Does the omission of a true owner's name from revenue records by revenue staff constitute implied consent to a transfer under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act?
  • Does a purchaser of inherited property take reasonable care under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act if they fail to examine the genesis of title and previous inheritance entries in the revenue record?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nazik vs Additional Sessions Judge and 2 others2017 YLR 1441 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-19
  bail bond forfeituresurety liabilitycriminal revisionprocedural irregularityshow-cause noticecivil prisonrecovery of penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jatoi, which imposed a penalty of Rs. 500,000 on a surety for the forfeiture of a bail bond and ordered his detention in civil prison. The core legal question was whether the trial court followed the mandatory statutory procedure under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before imposing the penalty and ordering imprisonment. The High Court held that the trial court acted in haste, failing to provide the surety a fair opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice and neglecting to follow the step-by-step procedure for recovery, such as issuing warrants for the attachment and sale of property. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for proceedings in strict accordance with the law. The key principle laid down is that a court must record grounds of proof regarding bond forfeiture, issue a show-cause notice, and strictly adhere to the procedural requirements of Section 514, Cr.P.C. before imposing penalties or ordering imprisonment for recovery.

  Questions settled

  • What is the mandatory procedure for a court to follow when a bail bond is forfeited by a surety?
  • Can a court immediately order the imprisonment of a surety for non-payment of a penalty without first attempting the attachment and sale of property?
  • Is an order imposing a penalty on a surety valid if the court fails to provide a fair opportunity to respond to a show-cause notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs The State2017 PHC 692 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Mohammad Nabi and 3 others2017 CLC 253 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-04-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Shah vs Ghulam Hyder and others2017 SHC 379 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-05
  criminal acquittal appealacquittalgroundless chargepending civil litigationvague allegationsdelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the order of the trial court acquitting the respondents under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case arising from FIR registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 427, 447 and 435 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when civil litigation was pending and allegations in the FIR were general and vague without specific roles assigned. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court rightly exercised its powers under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as the charge was groundless and there was no probability of conviction given the delayed FIR, general allegations, and pending civil litigation between the parties. The key principle laid down is that a magistrate may acquit an accused at any stage under Section 249-A if the charge is groundless or there is no likelihood of conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before recording prosecution evidence if the charge is groundless?
  • Whether general and vague allegations in an FIR without specific attribution justify acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the pendency of civil litigation between parties influence the possibility of conviction in a related criminal case for the purposes of Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State2017 YLR 1518 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-21
  double murdergrave and sudden provocationbenefit of doubtocular evidencecriminal appealdeath sentenceappreciation of evidenceSection 342 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for the murder of two individuals. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence and whether the appellant’s judicial statement admitting the act under grave and sudden provocation could sustain a conviction despite the prosecution's failure to prove its own case. The Lahore High Court acquitted the appellant, setting aside the conviction and death sentence. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable, citing unexplained delays in post-mortem examinations, the doubtful presence of eye-witnesses, and the lack of forensic corroboration. The Court reaffirmed that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits and cannot rely on the weakness of the defence. Furthermore, it established that an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, cannot solely sustain a conviction where the prosecution's evidence is otherwise insufficient or disbelieved, and that testimony rejected against co-accused requires strong independent corroboration to be admissible against the remaining accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based solely on the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, if the prosecution's evidence is otherwise insufficient?
  • Does testimony that is disbelieved against co-accused require independent corroboration to be reliable against the remaining accused?
  • Is the prosecution permitted to rely on the weaknesses of the defence case to secure a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs State, etcPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 717 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-11
  post-arrest bailrobberydelay in FIRtest identification paradefurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Ghulam Mustafa sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 166 dated 03.4.2016 under Sections 392, 397, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Yousaf Wala, District Sahiwal. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delayed FIR, lack of nomination in the crime report, delayed test identification parade, and absence of a memo of identification regarding recovered items. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting an unexplained delay of two days in lodging the FIR, a twenty-six-day delay in holding the test identification parade, and the completion of investigation rendering further detention unnecessary. The court accepted the bail application and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, laying down principles regarding the relevance of delayed identification parades and further inquiry in bail matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the test identification parade justifies granting post-arrest bail?
  • Does the recovery of robbed items without a memo of identification affect the case for bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the pendency of other criminal cases a bar to granting bail in the matter currently before the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 961 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• (1) Ghulam Mustafa (2) Zaigham Abbas (3) Ghulam Akbar vs Mian2017 LHC 2277 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs The State2017 MLD 1235 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-01-02
  kidnappingzina-bil-jabrmurderretracted confessionconfessional statementrecoveryanti-terrorismdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Quetta, convicting the appellant under section 364-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, and section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for kidnapping, raping, and murdering a ten-year-old minor girl, sentencing him to death and life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of weapon recoveries based on police disclosures, and the legality of relying on a retracted confessional statement. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence, holding that a voluntary and truthful retracted confession can form the sole basis for a conviction without independent corroboration if found confidence-inspiring, and that disclosures leading to the recovery of incriminating articles and the crime weapon are fully admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The court laid down principles regarding the evidentiary value of retracted confessions and the application of normal death penalties in heinous crimes against minors.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted confessional statement form the sole basis for a criminal conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Whether a disclosure made by an accused in police custody leading to the recovery of a crime weapon is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Is a delay of two to three months in recovering a crime weapon fatal to the prosecution case when the time of the offense was initially unknown?
  • Whether the normal penalty of death should be awarded in cases involving the kidnapping, rape, and brutal murder of a minor child?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza alias Bubal vs The State and another2017 YLR 364 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-03
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryextra-judicial confessiondacoitymurdersupplementary statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Ghulam Murtaza alias Bubal, who was accused in an FIR registered under Sections 302 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving a dacoity and murder incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court observed that the petitioner was implicated based on a supplementary statement relying on weak evidence, specifically the testimony of witnesses regarding a dark-night occurrence where the assailants' features were not initially described. Furthermore, the Court noted that the investigation had concluded and that the recovery of a veil and an alleged extra-judicial confession were insufficient to deny bail at this stage. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry and granted the bail application. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's evidence is weak and the investigation is complete, continued incarceration serves no beneficial purpose, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a non-weapon item like a veil constitute sufficient incriminating evidence to deny bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case rests on a supplementary statement following a dark-night occurrence with unidentified assailants?
  • When does an accused's case qualify for the concession of bail under the principle of 'further inquiry'?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State2017 SHC 382 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-07
  circumstantial evidencemurderpointation recoverychain of evidencecriminal appeallife imprisonmentunwitnessed occurrence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, whose decapitated body was discovered in a bag. The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses to the crime. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence—specifically the recovery of the deceased's head and the murder weapon at the appellant's pointation, coupled with evidence of a motive involving illicit relations—was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstances connecting the appellant to the crime. The evidence, including the recovery memos and the testimony of mashirs, remained unshaken during cross-examination. The Court affirmed the conviction, reiterating the principle that circumstantial evidence can form the basis of a conviction if all facts are consistent, conclusive in nature, possess moral sanctity, and form an unbroken chain of events. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence in an unwitnessed murder case?
  • What are the four essential principles that must be satisfied for circumstantial evidence to support a criminal conviction?
  • Does the failure to cross-examine prosecution witnesses regarding recovery memos and pointation evidence render that evidence unrebutted?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Secretary Housing, etc.2017 LHC 3158 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Secretary Housing, etc2017 C.L.R. 1527 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Province of Sindh and 8 others2017 CLC 769 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-10
  contempt of courtconsent orderdisposed of matterinterim injunctionrecord of rightsland utilizationmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition that was previously disposed of by consent of the parties, wherein the court held that an order passed by the Member, Land Utilization Department, Board of Revenue was tentative in nature and left the parties to approach the civil court regarding a disputed land entry. Subsequently, the petitioner filed contempt applications and an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging violation of the consent order. The core legal question was whether interlocutory and contempt applications are maintainable in a constitutional petition that has already been finally disposed of by consent. The Sindh High Court held that interlocutory applications seeking ad-interim injunctions or contempt proceedings are misconceived and not maintainable in a fully disposed of matter, as interim relief is strictly ancillary to a pending main proceeding. The court dismissed the applications, clarifying that the parties remain at liberty to agitate their title and grievance before the appropriate competent forum in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable in a constitutional petition that has already been finally disposed of?
  • Can contempt proceedings be initiated for the alleged violation of a consent order where no positive command or direction to alter revenue entries was issued by the court?
  • Does a consent order declaring a revenue authority's order to be tentative in nature amount to the setting aside of that order?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and others2017 YLR 495 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and another vs The State and another2017 SCMR 2048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-11
  MurderConvictionCriminal AppealSentence AlterationDeath SentenceLife ImprisonmentMotiveMitigating CircumstanceEvidence Re-appraisalQuantum of Sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns criminal appeals and a criminal miscellaneous application stemming from a murder conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 PPC. The Supreme Court undertook a re-appraisal of the entire evidence to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice and to determine the appropriate quantum of sentence. The Court upheld the conviction of Muhammad Aslam under Section 302(b) PPC and his sentence of life imprisonment. For Wazir Ali, the conviction under Section 302(b)/34 PPC was affirmed, but his death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life. The Court held that while the prosecution successfully established guilt, the failure to prove the alleged motive behind the occurrence constituted a mitigating circumstance. It was reiterated that when the prosecution alleges a motive but fails to prove it during trial, this factor can be considered when determining the quantum of sentence, particularly in cases involving capital punishment. The complainant's appeal for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 5 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Muhammad Rasheed, etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 482, 2017 LHC 986 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Muhammad Rasheed, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 522 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-20
  pre-emption suitTalb-e-MuwathibatTalb-e-Ishhadcivil revisionadverse presumptionburden of proofpersonal right of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a pre-emption suit regarding a land transaction. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs had validly performed the mandatory Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad as required by law to sustain a claim for pre-emption. The Trial Court had decreed the suit, and the Appellate Court had modified the decree to a half-share. Upon review, the High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat in accordance with the statutory requirements. Specifically, the court noted that the testimony of the witness regarding his presence at the time of the demand was inconsistent with the pleadings and notices, rendering it inadmissible. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the right of pre-emption is a personal right and that the failure to produce essential independent witnesses created an adverse presumption against the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court set aside the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the suit, establishing the principle that failure to strictly prove the performance of Talbs is fatal to a pre-emption claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat in accordance with law render a pre-emption suit liable to dismissal?
  • Can a witness's testimony regarding the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat be admitted if it contradicts the pleadings and notices?
  • Does the withholding of an essential independent witness in a pre-emption suit trigger an adverse presumption under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Is the right of pre-emption considered a personal right that must be exercised personally by the pre-emptor?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Chairman, NAB, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2017 P Cr. L J 1547 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-15
  quashment of proceedingsvoluntary returnconstitutional jurisdictionmisappropriationdisputed questions of factNAB referencepremature acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Food Inspector, sought the quashment of a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference pending before an Accountability Court, alleging that the proceedings were illegal and void. The core legal question was whether the High Court, under its constitutional jurisdiction, should quash criminal proceedings involving disputed questions of fact when the petitioner has not exhausted statutory remedies for acquittal. The Court held that it could not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the reference because the case involved intricate factual disputes regarding the alleged misappropriation of wheat stocks and the validity of the petitioner's Voluntary Return. The Court emphasized that it is not the appropriate forum to conduct a mini-trial or resolve disputed facts that require evidence. The key principle laid down is that where an accused has the statutory remedy to seek acquittal before the trial court under specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the High Court will not interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to prematurely determine guilt or innocence, especially when the prosecution has established a prima facie case.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under its constitutional jurisdiction when disputed questions of fact are involved?
  • Is a constitutional petition the appropriate remedy when an accused has the option to seek acquittal under Section 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to honor a Voluntary Return under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 justify the continuation of criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and others vs Administrator Thal Development2017 SC MR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-09-16
  leave to appealcondonation of delayrestoration of appealdismissal for non-prosecutionoffice objectionssufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' applications for the restoration of a regular second appeal and for the condonation of a delay spanning over six years in removing office objections. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone an inordinate delay of six years in re-filing a restoration application and dismissing it for lack of sufficient cause. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to explain the prolonged delay or show sufficient cause, demonstrating a lack of diligence and seriousness in prosecuting their case. The Court affirmed the impugned order, ruling that discretionary relief of condonation of delay cannot be granted in the absence of a plausible explanation, and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a delay of six years in removing office objections on a restoration application can be condoned without showing sufficient cause?
  • Is the High Court justified in dismissing an application for restoration of an appeal for lack of prosecution and failure to diligently pursue the matter?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the High Court declining to condone delay where no jurisdictional defect or illegality is pointed out?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain @ Bhutto vs Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi, District Vehari others2017 PLJ Lahore 1000 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Ghulam Qadir2018 PLJ Lahore 538, 2017 LHC 4003, 2019 CLC 770 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Ghulam Mohammad Parvi and another2017 P Cr. L J 457 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-08-19
  review petitioncriminal reviewquashment of FIRbar on reviewcriminal judgmentjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a review petition filed against the judgment of the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court which had earlier quashed an FIR registered under sections 447, 427, and 341 of the Pakistan Penal Code pursuant to directions issued under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether a criminal judgment can be reviewed or altered by the same court. The court held that there is no concept or provision for criminal review in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that Section 369 of the Code expressly bars any court from altering or reviewing its judgment once signed and announced, save to correct a clerical error. The key principle laid down is that criminal courts lack jurisdiction to review or alter their final judgments, as judicial determination is final upon pronouncement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal court review or alter its judgment after it has been signed and announced?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provide for the concept of criminal review?
  • What is the scope of Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the alteration of judgments?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs The State and another.2017 PHC 613 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-31Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali Shah and others vs Muhammad Khalid and others2017 SCMR 1849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-08-10
  ex parte proceedingsburden of proofpre-emptioncollusive decreecivil revisionconcurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioners' Civil Revision. The dispute originated from a suit for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction filed by the petitioners, who alleged that a previous pre-emption decree obtained by the respondents' predecessor-in-interest was collusive and intended to defeat third-party rights, with the petitioners being the actual owners. Despite the respondents failing to appear and being proceeded against ex parte, the Trial Court dismissed the petitioners' suit, finding they failed to prove their case. This dismissal was upheld by the first Appellate Court and subsequently by the High Court in revision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the suit should have been decreed automatically due to the respondents' non-appearance. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that non-appearance does not mandate an automatic decree; the plaintiff must still prove their case. Finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition, declining leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a defendant to appear in a suit mandate an automatic decree in favor of the plaintiff?
  • Can a court dismiss a suit for lack of evidence even if the defendant is proceeded against ex parte?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar & 6 others vs Shazia Wazir2017 LHC 400 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs The State2017 MLD 1535 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-27
  post-arrest bailfake encounterfurther inquirysuppression of evidencereasonable doubtanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Ghulam Abbas, in relation to two FIRs involving alleged offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and the Sindh Arms Act 2013. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with others, fired upon a police party, resulting in injuries to an officer and the death of the accused's son, while the accused's wife also sustained firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the conflicting versions of the incident and the suppression of material facts by the investigation officer. The Court held that the suppression of the injuries sustained by the applicant's wife by the investigation officer, coupled with the questionable circumstances of the encounter, created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version. Consequently, the Court granted bail, holding that where reasonable doubt exists concerning the truth or probability of the prosecution's case, the accused should not be deprived of liberty pending trial, as the matter requires further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of material facts by the investigation officer regarding injuries sustained by the accused's family entitle the accused to the benefit of further inquiry for bail purposes?
  • Should an accused be granted bail when the prosecution's version of a police encounter is subject to reasonable doubt?
  • Is the determination of whether an offence falls under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 subject to further inquiry when the facts of the incident are disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas alias Gaman and others vs The State and others2017 SCMR 1730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-07-12
  post-arrest bailcross-version FIRssudden fightpre-meditationcriminal appealbail bonds
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three criminal petitions for post-arrest bail filed by several accused persons involved in cross-version FIRs registered at Police Station Wah Bachran, District Mianwali, arising from a violent incident where multiple individuals were killed or injured. The core legal question was whether the accused, involved in a mutual fight with cross-versions and uncertain culpability, were entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail. The Supreme Court observed that the incident appeared to be the result of a sudden fight, making it difficult to determine the initial aggressor at the pre-trial stage. Given the existence of two versions and the possibility of an absence of pre-meditation, the Court held that the accused were entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that in cases of cross-versions involving a sudden fight where it is difficult to ascertain the aggressor at the bail stage, the court may grant bail to the accused parties, particularly when there is a mutual agreement or lack of objection from the opposing sides, as this serves the interests of justice pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can post-arrest bail be granted in cases of cross-versions where it is difficult to determine the aggressor?
  • Does the absence of pre-meditation in a sudden fight justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the mutual consent of opposing parties a relevant factor for the court when considering bail in cross-case scenarios?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Ghulam Abbas (2) Wali Muhammad vs Federation of Pakistan & others2017 SHC 244 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-09Read full judgment →
• Ghous Bux vs Saleem and 3 others2017 P Cr. L J 836 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-02
  appeal against acquittallast seen evidencejudicial confessionretracted confessionmurderbenefit of doubtreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution case stemmed from an un-witnessed night-time murder where the deceased's dead body was found in a wheat crop with firearm injuries after having been last seen leaving with one of the accused. The core legal questions involved the reliability of last-seen evidence, the evidentiary value of retracted judicial confessions recorded without proper statutory safeguards, and the stringent parameters for interfering with an acquittal judgment. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court rightly discarded the uncorroborated retracted confessions and contradictory last-seen testimony. The court reaffirmed the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's conclusions are perverse, arbitrary, or based on gross misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the mere fact that an accused was last seen with the deceased sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Can a retracted judicial confession be relied upon for conviction in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • What are the governing principles and legal thresholds for an appellate court to set aside an acquittal judgment?
  • Can suspicion, howsoever grave or strong, serve as a substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Khan, etc. vs Aziz-Ur-Rehman2017 PLJ Peshawar 71 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Khan vs Director General Agricultural Research Peshawar etc.2017 PHC 822 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-13Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Khan and others vs Aziz-Ur-Rehman2017 PLJ Peshawar 71, 2017 CLC 366 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ghazala Tehsin Zohra vs Mehr Ghulam Dastagir Khan and Another2017 NLR Civil 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-02-02
  paternity suitlegitimacy of childDNA testQanun-e-Shahadat OrderMuslim Personal Lawconclusive proofdeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a declaratory suit filed by a husband seeking to deny the paternity of two children born during the subsistence of his marriage. The core legal question was whether a father can challenge the legitimacy of children born during a valid marriage and compel a DNA test to disprove paternity under Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in allowing the DNA test. The Court ruled that Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, read with Section 2 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962, establishes a presumption of legitimacy that is conclusive. Under Islamic law, paternity must be denied immediately upon birth; a belated denial is legally ineffective. Consequently, the Court held that the statutory presumption of legitimacy cannot be rebutted by scientific evidence like DNA testing in such circumstances. Furthermore, the Court noted that failing to implead the minor children in a suit challenging their paternity constitutes a fatal procedural flaw. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's suit was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 create an irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy for children born during a valid marriage?
  • Can a father deny the paternity of a child born during a valid marriage after the expiration of the immediate post-natal period under Muslim Personal Law?
  • Is a DNA test admissible to disprove the legitimacy of a child when the statutory requirements for conclusive proof under Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 are met?
  • Is a declaratory suit challenging the paternity of a minor maintainable without impleading the minor as a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghania Hassan vs Shahid Hussain Shahid and another2017 PLJ SC 41 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-09-22
  dowerexecution proceedingsobjection petitionIslamic lawattachment of propertysummary adjudicationNikahnama
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from execution proceedings where the petitioner, claiming to be the wife of the judgment debtor, filed an objection petition asserting that certain immovable properties were her dower, established via a Nikahnama and a subsequent agreement, and thus immune from attachment. The core legal questions were whether dower can be increased after marriage and whether an executing court must summarily adjudicate such claims. The Supreme Court held that while it is a settled principle of Islamic law that dower may be increased after marriage by mutual consent or by the husband, the executing court correctly declined the objection petition. The Court reasoned that the executing court was not satisfied with the bona fides of the petitioner, particularly as the petitioner had already filed a separate suit to enforce her rights in the property. Consequently, the Court upheld the dismissal of the objection petition, affirming that summary execution proceedings are not the appropriate forum for determining disputed title claims when bona fides are in question.

  Questions settled

  • Can the amount of dower be increased after the marriage has been contracted?
  • Is an executing court required to adjudicate disputed claims of dower in a summary manner during execution proceedings?
  • Does a declaration by a husband regarding an increase in dower constitute sufficient proof under Muslim Law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghani Khan vs Inamullah & others2017 PHC 689 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-06Read full judgment →
• Ghafoor Khan vs Secretary to Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Education Department Peshawar and 4 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 32 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-11Read full judgment →
• Ghaffar Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 390 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-17
  murderattempted murderbenefit of doubtinjured witnessabscondencemedical evidence contradictioncriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants under sections 302, 324, and 337-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a double-offence FIR involving murder and injury. The core legal questions involve the reliability of ocular testimony, the corroboration of an injured witness, the significance of missing crime empties and blood recovery, and the medical consistency of multiple accused firing at victims. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, lack of independent corroboration, absence of blood recovery where the injured witness allegedly fell, and medical evidence indicating a single assailant rather than two. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and laid down the principle that abscondence cannot substitute for concrete and reliable prosecution evidence, and that even a slight doubt in the prosecution case warrants the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured witness can be relied upon without independent corroboration when the medical and physical evidence contradicts his presence at the spot?
  • Can mere abscondence of an accused serve as a substitute for concrete and reliable prosecution evidence to prove guilt?
  • Does the absence of crime empties and blood recovery from the scene of the crime cast serious doubt on the prosecution's ocular account?
  • Whether similar dimensions of firearm entry wounds on the bodies of the victims can indicate the involvement of a single assailant rather than multiple accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• German Shepherd Dog Club of Pakistan vs Commissioner (CLD), SECP2017 CLD 1127 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2016-11-04Read full judgment →
• GEPCO and others vs Arshad Mehmood2017 PLD Lahore 723 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-17
  temporary injunctionelectricity transmission linecivil revisionmandatory statutory complianceDistrict Magistrate permissionpublic safetyirreparable loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which granted a temporary injunction in favor of the respondent, restraining the petitioners (GEPCO) from installing a 132 KV electricity transmission line over the respondent's land. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could proceed with the installation of transmission lines without the owner's consent or prior permission from the District Magistrate, as mandated by law. The High Court held that the petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 12 of the Electricity Act, 1910, which necessitates obtaining either the owner's consent or written permission from the District Magistrate before commencing such work. The Court emphasized that subsequent attempts to obtain administrative sanction after the initiation of legal proceedings were insufficient to cure the initial illegality. Furthermore, the Court noted the potential danger to public safety, as the line was planned to pass over a 'Jinazgah'. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the temporary injunction and restraining the petitioners from energizing the line until the final adjudication of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a licensee install electricity transmission lines over private land without the owner's consent or prior permission from the District Magistrate?
  • Does a notification of sanction issued by the District Magistrate after the commencement of litigation cure the failure to obtain prior permission under the Electricity Act 1910?
  • Is the court justified in granting a temporary injunction where the installation of high-voltage transmission lines poses an imminent danger to public safety?
  Read full judgment →
• General Messrs Big Birds Poultry Breeders (Pvt.) Limited through Authorized Director(s) vs Director General, EPA and others2017 CLD 557 · Environmental Tribunal · 2016-12-20Read full judgment →
• General Manager Pakistan International Airline and another vs Matiullah and 17 others2017 PLC 148 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-12-29
  regularization of servicecontractor employeespermanent workmanworker definitionindustrial relationslabour appellate tribunalconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition was filed by Pakistan International Airlines challenging the judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal Balochistan, which set aside the Labour Court's dismissal and directed the regularization of respondents' services after a three-month probation period. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the respondents were direct permanent employees of the petitioners or mere employees of a contractor. Applying the criteria laid down by superior courts regarding administrative control, payroll, power of hiring/firing, and duration of service, the High Court observed that the respondents had continuously served the petitioners for two to twenty years under changing contractors, held identity cards issued by the petitioners, and performed duties of a permanent nature. Citing the definition of 'worker' under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 and 'permanent workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the Court held that workers employed through a contractor for work of a permanent nature are employees of the establishment. The High Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether workers engaged through an independent contractor to perform work of a permanent nature are employees of the principal establishment under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act 2010?
  • What criteria must courts apply to determine whether a master and servant relationship exists between a principal establishment and contract labour?
  • Does a continuous service period beyond the probationary period entitle contract workers performing permanent duties to be declared permanent workmen under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• General Manager LTR (South), PTCL, etc vs Mumtaz Ali Mufti, etc2017 KLR Civil Cases 137 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-17
  PTCL employeesstatutory rules of serviceLabour Court jurisdictionsuperannuationreinstatementGovernment Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rulesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the judgments of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of a former Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) employee. The core legal questions were whether a government servant governed by statutory rules could invoke the jurisdiction of a Labour Court, and whether an order of reinstatement is legally sustainable when the employee has already attained the age of superannuation prior to filing the grievance petition. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders of the lower forums. The Court held that because the respondent was subject to the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, he was barred from approaching the Labour Court. Furthermore, the Court determined that the order of reinstatement was a nullity because the respondent had already crossed the age of superannuation before initiating the grievance proceedings. The judgment reaffirms that employees governed by statutory rules of service are excluded from the jurisdiction of Labour Courts and that reinstatement cannot be ordered for an employee who has already reached the age of superannuation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government servant governed by statutory rules of service approach a Labour Court for redressal of grievances?
  • Is an order of reinstatement legally valid if the employee has already reached the age of superannuation before filing the grievance petition?
  • Does the existence of statutory rules of service exclude the application of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• (General Manager LTR (South), PTCL etc. vs Mumtaz Ali Mufti etc2017 KLR Civil Cases 137, 2017 PLC 233, 2017 LHC 1191 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-17
  statutory ruleslabour court jurisdictionreinstatementgrievance petitionPTCL employeesservice lawmisappropriation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition challenging the reinstatement of a former Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) employee by the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The respondent, initially a government servant, was dismissed for misappropriation under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, and subsequently sought relief through a grievance petition after his appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal abated. The core legal question was whether a government servant governed by statutory service rules could invoke the jurisdiction of a Labour Court. The Lahore High Court held that because the respondent was governed by statutory rules, he was debarred from approaching the Labour Court, rendering the Labour Court's reinstatement order a nullity. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal erred by granting relief to the respondent in an appeal filed by the department. The key principle laid down is that employees governed by statutory service rules cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Courts, as the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, does not apply to establishments where such statutory rules are in force.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government servant governed by statutory service rules invoke the jurisdiction of a Labour Court?
  • Does the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 apply to establishments where statutory rules of service are applicable?
  • Can an appellate authority grant relief to a respondent in an appeal filed exclusively by the department?
  Read full judgment →
• General Manager LTR (South), PTCL and 2 others vs Mumtaz Ali Mufti2017 PLC 233 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-17
  service tribunallabour court jurisdictionstatutory rulescompulsory retirementsuperannuationreinstatementmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a service dispute where the respondent, an employee proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 and dismissed for misappropriation, had his penalty converted to compulsory retirement by an appellate authority. Following the abatement of his appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, he filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court, which ordered his reinstatement, a decision partly upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal questions involved whether a government servant governed by statutory rules could approach a Labour Court and whether reinstatement could be ordered after the employee had superannuated. The Lahore High Court held that since the employee was governed by statutory rules of service, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction, and further, that ordering reinstatement after the employee had reached the age of superannuation was illegal. The petition was accepted and the impugned judgments of the labor forums were set aside, laying down that employees governed by statutory disciplinary rules cannot invoke the jurisdiction of labour courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee governed by statutory rules of service can approach a Labour Court for grievance redressal?
  • Can a Labour Court order the reinstatement of an employee who has already crossed the age of superannuation before filing a grievance petition?
  • Whether an appellate tribunal can grant affirmative relief to a non-appealing respondent while deciding an appeal filed solely by the department?
  Read full judgment →
• Hidayatullah vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 594 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-12-29
  criminal appealdelay in FIRconfessional statementretracted confessionbenefit of doubtmurdermedical evidenceexhumation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of his wife and sentencing him to twenty years' rigorous imprisonment along with payment of Diyat. The core legal questions involved the credibility of an FIR lodged after an unexplained 25-day delay, the evidentiary value of a retracted confessional statement recorded after prolonged police custody without full compliance with mandatory legal formalities, and the contradictions between ocular and delayed medical evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the inordinate delay in reporting the matter, coupled with unnatural conduct of the complainant and grave procedural lapses in recording the confession and conducting the post-mortem after exhumation, created serious doubts regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt and that benefit of any doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay of twenty-five days in lodging the FIR vitiate the prosecution's case by rendering the investigation vulnerable to consultation and deliberation?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a confessional statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after significant police custody and without strictly adhering to mandatory procedural precautions?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence obtained through a delayed post-mortem following exhumation is in conflict with the ocular testimony?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt arising from material contradictions and procedural flaws in the prosecution's case warrants the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Gazipura Securities & Services (Pvt.) Limited vs N/A2017 SHC 366 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-22Read full judgment →
• Frontier Mine Owners Association vs Govt. of KPK2017 PHC 747 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-17Read full judgment →
• Foundation Wind Energy-I Ltd. through G.M. Finance vs Assistant2017 PTD 1119 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-30
  constitutional petitiontax recoveryinterim reliefstay of recoveryincome tax appealadequate remedypublic revenues
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two constitutional petitions seeking restraint orders against tax recovery proceedings and de-freezing of bank accounts while an appeal is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) Inland Revenue. The core legal question is whether the High Court should entertain a constitutional petition for interim relief in tax matters when statutory remedies of appeal and stay are available under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and whether such petitions bypass the statutory hierarchy and constitutional restrictions on interim orders affecting public revenues. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioner rushed to the Court with undue haste without awaiting a decision from the first appellate authority, which is competent to grant a stay under the law, and that adequate statutory remedies exist within the tax hierarchy. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that interim orders impeding the assessment or collection of public revenues cannot be granted lightly without complying with the mandatory requirements under the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that constitutional petitions seeking interim relief in tax matters are incompetent and premature when efficacious statutory remedies before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal are available and unexhausted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition for interim relief in tax matters is maintainable when statutory remedies of appeal and stay are available under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Is the Commissioner (Appeals) competent to stay the recovery of subject tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • What are the constitutional restrictions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 regarding the grant of interim orders that impede the assessment or collection of public revenues?
  Read full judgment →
• Forte Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Azam Khan and 2 others2017 SHC 132, 2017 MLD 1049 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-13Read full judgment →
• Forte (Private) Limited vs Azam Khan2017 SHC 132 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-13Read full judgment →
• First National Equities Limited vs Nasir Askar, Director/Hod, Licensing2017 CLD 1636 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2016-11-02Read full judgment →
• Firdos Aziz vs Asif Aziz etc2017 PHC 1102 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
• Fida Muhammad & others vs Govt. of KPK through Chief Secretary & others2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-12
  civil servantsresidential accommodationrules of businessmandatory consultationlegitimate expectancywrit jurisdictionstatutory rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, government employees, challenged the validity of the Residential Accommodation at Peshawar (Procedure for Allotment Rules, 2015), which were promulgated by the Provincial Government under Section 26 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973. The core legal question was whether these rules were validly enacted, specifically regarding the mandatory requirement of consultation with the Law, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights Department as prescribed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Rules of Business, 1985. The Court held that the rules were unconstitutional and illegal because the mandatory procedure for consultation under Rule 12(5) of the Rules of Business, 1985, was bypassed. The Court emphasized that the Law Department's consultation is a mandatory prerequisite for issuing statutory rules to ensure legal structure and compliance. Furthermore, the Court found that the abrupt withdrawal of long-standing allotment facilities for the families of civil servants violated the principle of legitimate expectancy and was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Consequently, the 2015 Rules were struck down for failing to adhere to established procedural and constitutional mandates.

  Questions settled

  • Is consultation with the Law Department mandatory before the promulgation of statutory rules under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Rules of Business, 1985?
  • Can the provincial government unilaterally withdraw long-standing allotment facilities for civil servants without adhering to procedural requirements?
  • Does the failure to consult the Law Department render statutory rules promulgated by the provincial government illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain vs Judge Family Court etc.2017 LHC 579 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-22Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain s/o Muhammad Latif Khan r/o Tehsil Chikar District Hattian2017 SC AJK 389 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-05-31Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain Shah and others vs Government of Sindh and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 1229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-02-16
  contempt petitionoccupational groupre-allocationappointment by transfercivil servantsseniorityPolice Service of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  These three criminal original petitions sought the implementation of previous judgments of this Court regarding merit-based civil service, specifically challenging the re-allocation of the respondents from one occupational group to the Police Service of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the re-allocation or change of an occupational group of a civil servant amounts to an 'appointment by transfer' as declared ultra vires in prior judgments, and whether such re-allocation violates civil service rules. The Court held that allocation and re-allocation of occupational groups are distinct from routine postings and transfers or appointments by transfer governed by the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. Instead, re-allocation is akin to an initial appointment falling within the domain of the government under the relevant statutory provisions and rules, and it does not violate the principles laid down in the cited judgments. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the re-allocation or change of an occupational group of a civil servant is synonymous with an 'appointment by transfer' under civil service laws?
  • Does the re-allocation of a civil servant from one occupational group to another violate the principles laid down in previous judgments concerning civil service appointments?
  • Whether allocation and re-allocation of occupational groups fall within the domain of the Government under the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977?
  • Does a delay of over twenty-six years in challenging the re-allocation of an occupational group affect the maintainability of such a challenge?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Fida Hussain Shah (in Crl.O.P.47/2016) (2) Ghulam Haider Jamali (in2017 PLC (C.S.) 1229, 2017 PLJ SC 444, 2017 SCMR 798, 2017 SCP 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-02-16
  contempt of courtcivil serviceoccupational groupre-allocationappointment by transferlocus standilaches
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal original petitions sought the implementation of the Supreme Court's earlier judgments in Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, Sindh and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh by challenging the re-allocation of the respondents' occupational groups to the Police Service of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the re-allocation of a civil servant's occupational group constitutes an unauthorized transfer or horizontal movement in violation of the court's previous rulings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that no contempt was established because the previous judgments did not address the allocation or re-allocation of occupational groups. The Court clarified that re-allocation is distinct from transfer under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973; instead, it is more akin to an initial appointment governed by Section 7(b)(ii) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977. The Court also noted that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the re-allocations, which had remained unchallenged by batchmates for over twenty-six years.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the re-allocation of a civil servant's occupational group is synonymous with or equivalent to an appointment by transfer under civil service laws?
  • Does the Supreme Court's prohibition on unauthorized horizontal transfers of civil servants apply to the re-allocation of occupational groups governed by the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977?
  • Can a petitioner challenge the re-allocation of a civil servant's occupational group after a delay of more than twenty-six years without demonstrating locus standi?
  Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain Shah & others vs Govt. of Sindh & others2017 PLJ SC 444 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil serviceoccupational groupre-allocationcontempt of courtappointment by transferservice structurecadre
  Summary & questions settled

  Through these Criminal Original Petitions, the petitioners sought the implementation of previous Supreme Court judgments, alleging that the re-allocation of certain civil servants to the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) was illegal and constituted contempt of court. The core legal question was whether the re-allocation of an occupational group constitutes an unauthorized "transfer" under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, as interpreted in prior rulings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the previous judgments relied upon by the petitioners did not address the specific issue of allocation or re-allocation of occupational groups. The Court clarified that "re-allocation" is a distinct process from "transfer" or "appointment by transfer" and falls within the government's domain under the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977. The Court established that re-allocation is more akin to an initial appointment rather than a horizontal movement between cadres, and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the re-allocation was arbitrary or that the previous judgments prohibited such administrative actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the re-allocation of a civil servant from one occupational group to another constitute an 'appointment by transfer' under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973?
  • Is the allocation and re-allocation of occupational groups for civil servants within the domain of the government under the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977?
  • Can a civil servant's re-allocation to a different occupational group be equated to a horizontal transfer between cadres?
  Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain Samoo, Commissioner (Insurance) Pakistan Tax Advisors2017 CLD 218 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2016-04-05Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain and 3 others vs The Secretary Local Government and 42017 YLR 2372 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-26Read full judgment →
• FESCO/WAPDA through Chief Executive Officer and 3 others vs Punjab2017 PLC 249 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-04
  constitutional petitionlimitationcondonation of delayvoid orderdepartmental delaylabour court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a service matter wherein the petitioners challenged a judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed their appeal against an order of the Labour Court as barred by time. The core legal questions examined by the court were whether a time-barred appeal against an allegedly void order can be entertained without limitation, and whether departmental and administrative delays constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay for government departments. The Lahore High Court held that even a void order must be challenged within the prescribed period of limitation, and routine departmental delays do not warrant condonation of delay without sufficient cause or penalizing the responsible officials. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the impugned judgment. The key principles laid down are that limitation applies equally to void orders and that government departments are treated at par with normal litigants regarding limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Must a void order or judgment be challenged within the prescribed period of limitation?
  • Do departmental and administrative delays constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
  • Are government departments treated at par with normal litigants in matters of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• FESCO through Chief Executive Officer, Faisalabad and 3 others vs Muhammad Ali Shah through Legal Heirs2017 PLJ Lahore 87 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• FESCO through Chief Executive Officer, etc. vs Addl. District Judge, etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 299 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-13Read full judgment →
• FESCO through Chief Executive and 5 others vs Tehsil Municipal2017 PLJ Lahore 294 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Feryal Ali Gauhar and 5 others vs Environmental Protection Agency, Punjab through Director General2017 PLJ Lahore 120 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-11
  constitutional petitionalternative remedyenvironmental approvalenvironmental protection tribunalmaintainabilitylocus standiurban development
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court challenging the environmental approval granted by the Environmental Protection Agency, Punjab, for the construction of a multi-storey hotel in Lahore, and seeking to declare various provisions of environmental and development laws, including the Lahore Development Authority Act 1975 and rules made thereunder, as unconstitutional. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable when adequate, efficacious, and alternative statutory remedies of appeal are available. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the Punjab Environmental Protection Act 1997 and the Lahore Development Authority Act 1975 provide specific remedies of appeal before the Environmental Protection Tribunal and other appropriate forums, the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked. The key principle laid down is that where a statute provides an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy, a constitutional petition is not maintainable and the aggrieved party must approach the designated statutory forum.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is provided under the statute?
  • Whether the Environmental Protection Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to address grievances regarding environmental approvals under the Punjab Environmental Protection Act 1997?
  • What constitutes an 'aggrieved person' in public interest litigation under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • How are potential conflicts between the Lahore Development Authority Act 1975 and the Punjab Local Government Act 2013 to be resolved?
  Read full judgment →
• Feroze Khan and 4 others vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1525 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-21
  control of narcotic substancesrecovery of opiumpolice witnessesnon-association of private personssentencing policychemical examiner reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge, Narcotics, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the transportation and possession of opium. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given that the recovery witnesses were exclusively police officials and no private persons were associated under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the quantum of sentence was in accordance with established sentencing guidelines. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the recovery of a large quantity of opium, that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in narcotics cases, and that police officials are competent witnesses. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction while modifying and reducing the sentences in line with the sentencing policy laid down by superior courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-association of private persons in recovery proceedings vitiates a narcotics case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can the testimony of police officials alone be considered sufficient to maintain a conviction in narcotics cases without corroboration from private witnesses?
  • Whether the quantum of sentence for the possession and transportation of opium can be modified in accordance with established judicial sentencing policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan, vs M/s. Sahib Jee etc. Islamabad etc.PTCL 2017 CL. 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-19
  Federal Tax Ombudsmanstatutory representationpower of reviewmaintainability of representationmal-administrationstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of a representation to the President of Pakistan under Section 32 of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, against an order passed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman in a review petition. The core legal question was whether a representation lies against an order dismissing a review petition filed under Section 14(8) of the Ordinance when the original recommendation remains undisturbed. The Supreme Court held that the remedy of representation under Section 32 is strictly confined to recommendations made under Section 11 of the Ordinance. The Court clarified that while the Ombudsman possesses review powers under Section 14(8), an order dismissing a review petition does not constitute a fresh recommendation and is therefore not subject to representation. However, if the Ombudsman, upon review, sets aside a previous decision and issues a new recommendation, such a recommendation becomes amenable to representation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that representation is not competent against a mere dismissal of a review petition that leaves the original recommendation intact.

  Questions settled

  • Is a representation to the President under Section 32 of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, maintainable against an order dismissing a review petition?
  • Does an order dismissing a review petition by the Federal Tax Ombudsman constitute a recommendation under Section 11 of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000?
  • Under what circumstances does a review order passed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman become subject to a representation before the President?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan, through D.G., National Training Bureau, Ministry of Education vs M_s James Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd2017 IHC 182 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-05-29Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan, etc vs Digicom Trading, etc2017 P.C.T.L.R. 683 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-07Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through. D.G., National Training Bureau, Ministry of Education vs M_s. James Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd2017 [M] C.L.R. 1380 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M_O Interior vs General (R) Pervez Musharraf and Others2017 NLR Criminal 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Exit Control Listinterim ordermerger of interim ordersconstitutional petitionright to travelfinal disposal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a High Court of Sindh judgment that struck down a memorandum placing the name of a retired General on the Exit Control List (ECL). The core legal question was whether an interim order directing the placement of a person's name on the ECL survives the final disposal of the main petition, or whether it merges into the final judgment and stands vacated unless specifically protected. The appellant argued that the interim direction remained operative despite the final disposal of the petition, whereas the respondent contended that interim orders merge into the final order and stand vacated unless explicitly protected. The Supreme Court analyzed the operative parts of both the interim order and the final disposal order. It affirmed the principle of merger, holding that upon final disposal of a case, all interim orders merge into the final judgment and stand vacated unless specifically protected by the court, thereby dismissing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an interim order directing the placement of a name on the Exit Control List survive the final disposal of the main petition if not explicitly protected?
  • Whether interim orders merge into the final judgment and stand vacated upon the final disposal of the main proceedings?
  • Can the Federal Government maintain a restriction on travel based on an interim order after the main petition has been finally disposed of without any protective clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad and others vs Ali Naseem and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-07-11
  Civil ServantFederal Service TribunalContractual employmentMissions AbroadJurisdictionTermination of serviceService law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted appeals from locally recruited staff of Pakistani Missions Abroad whose services were terminated. The core legal question was whether such locally recruited employees qualify as "Civil Servants" entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the respondents were recruited locally by Heads of Missions on a contract basis, as permitted by the Financial Management at Missions Abroad regulations. Consequently, they fall squarely within the exclusion provided in Section 2(1)(b)(ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which excludes persons employed on contract from the definition of "Civil Servant." The Court ruled that because the respondents were not Civil Servants, they lacked the standing to approach the Federal Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The key principle laid down is that local staff recruited by Pakistani Missions Abroad under specific employment contracts are not Civil Servants, and therefore, the Federal Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate their service-related grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Are persons locally recruited by Pakistani Missions Abroad considered civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear appeals filed by locally recruited staff of Pakistani Missions Abroad?
  • Does a contract-based appointment exclude an employee from the definition of a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →