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.

• Chief Secretary/Provincial Government G.B. Gilgit and 3 others vs2017 YLR 863 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-05-10Read full judgment →
• Chief Secretary, Sindh vs Riaz Ahmad Massan & anotherK.L.R. 2017 SC 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-04-27
  proforma promotionsupersessiondepartmental examinationlimitationsuperannuationservice tribunalback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of court arose from a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal granting proforma promotion to Respondent No. 1 from BPS-17 to BPS-18 with effect from 28.08.2003 (when his juniors were promoted) along with consequential financial back benefits and extending proforma promotion to BPS-19, despite his retirement. Respondent No. 1 was superseded on 28.08.2003 by the Provincial Selection Board due to failing to qualify the requisite departmental examination under Rule 8(4) of the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964. Although he subsequently obtained an exemption from the Chief Minister under Rule 13 and was promoted to BPS-18 on 16.12.2005, he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal long after his superannuation on 30.09.2007. The Supreme Court examined whether the Service Tribunal could direct proforma promotion after retirement, noting that the appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred and that the requirement to qualify the examination could not operate retrospectively to invalidate the earlier lawful supersession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal can direct proforma promotion of a civil servant after his retirement?
  • Whether an exemption granted from passing a departmental examination operates retrospectively to invalidate a prior supersession for promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Executive Officer (FESCO), Faisalabad vs Ghulam Mohayudin, etc2017 PLJ Lahore 824 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-23Read full judgment →
• (1) Chief Engineer, Electricity Department, Azad Government of the State of2017 SC AJK 392 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-05-31Read full judgment →
• Chiarman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad vs Messrs Al-2017 PLD Supreme Court 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-11-22
  sales taxmanufacturesterilization of medical productstaxable supplyinterpretation of fiscal statutescharging provision
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the gamma sterilization of medical and surgical products, such as syringes, constitutes 'manufacture' under Section 2(16) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, thereby making the process subject to sales tax. The Federal Board of Revenue argued that value is added through sterilization, bringing it within the statutory definition of manufacture. The Supreme Court held that tax laws must be construed strictly in favor of the taxpayer and that a process cannot be taxed unless it falls squarely within the charging provisions. The Court determined that the process of sterilization does not convert, change, transform, or reshape the syringes into a distinct article or product, nor does it render them capable of being put to use differently or distinctly. Consequently, sterilization is not 'manufacture' within the meaning of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and is not liable to sales tax. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the gamma sterilization of medical and surgical products constitute 'manufacture' under Section 2(16) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Is a sterilization process of syringes subject to sales tax as a taxable supply?
  • How should charging provisions and definition clauses in fiscal statutes be construed when determining tax liability?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Cherat Cement Company Limited (2) Ghazanfar Ali and another vs (1)2017 SHC 292 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-28Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Muhammad Anwar, etc. vs District Coordination Officer, Lahore, etc2017 LHC 2092 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-02
  permanent injunctiongraveyard trustbona fide purchaserproof of documentsrevenue recordpast and closed transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from post-remand proceedings directed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellants against the demolition of property allegedly purchased by their mother via a 1958 sale deed and later gifted to them. The core legal questions involved whether the suit land, which was included in the Miani Sahib Graveyard schedule pursuant to a 1962 Press Note and the Miani Sahib Graveyard Ordinance, 1962, was lawfully excluded by the Graveyard Committee, and whether the appellants proved their title and status as bona fide purchasers. The Lahore High Court held that the Committee lacked jurisdiction to exclude trust property from the statutory schedule, as statutory exclusion required an application to the Government and adjudication by a designated Tribunal under the West Pakistan Graveyards (Preservation and Maintenance) Act, 1958. Furthermore, the court held that the appellants failed to prove their documents of title in accordance with mandatory provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment that properties vested in the graveyard trust under martial law notifications enjoy immunity and cannot be alienated by defective transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Miani Sahib Graveyard Committee has the legal authority to exclude property from the statutory schedule of the graveyard?
  • Must documents such as jamabandis and sale deeds be formally proved by examining their scribes, signatories, or record keepers in accordance with the Evidence Act, 1872?
  • Does property included in the schedule of the Miani Sahib Graveyard Ordinance, 1962, vest in the trust as a past and closed transaction immune from challenge?
  • Can a person acquire a valid title through a transaction or gift of land that has already vested in a statutory graveyard trust?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Muhammad Anwar, etc vs District Coordination Officer, Lahore, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 898 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chaudhry Mohammad Tazeem vs Chairman, State Life Insurance and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 743 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-14
  Intra Court Appealmaintainabilityalternate remedylachespensionary benefitsresignationwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant's writ petition as not maintainable. The core legal questions involve the maintainability of a constitutional petition when an alternate remedy by way of a civil suit has already been pursued for the same relief, and whether a petition filed after a substantial delay of over two decades suffers from fatal laches. The Court held that the writ petition was rightly dismissed by the Single Judge as it was barred by laches—having been filed long after the grievance arose in 1989—and because the Appellant had already availed an alternate remedy by filing a civil suit. The key principle laid down is that a constitutional petition cannot be entertained when it suffers from unexplained and inordinate delay, and when the aggrieved party has already elected to pursue an alternate remedy before a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when the aggrieved person has already availed an alternate remedy by filing a civil suit for the same relief?
  • Whether a writ petition filed after a lapse of more than twenty years from the accrual of the cause of action is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches?
  • Can an employee claim pensionary benefits after resigning from service without fulfilling the mandatory departmental requirements such as recommendation by a Medical Board?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Tariq Farooq and 2 others vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 6 others2017 PLD High Court (AJ&K) 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-01-12
  constitutional petitionultra viressubordinate legislationacting chief election commissionerconstitutional officejudicial reviewazad jammu and kashmir interim constitution act 1974advice of council
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the vires of Ordinance XIX of 2015, which introduced Section 6-A to the Chief Election Commissioner (Terms and Conditions) Act 1992, creating the office of Acting Chief Election Commissioner, and challenged the subsequent notification appointing an Acting Chief Election Commissioner. The core legal questions were whether a constitutional office could be created through subordinate legislation and whether the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council’s advice for such an appointment was binding when tendered without being sought by the President. The High Court held that the office of Acting Chief Election Commissioner could not be created via subordinate legislation as the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, did not provide for it, rendering Section 6-A of the Ordinance ultra vires. Furthermore, the Court ruled that constitutional advice cannot be tendered in a vacuum; it must be sought by the appointing authority. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Ordinance provisions and the appointment notification, emphasizing that lacunae in the Constitution cannot be filled by subordinate legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional office be created or supplemented through subordinate legislation?
  • Is the advice of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council binding on the President if tendered without being sought?
  • Does the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, provide for the appointment of an Acting Chief Election Commissioner?
  • Are petitioners who are legislators and advocates considered 'aggrieved persons' for the purpose of challenging the constitutionality of an Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Asghar Ali vs Maqbool Maseeh and 3 others2021 PLJ Lahore 393, 2017 CLC 950 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-07
  constitutional petitionadditional issuecross-examinationspecific performancecivil revisionvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a suit for specific performance instituted by the respondent against the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, an additional issue was framed upon the request of the petitioner, but the trial court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's application to re-cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses on this new issue, a decision upheld by the revisional court. The core legal question was whether a defendant is entitled to cross-examine witnesses on an additional issue framed after the initial recording of evidence, even if the plaintiff opts not to lead further evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the trial courts misconstrued the law and that the defendant cannot be deprived of the vested right to cross-examine witnesses regarding a newly framed issue. The court laid down the principle that the framing of an additional issue opens a new horizon, obligating the trial court to permit cross-examination limited strictly to the scope of that specific issue.

  Questions settled

  • Does the framing of an additional issue entitle a defendant to cross-examine witnesses on that issue when the plaintiff chooses not to lead further evidence?
  • Can a trial court refuse a defendant's request to cross-examine witnesses regarding a newly framed additional issue?
  • Does a statement by a plaintiff's counsel declining further evidence on an additional issue deprive the defendant of the right to cross-examine on that issue?
  Read full judgment →
• Charles S. Turner, Et Al and another vs United States2017 SCMR 1489 · Supreme Court of United StatesRead full judgment →
• Chan Zeb vs The State2017 PHC 603 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Chairman, NAB vs Muhammad Usman and others2018 PLJ SC 42, 2018 P.S.C. (Crl.) 998, 2017 P.S.C. (Crl.) 991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-09-21
  Accountability CourtCriminal ProcedureWitness examinationCourt witnessConstitutional jurisdictionJudicial discretionNAB reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a Peshawar High Court judgment that permitted the accused to summon 33 prosecution witnesses—who had already been cross-examined—as defence witnesses in an accountability trial. The core legal question was whether the accused possesses an absolute right under Sections 265-F and 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall prosecution witnesses as defence evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation, noting that prosecution and defence witnesses are distinct categories that should not be intermingled. The Court clarified that while Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confers powers to summon witnesses, it is an inquisitorial tool for the Court to discover truth, not a right for parties to delay proceedings or harass witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the trial court's decision. The judgment establishes that trial courts possess discretion to refuse such requests to prevent vexation or delay, and that High Courts should not interfere with such discretion under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 unless a grave miscarriage of justice is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person summon prosecution witnesses as defence witnesses as a matter of right under Section 265-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the power of the Court under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the routine recalling of prosecution witnesses as defence witnesses?
  • Under what circumstances should a High Court interfere with the discretion exercised by a trial court regarding the summoning of witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Mari Gas Co. Ltd. and 2 others vs Abdul Rehman2017 YLR 2504 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-22Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad vs M/s. Al-Technique2017 PLD Supreme Court 99, 2017 PLJ SC 243, PTCL 2017 CL. 137, 2017 P.C.T.L.R. · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-11-22
  sales taxmanufacturetaxable supplyfiscal statute interpretationsterilization processcharging provisiontax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the taxability of gamma sterilization services for medical products. The core legal question was whether the process of sterilizing syringes and surgical products constitutes 'manufacture' under Section 2(16) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, thereby rendering the service provider liable for sales tax. The Supreme Court held that the sterilization process does not amount to 'manufacture' because it does not convert, change, transform, or reshape the products into a distinct article capable of being put to use differently. The syringes remain syringes after the process. Consequently, the respondent is not a 'manufacturer' under Section 2(17) and does not make a 'taxable supply' under Section 2(41). The Court reaffirmed the principle that taxing statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the taxpayer, and tax cannot be levied unless the activity falls squarely within the charging provisions. As the sterilization activity did not meet the statutory definition of manufacture, the appeal was dismissed, and the tax demand was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the process of gamma sterilization of medical products constitute 'manufacture' under the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • Is a service provider who merely sterilizes goods without changing their form or function a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of sales tax?
  • How should charging provisions in fiscal statutes be interpreted when there is doubt regarding the applicability of a tax?
  • Does the definition of 'manufacture' in Section 2(16) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 include processes that do not result in a distinct article or product?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad vs M/s. Al-Technique2017 PLJ SC 243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-11-22
  sales taxmanufacturingfiscal statutestrict interpretationtaxable supplysterilizationtax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addressed whether the process of gamma sterilization of medical and surgical products constitutes "manufacture" under Section 2(16) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, thereby rendering the service provider liable for sales tax. The appellant argued that sterilization adds value and thus qualifies as manufacturing. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that sterilization does not amount to manufacturing. The Court reasoned that the process does not convert, transform, or reshape the articles into a distinct product with a different function; the syringes remain syringes after the process. Emphasizing the principle of strict construction in fiscal statutes, the Court ruled that tax cannot be levied unless the activity falls squarely within the charging provisions. Since sterilization does not meet the statutory definition of "manufacture," the respondent is not a "manufacturer" making a "taxable supply" under the Act. Consequently, the Court affirmed that tax laws must be construed in favor of the taxpayer when the language does not clearly encompass the activity in question.

  Questions settled

  • Does the process of gamma sterilization of medical products constitute "manufacture" under Section 2(16) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • What is the standard of interpretation for charging provisions in fiscal statutes?
  • Is a person performing gamma sterilization on goods owned by others a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad vs M/s. Al-TechniquePTCL 2017 CL. 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-11-22
  sales taxmanufacturetaxable supplystatutory interpretationfiscal statutesterilization processtax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a tax dispute between the Federal Board of Revenue and a company engaged in the gamma sterilization of medical and surgical products. The core legal question was whether the process of sterilization constitutes "manufacture" as defined under Section 2(16) of the Sales Tax Act 1990, thereby rendering the activity subject to sales tax. The Supreme Court held that sterilization does not constitute "manufacture" because it does not convert, change, transform, or reshape the products into a distinct article or product capable of being used differently. Consequently, the respondent was not a "manufacturer" under Section 2(17) and did not make a "taxable supply" under Section 2(41). The Court affirmed that charging provisions in fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly. It laid down the principle that tax laws cannot be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, and any substantial doubt regarding the scope of a taxing provision must be resolved in favour of the taxpayer. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision that the activity was not taxable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the process of gamma sterilization of medical products constitute 'manufacture' under the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • How should charging provisions in fiscal statutes be construed when there is doubt regarding their scope?
  • Is a person who performs sterilization on goods owned by others a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of sales tax?
  • Does the definition of 'manufacture' in Section 2(16) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 include processes that do not change the form or function of the article?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and another vs General Manager and 3 others2017 PTD 1036 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-16Read full judgment →
• Chairman NADRA, Islamabad, through Chairman, Islamabad and another2017 SCMR 1979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-09-12
  regularizationcontractual employeesstatutory bodywrit jurisdictionservice mattersmaster and servantNADRAconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals arose from a Peshawar High Court judgment that modified the terms of regularization for contractual employees of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA). The respondents, contractual employees, had challenged the pay scales and designations offered in NADRA’s regularization letters of March 2012, seeking instead the terms discussed in a meeting chaired by the Interior Minister. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere in the terms of regularization and whether the Ministry of Interior had the authority to dictate NADRA's employment terms. The Court held that NADRA is a statutory body governed by the NADRA Ordinance, 2000, and neither the Interior Minister nor the Ministry has the legal authority to order regularization or set service terms, which rests solely with the Authority. Furthermore, the Court ruled that contractual employees of a statutory organization cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 to renegotiate or amend regularization offers. Until the option for regularization is formally accepted, the relationship remains contractual, precluding writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside.

  Read full judgment →
• Chairman NAB vs Muhammad Usman and others2017 SCP 1002 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-11-17
  summoning of witnessesdefence witnessesprosecution witnessescourt witnesstrial court discretionconstitutional jurisdictionaccountability court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside an order of the Accountability Court declining the respondents' request to summon thirty-three prosecution witnesses as defence witnesses. The core legal question was whether an accused person has a right under sections 265-F and 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon and examine prosecution witnesses who have already been examined and cross-examined as defence witnesses. The Supreme Court held that prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses are distinctly placed and cannot be intermingled, and that an accused cannot claim a right to examine already cross-examined prosecution witnesses as defence witnesses. The Court laid down the principle that while Section 540 empowers the court to summon or recall any witness as a court witness to discover the truth and secure the ends of justice in exceptional cases, parties cannot routinely summon the opposing party's witnesses as their own, and the High Court should not interfere with the trial court's fair exercise of discretion under its constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person summon prosecution witnesses who have already been examined and cross-examined to testify as defence witnesses?
  • Whether the provisions of section 265-F and section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit the intermingling of prosecution and defence witnesses?
  • Under what circumstances can a court invoke its powers under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall or examine a witness?
  • Can the High Court interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution with the discretion exercised by a trial court regarding the summoning of witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board and another vs Mst. Rubina2017 YLR 2125 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-16Read full judgment →
• Chairman AJK Council and others vs Muhammad Munir Raja and others2017 SC AJK 419 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-11-15
  de novo inquiryfinality of judgmentcompulsory retirementdouble jeopardycivil service disciplinary proceedingsexonerationcoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil service appeal arose out of a judgment of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Service Tribunal setting aside the de novo inquiry and compulsory retirement imposed upon the respondent. The core legal questions were whether an executive authority could lawfully initiate a de novo disciplinary inquiry against a civil servant on identical charges after the Supreme Court had already affirmed his exoneration and reinstatement, and whether such action offended finality of judgments and double jeopardy principles. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that once an apex court judgment attains finality, executive authorities possess no jurisdiction to unilaterally reopen the matter or order fresh inquiries without express judicial permission. The Court declared that interpreting judicial decrees and determining law falls exclusively within judicial domain, and attempts to circumvent final judgments violate sections 42-A and 42-B of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974. Furthermore, subjecting a civil servant to repeated inquiries on settled allegations breaches the principle against double jeopardy. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an executive authority can order a de novo inquiry on identical charges after the Supreme Court has finally upheld the civil servant's exoneration?
  • Whether initiating fresh disciplinary proceedings against an exonerated civil servant on the same charges violates the principle against double jeopardy?
  • Whether an executive authority possesses the legal power to interpret or bypass a binding judgment of the Supreme Court under Section 42-A and Section 42-B of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974?
  • Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated under the repealed AJ&K Council Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2000 can be reopened under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman Aj&K Council & 2 others vs Muhammad Munir Raja & another2017 SCR 1168 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-11-14
  service matterde novo inquirydouble jeopardyfinality of judgmentcompulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingscoram non judicejudicial supremacy
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter appeal concerns the legality of a de novo disciplinary inquiry initiated by the AJ&K Council against a civil servant after previous proceedings were declared coram non judice and set aside by the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether an executive authority may initiate a fresh inquiry on the same allegations after a final judgment by the apex Court has resolved the matter, without obtaining express judicial permission. The Court held that such de novo proceedings are impermissible. The previous judgment, which upheld the Service Tribunal’s exoneration of the respondent, attained finality, and the authority cannot unilaterally reopen the case. The Court established the principle that once a service matter is finally adjudicated by the apex Court, no executive authority is competent to reopen it or initiate fresh proceedings on the same allegations without express judicial direction. Such actions violate the principle of finality, constitute double jeopardy, and undermine the dignity and supremacy of the Court’s judicial orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive authority initiate a de novo disciplinary inquiry against a civil servant after the Supreme Court has set aside previous proceedings on the same allegations?
  • Does the initiation of a fresh disciplinary inquiry on the same charges after a final acquittal by the Service Tribunal and Supreme Court violate the principle of double jeopardy?
  • Is an executive authority permitted to interpret or reopen a final judgment of the Supreme Court without seeking clarification from the Court?
  • Does a judgment quashing disciplinary proceedings on technical grounds automatically bar the authority from holding a fresh inquiry if the Court does not explicitly grant permission?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Zulfiqar Ali Ranjha and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 826 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-13Read full judgment →
• Ch. Zulfiqar Ali Ranjha and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan etc2017 LHC 2072 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-13Read full judgment →
• Ch. Sultan Mahmood vs Appellate Authority/Adj and 2 others2017 MLD 948 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-10
  worker seatnomination paperslocal government electiondefinition of workersubstance livingconcurrent findingswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two connected writ petitions challenging the concurrent rejection of nomination papers of the petitioner and the rival candidate for the reserved seat of 'Worker' in the Municipal Committee Jhelum. The core legal question is whether the petitioner and the rival candidate fall within the statutory definition of 'Worker' under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, given their financial status and assets. The Lahore High Court held that neither candidate qualifies as a 'Worker' because they own substantial assets, hold National Tax Numbers, and run businesses or own agricultural land, thereby failing to establish that they subsist on personal labour. The Court laid down the principle that seats reserved for workers are intended exclusively for members of that specific socio-economic class, and allowing affluent individuals to contest such seats would defeat the legislative intent and injure the rights of the working class.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person owning substantial property and business assets can be considered a 'Worker' for contesting an election on a reserved worker seat?
  • Does the definition of 'worker' under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 cover individuals who do not subsist on personal labour?
  • Are concurrent findings of lower election authorities regarding the rejection of nomination papers open to interference in writ jurisdiction without proof of illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Shaukat Ali vs Haji Jan Muhammad and others2017 SCMR 533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-16
  anti-terrorismtransfer of trialjurisdictionsudden altercationleave to appealcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court whereby a constitutional petition for the transfer of a criminal trial from an Anti-Terrorism Court to a court of ordinary jurisdiction was allowed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the alleged offence, arising from a sudden altercation during an election victory procession involving firearm injuries, fell within the purview of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as an act of terrorism. The Supreme Court held that upon examining the FIR, the material collected during investigation—including negative Forensic Science Laboratory reports and statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where witnesses stated the assailants were unknown—and surrounding circumstances, the incident lacked the requisite design or motivation to create public terror. Consequently, the High Court's order transferring the case to ordinary jurisdiction was unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that determining whether an offence falls within the ambit of anti-terrorism laws depends on the allegations in the FIR, the material collected by the investigating agency, and the surrounding circumstances demonstrating the motivation, object, or design behind the act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence arising from a sudden altercation during an election procession falls within the ambit of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What factors must be considered to determine whether a particular act constitutes terrorism for the purpose of trial jurisdiction?
  • Can a case be transferred from an Anti-Terrorism Court to an ordinary court based on the material collected during the police investigation and statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Sabir Ali vs City District Government, etc2017 LHC 481 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-15Read full judgment →
• Ch. Sabir Ali vs City District Government and others2017 LHC 481, 2017 PLD Lahore 370 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-15Read full judgment →
• Ch. Nazar Hussain & 6 others vs Muhammad Ayub & 14 others2017 SCR 1360 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-21Read full judgment →
• Ch. Naseer Ahmed and another vs The Rent Controller and others2017 IHC 172 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-04-26Read full judgment →
• CH. Muhammad Tariq, Chairman Muhammad Ashraf vs Rizwan Ali2017 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 206 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 2017-02-07
  labour lawinterlocutory reliefreinstatementgrievance petitionbogus certificatetermination of servicestatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, which directed the petitioner establishment to reinstate a respondent-driver pending the final adjudication of his grievance petition. The respondent had been dismissed following the discovery that his submitted matriculation certificate was bogus, despite being issued a show-cause notice and an opportunity for a personal hearing. The core legal question was whether a Labour Court acts within its jurisdiction by granting the final relief of reinstatement as an interlocutory measure before the main grievance petition is decided on its merits. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that the purpose of an interlocutory order or status quo is to maintain the existing situation, not to create a new one or grant the main relief sought in the petition prior to the trial. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Labour Court was directed to determine the legality of the termination order only after considering the evidence presented by both parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Labour Court grant the final relief of reinstatement as an interlocutory measure before the main grievance petition is decided?
  • Is it permissible for a court to grant an interlocutory order that effectively decides the main case without a trial?
  • What is the legal purpose of an interlocutory order or status quo in labour litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Suleman vs Accountant General, & 4 others2017 SCR 1268 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-10-25
  pensionary benefitsadhoc reliefservice tribunal jurisdictionwrit jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicecourt employeesmove overcivil servant status
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment dismissing writ petitions filed by a retired High Court employee seeking the inclusion of specific Adhoc Relief in his pension calculations. The core legal questions were whether the appellant, who retired in BPS-18, was entitled to the claimed pensionary benefits under the relevant Office Memorandum, and whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate matters concerning the terms and conditions of service for court employees. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was ineligible for the relief because the Office Memorandum explicitly restricted such benefits to employees in BPS 1-16, including those in BPS-17 by move-over, thereby excluding BPS-18. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that disputes regarding pensionary terms and conditions fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court established that even where court employees are governed by specific rules, if those rules incorporate civil service regulations for matters like pension, the High Court's writ jurisdiction is barred, and the matter must be adjudicated by the appropriate Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding the pensionary terms and conditions of court employees?
  • Are court employees, whose terms and conditions are regulated by rules incorporating civil service laws, subject to the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal for pension disputes?
  • Does an office memorandum granting pensionary benefits to employees in BPS 1-16 and BPS-17 by move-over apply to employees retired in BPS-18?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Shoukat and (7) others. vs Custodian of Evacuee Property, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad. an (4) others2017 SC AJK 114 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Shoukat & 7 others vs Custodian of Evacuee Property & 42017 SCR 1388 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Hanif Jutt vs Ch. Saqib Naseeb Gujjar and others2017 P.S.C. 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-04
  election petitionreturned candidateeducational qualificationnomination paperselection tribunalwithdrawal of petitionvalidity of degree
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 67(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1976, challenging the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Multan, which had set aside the appellant's election as a returned candidate from PP-226 Sahiwal-VII in the 2013 general elections. The Tribunal's decision was based on the allegation that the appellant had falsely declared his LL.B. qualification in his nomination papers. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant produced a civil court judgment, subsequently upheld by an appellate court, which declared his LL.B. degree valid and final. The contesting respondent conceded to the appellant's claim and requested permission to withdraw the original election petition. The Supreme Court, noting the finality of the civil court's declaration regarding the appellant's educational qualification and observing that the election petition suffered from material illegalities as per established precedents, allowed the appeal. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and dismissed the election petition, holding that the appellant's qualification was valid and the election petition was legally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an election result be set aside on the ground of false educational declaration when a competent civil court has already declared the degree valid?
  • Is an election petition maintainable if it suffers from material illegalities regarding the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1976?
  • Can an election appeal be allowed based on the consent of the contesting respondent?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Ashraf vs Hafeez-Ur-Rehman and another2017 YLR 1525 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-30Read full judgment →
• CH. Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State & Others2017 NLR Criminal 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  post-arrest bailcyber online job enterprisesfraudulent schemesociety at largeprohibitory limbleave to appealdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  Ch. Muhammad Ashfaq sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court order refusing him bail in three criminal cases arising from FIRs relating to fraudulent online job scams through a bogus enterprise, which duped numerous citizens out of substantial sums. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in offences not falling strictly within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the organized and widespread nature of the fraud affecting society at large. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal, holding that while certain offences may not fall within the prohibitory clause, judicial discretion to grant bail should not be exercised leniently in routine matters where an accused is involved in sophisticated, large-scale financial scams victimizing the public. The key principle laid down is that crimes affecting society at large through ingenious and widespread fraudulent schemes take the case out of ordinary principles of bail discretion, justifying the withholding of bail even for non-prohibitory offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted for offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused is involved in organized financial scams affecting the public at large?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in the absence of an important point of law of public importance?
  • Is deep appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage when the trial is already in progress?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Arshad vs PTCL through General Manager2017 CLC 119 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-05-25Read full judgment →
• Ch. Mohammad Nawaz and another vs The Federal Government2017 IHC 175 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-06-19Read full judgment →
• Ch. Maqbool Ahmed &17 others vs Ch. Muhammad Iqbal2017 SCR 1653 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-11-16
  Shamilat Dehcollusive decreedeclaratory suitvillage proprietary bodygraveyardperpetual injunctionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment dismissing a suit regarding land recorded as Shamilat Deh. The core legal question was whether a civil court can grant a declaratory decree or perpetual injunction regarding Shamilat Deh land based on a private compromise or cognovit without impleading the entire village proprietary body. The Supreme Court held that Shamilat Deh land, being common property, cannot be alienated or subjected to private compromise decrees that effectively transfer title or change the land's nature without the participation of the entire village proprietary body. The Court affirmed that such collusive decrees are nullities in the eye of law. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that land reserved for religious purposes, such as a graveyard, is protected and cannot be repurposed by individual claimants. Finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings, ruling that the appellant's claim, founded on an illegal collusive decree, was unsustainable. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that common village land requires collective representation in litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court pass a declaratory decree regarding Shamilat Deh land based on a private compromise or cognovit?
  • Is it necessary to implead the entire village proprietary body in a suit concerning Shamilat Deh land?
  • Does a collusive decree obtained without the participation of the village proprietary body regarding common land hold any legal value?
  • Can land reserved for religious purposes, such as a graveyard, be repurposed by an individual claimant?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Maqbool Ahmad Sahookar vs Messrs Nib Bank and others2017 CLD 766 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-07
  financial institutionauction proceedingssale certificatebanking courtexecution of decreeobjection petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 against the order of the Banking Court dismissing the appellant's application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside auction proceedings. The core legal question revolves around whether auction proceedings and the issuance of a sale certificate can be finalized before the adjudication of a pending objection application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when the Banking Court had previously ordered that the confirmation of sale would be subject to that application's decision. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the mere premature progression toward issuing the sale certificate does not warrant setting aside the order dismissing the objection to the auction itself. However, the Court laid down the principle that the Banking Court must first decide the pending application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 within a specified timeframe before proceeding to issue the final sale certificate to the auction purchaser.

  Questions settled

  • Whether auction proceedings and sale confirmation can be finalized before deciding a pending application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Does the premature initiation of sale certificate issuance provide sufficient ground to set aside an order dismissing an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Latif Akbar, Former Finance Minister, Muzaffarabad. and 261 othe_a5fc166c2017 SC AJK 102 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Ch. Irfan Ali vs RBS, etc2017 P.C.T.L.R. 98 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-06Read full judgment →
• Ch. Irfan Ali and another vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 829 · Lahore High Court · 2016-08-01
  pre-arrest bailforgeryagreement to sellfraudtentative assessmentcriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Ch. Irfan Ali and another seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 112/16 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Faisalabad under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail given the general allegations of forgery, lack of direct evidence, and absence of complaints from the actual property owners. The Lahore High Court held that in the absence of statements from the real owners and direct evidence of forgery, coupled with forensic reports indicating the complainant thumb-marked the documents, the petitioners' pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that where mens rea and involvement in forgery require determination through trial evidence and real owners have not lodged complaints, pre-arrest bail may be granted and confirmed on tentative assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when there is a lack of direct evidence and the real owners of the property have not lodged any complaint?
  • Can mens rea regarding forgery be validly determined at the bail stage without recording trial evidence?
  • Does a forensic fingerprint report verifying thumb impressions on disputed documents justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Hamid Hameed vs Barrister Abdullah Mumtaz Kahlon and others2017 P.S.C. 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-05-10
  election petitionreturned candidatenomination formcorrupt practicesgeneral electionsasset disclosure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an election petition filed under Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 by the runner-up candidate challenging the victory of the appellant in the General Elections held on 11.05.2013 from National Assembly constituency NA-66-11I City Sargodha. The core legal question involves allegations of corrupt and illegal practices, specifically the alleged concealment of ownership and interest in Koh-e-Noor Textile Cotton Mills situated in Pipplan, District, within the appellant's nomination form. The court's decision involves examining the validity of the election petition and the allegations brought against the returned candidate. The key principle laid down relates to the scrutiny of nomination forms, disclosure of assets and interests, and the adjudication of election disputes under the electoral framework.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an election petition can be filed under Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act 1976 alleging concealment of assets in a nomination form?
  • What constitutes corrupt and illegal practices regarding the concealment of ownership in textile mills within a nomination form?
  Read full judgment →
• Hikmatullah vs The State & another2017 PHC 1016 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-24Read full judgment →
• Ch. Basharat Ali vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited and another2017 PLC (C.S.) 1093 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-16
  transferred employeesstatutory rulesdisciplinary proceedingsterms and conditions of servicePakistan Telecommunication Company Limitedwrit jurisdictionprecedent
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, along with connected matters, concerns the termination of service of employees originally appointed in the erstwhile Telephone and Telegraph Department who were subsequently transferred to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL). The core legal question was whether these transferred employees are governed by statutory rules, thereby rendering the PTCL Service Regulations, 1996, inapplicable to their disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that by virtue of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, and the Pakistan Telecommunication Act, 1991, the terms and conditions of service of these employees are protected and cannot be varied to their disadvantage. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners' services are governed by statutory rules, and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them under the PTCL Service Regulations, 1996, were without lawful authority. The Court emphasized that in cases of conflicting judgments from equal benches, the later view prevails, and that leave-granting orders do not constitute binding precedents. The dismissal orders were set aside, with liberty granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners strictly in accordance with the applicable law.

  Questions settled

  • Are the services of employees transferred from the former Telephone and Telegraph Department to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited governed by statutory rules?
  • Can the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited vary the terms and conditions of service of transferred employees to their disadvantage?
  • Does a leave granting order by the Supreme Court constitute a binding precedent for subordinate courts?
  • In the event of conflicting judgments from two benches of the Supreme Court comprising an equal number of judges, which view prevails?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq vs Ch.Tariq Farooq and others2017 SC AJK 423 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-11-15Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ahmed Nadeem vs Abdul Qayyum and another2017 C.L.R. 133 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-10Read full judgment →
• (1) CDR. ( R ) Mansoob Ali Khan (2) Adil Rashid (3) Brigadier (Retd) Kamran2019 CLC 1444, 2017 SHC 393 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-11
  constitutional jurisdictionmaintainability of writ petitionstatutory bodyterms and conditions of serviceconversion of civil suitmaster and servantPTCL
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses a batch of intra-court appeals and constitutional petitions arising from civil suits filed by employees of statutory bodies, specifically the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) and Port Qasim Authority, challenging disciplinary actions and termination of service. The core legal questions involved whether civil suits filed by employees of statutory bodies regarding their terms and conditions of service can be converted into constitutional petitions and heard by a Division Bench, and whether PTCL and Port Qasim Authority constitute 'persons' performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation under Article 199 of the Constitution. The court held that High Courts possess the inherent power to convert one kind of proceeding into another to prevent injustice and that PTCL and Port Qasim Authority are statutory bodies performing public functions, making them amenable to the constitutional writ jurisdiction. The key principles laid down include that employees governed by statutory service rules can invoke constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 against statutory corporations and that courts are not barred from converting civil suits into writ petitions in appropriate circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether civil suits filed by employees of statutory bodies relating to their terms and conditions of service having statutory service rules can be converted into constitutional petitions?
  • Whether a writ could be issued against the Respondent Port Qasim Authority under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Whether Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Capt: Zahur Ahmad Khan vs Govt. of Pakistan & others2017 PHC 1220 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-08
  pro forma promotioncivil servantdeferment of promotionHigh Powered Selection Boardconstitutional petitionretirement benefitseligibility criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by a retired civil servant seeking pro forma promotion to Basic Pay Scale 22 (BPS-22) from the date his juniors were promoted. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was lawfully deferred for promotion multiple times by the High Powered Selection Board and whether a retired civil servant could be granted pro forma promotion. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner's deferment was arbitrary, unjustified, and based on reasons beyond his control, and that under Fundamental Rule 17, a civil servant wrongfully prevented from promotion can be granted pro forma promotion even after retirement. The court laid down the principle that while promotion is not an absolute right, a qualified civil servant has a right to have their case considered strictly in accordance with eligibility criteria and established promotion policies, and deferment cannot be used arbitrarily to bypass an eligible officer.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim pro forma promotion after reaching the age of superannuation if wrongfully prevented from promotion during service?
  • Whether the deferment of a civil servant's promotion by the Selection Board can be made on grounds beyond the officer's control?
  • Does a civil servant have an enforceable right to have their promotion case considered strictly in accordance with the prescribed eligibility criteria?
  • What are the permissible grounds for deferring a civil servant's consideration for promotion under the applicable promotion policy guidelines?
  Read full judgment →
• Capita Insurance Services Limited vs Wood2017 SCMR 1116 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
• Canal View Cooperative Housing Society etc. vs Nasim Begum etc.2017 LHC 1468 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-30Read full judgment →
• Canal View Co-operative Housing Society, etc vs Nasim Begum, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 663 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-30Read full judgment →
• Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs Union of India and Others2017 SCInd 1347 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-12-01
  public interest litigationspecial investigation teamjudicial independenceabuse of processcriminal conspiracycontemptuous petitionexemplary costs
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a public interest litigation organization, approached the Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Chief Justice of India to investigate an FIR alleging a criminal conspiracy and payment of bribes to procure favourable judicial orders. The core legal question was whether a separate Special Investigation Team could be appointed to investigate allegations involving judicial corruption when an identical writ petition had already been dismissed by the Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition was a gross abuse of the process of the court, wholly frivolous, and an attempt to scandalize the judiciary, noting that the identical matter had already been thoroughly addressed and dismissed in Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition with exemplary costs of twenty-five lakhs rupees. The key principle laid down is that successive and unfounded public interest petitions raising scandalous allegations against the judiciary without basis constitute an abuse of process and warrant dismissal with exemplary costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Special Investigation Team can be constituted by the court to investigate an FIR when an identical petition seeking the same relief has already been dismissed?
  • Does the filing of successive public interest petitions containing unfounded allegations against the judiciary constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Can an FIR be registered against a judge of the superior judiciary without consulting the Chief Justice of India?
  Read full judgment →
• C.M.H., BWP vs P.O., Punjab Labour Court, BWP2017 NLR Labour 8 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-17
  Combined Military HospitalLabour Court jurisdictionPunjab Industrial Relations Act 2010Armed Forces exemptionConstitutional petitionCoram non judiceCivil employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Punjab Labour Court, Bahawalpur, which reinstated a civilian employee of the Combined Military Hospital (CMH), Bahawalpur. The core legal question is whether the Punjab Labour Court possesses jurisdiction over a CMH, specifically whether such an entity qualifies as an 'industry' or 'establishment' under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, or if it is exempt under Section 1(3)(a) as an installation connected to the Armed Forces. The Court held that CMHs are integral administrative units of the Pakistan Army Medical Corps, functioning as installations exclusively connected to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. Consequently, the Court ruled that CMHs are exempt from the operation of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, pursuant to Section 1(3)(a). The impugned order of the Labour Court was declared coram non judice for lack of jurisdiction. The principle established is that institutions forming an integral part of the administrative structure of the Armed Forces of Pakistan are excluded from the ambit of provincial labour legislation, thereby barring the jurisdiction of Labour Courts over their employees.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Labour Court have jurisdiction over employees of a Combined Military Hospital?
  • Are Combined Military Hospitals considered an 'industry' or 'establishment' under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Does Section 1(3)(a) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 exempt installations connected to the Armed Forces of Pakistan from the Act's operation?
  Read full judgment →
• C.I.T. Co., Zone-I, Lahore vs Messrs Gulistan Power Generation Ltd., Lahore2017 PTD 844 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-06Read full judgment →
• C.I.R., Zone-III, Ltu, Karachi vs Mal Pakistan Ltd., Karachi2017 PTD (Trib.) 2291 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-02-06Read full judgment →
• C.I.R., Zone-II, R.T.O., Sukkur vs Silver Trading and Co.2017 PTD (Trib.) 1228, PTCL 2017 CL. 154 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-09-18Read full judgment →
• C.I.R., Zone-II, R.T.O., Sukkur vs Messrs Pawan Kumar and Co. Thul2017 PTD (Trib.) 1228 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-09-18Read full judgment →
• C.I.R., Zone-I, R.T.O., Lahore vs Messrs Divine Developers (Pvt.) Ltd.,2017 PTD (Trib.) 764 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-08-23Read full judgment →
• C.I.R., R.T.O., Multan vs Messrs Shah Sons Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Multan2017 PTD (Trib.) 2426 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2017-06-13Read full judgment →
• C.I.R. WHT, R.T.O., Hyderabad vs Messrs Qadir Builders and Developers, Hyderabad2017 PTD (Trib.) 770 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-04-28Read full judgment →
• Burhanullah vs Govt.2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-24Read full judgment →
• Burhan Ud Din Qureshi vs The Bank of Punjab and others2017 CLC 1137 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-10Read full judgment →
• Bukhtiar Ahmad Sheikh vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribuunal and others2017 PLC 58 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-09
  binding precedentSupreme Court orderin personam judgmentlabour court jurisdictiongrievance petitiondismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's grievance petition and appeal concerning his dismissal from employment at United Bank Limited. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could bypass the specific remedy and forum mandated by a prior consent order of the Supreme of Pakistan in his own case by instead invoking general labor laws and subsequent precedents. The Lahore High Court held that the specific, binding order passed by the Supreme Court by agreement of the parties in personam must be strictly followed and could not be ignored by subordinate courts or bypassed in favor of general case law. The key principle laid down is that an inter partes order or judgment in personam rendered by the Supreme Court creates a binding obligation and specific forum of remedy that must be strictly adhered to by the parties and lower tribunals, taking precedence over general legal precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by the Supreme Court by agreement of the parties in personam is binding on them to the exclusion of general legal remedies?
  • Can subordinate courts and tribunals ignore specific directions given by the Supreme Court inter partes by relying on subsequent general judgments?
  • Is a petitioner bound to approach the Supreme Court for revival of an appeal when specifically mandated by a prior Supreme Court order?
  Read full judgment →
• Brig. Retd. Arif Mahmud Malik vs Karachi International Container2017 PLC (C.S.) 914 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-04
  master and servantwrongful terminationdamages for breach of contractemployment contractnotice periodburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil suit for recovery and damages filed by a former employee against a private terminal company for alleged wrongful termination of a three-year employment contract. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a suit for damages under the master and servant relationship, whether the termination breached any oral assurances of job security, and the reasonableness of the notice period provided in the contract. The court held that since the employment was governed by master and servant principles without statutory backing, the plaintiff could not claim reinstatement but could maintain a suit for damages, though he failed to prove any extra-contractual assurances. However, the court held that a thirty-day notice period was unreasonably short for a senior executive in the private sector, determining that a one-hundred-and-twenty-day notice period or payment in lieu thereof was reasonable. Consequently, the suit was partly decreed, granting the plaintiff the salary for the remaining ninety days after accounting for the thirty days already paid.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee maintain a suit for damages upon termination of service where the relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant?
  • Whether an employee can claim damages for breach of contract based on uncorroborated oral assurances of job security that contradict the written appointment letter?
  • Is the reasonableness of a contractual notice period examinable by a court in a private employment contract?
  • What constitutes a reasonable notice period for the termination of a senior executive contract in the absence of a statutory framework?
  Read full judgment →
• Brig. (R) Imtiaz Ahmad vs The State2017 PLD Lahore 23 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-19
  assets beyond meanscorruption and corrupt practicesburden of proofNAB Ordinanceapproverbenamidarmisuse of authorityforfeiture of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by an Accountability Court for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, specifically for accumulating assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' known sources of income and demonstrated that the acquired assets were the result of corrupt practices or misuse of authority during the appellants' tenure as public servants. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the preliminary facts regarding the appellants' known sources of income or provide evidence linking the assets to ill-gotten gains. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to the accused and relied on testimony from approvers who were not legally authorized by the Chairman NAB. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and ordered the release of the forfeited properties. The judgment reaffirms that the prosecution must first prove the misuse of authority and quantify the known sources of income before the burden shifts to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused in a case of assets beyond means before the prosecution establishes the known sources of income?
  • Is a conviction under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 sustainable if the prosecution fails to prove a nexus between the assets and the misuse of authority?
  • Can property acquired after the cessation of public service be forfeited under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is the testimony of an approver admissible under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 without a formal order from the Chairman NAB?
  Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. vs Additional2017 PLJ Lahore 938, 2017 LHC 2371 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-20Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore vs Additional District Judge, etc2017 PLJ Lahore 938 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-20Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Secretary vs Akbar Ali2017 YLR 1485 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-04Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala through Chairman vs Sardar Asghar Ali2017 CLC 831 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-25Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education vs Azeem Sarwar2017 LHC 2051 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-28Read full judgment →
• BNP Pvt. Ltd. etc. vs Capital Development Authority.2017 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2017-03-03Read full judgment →
• BNP Pvt. Ltd. etc. vs Capital Development Authority2017 PLJ Islamabad 249 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-03-03Read full judgment →
• BNP Pvt. Ltd. and others vs Capital Development Authority2017 PLD Islamabad 81, 2017 PLJ Islamabad 249 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-03-03
  plot cancellationmaster plan violationregulatory negligencefiduciary dutycommercial and business plotconstitutional petitionthird-party rightstransparency in public auction
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the cancellation of a plot lease by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) originally allotted for a five-star hotel. The core legal question concerned whether a plot allotted and advertised strictly for a five-star hotel could lawfully be utilized for constructing and selling residential apartments, and whether regulatory failure by the CDA created enforceable rights for third-party purchasers. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the construction and sale of residential apartments on a plot earmarked exclusively for a hotel violated the Master Plan, the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, and subordinate regulations. The ratio decidendi is that no legal right can accrue from an illegal and void foundation, and a party cannot justify a statutory violation by pointing to other regulatory breaches by the state. The court laid down the key principles that the CDA holds public land in a fiduciary capacity as a trustee for citizens, that transparency and strict adherence to the Master Plan are mandatory in public land disposal, and that regulatory negligence by a statutory body does not validate illegal construction or legitimize the creation of unauthorized third-party rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plot allotted and advertised for the construction of a five-star hotel be lawfully utilized for constructing and selling residential apartments?
  • Whether third-party purchasers can claim legal rights or protection on the basis of a superstructure built upon an illegal and void foundation?
  • Does regulatory failure or negligence by a statutory authority estop it from cancelling a lease executed in violation of mandatory zoning laws and master plans?
  • Can a party justify an illegal venture or breach of law by pleading that similar violations by others went unpunished?
  Read full judgment →
• Bli Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Government of Pakistan and others2017 PTD 2050 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-08Read full judgment →
• Bishop Ejaz Inayat vs Rt. Rev. Alexander John Malik and 7 others2017 PLD Sindh 528 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-30
  rejection of plaintdeclaratory suitecclesiastical matterslocus standispecific reliefcause of actionclean hands doctrine
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the rejection of a plaint filed by the plaintiff against the Church of Pakistan and its officials. The core legal questions were whether the plaintiff had a valid cause of action to challenge the internal ecclesiastical affairs and elections of the Church, and whether the suit for declaration and injunction was maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The Court held that the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action, as the plaintiff did not demonstrate that his own legal character or property rights were in jeopardy. Furthermore, the Court determined that civil courts should not interfere in purely ecclesiastical or religious matters unless civil rights are directly infringed. Emphasizing that declaratory relief is discretionary and requires the plaintiff to approach the court with clean hands, the Court found the plaintiff’s conduct unconscionable. Consequently, the Court rejected the plaint, affirming that the suit was a futile exercise and an abuse of the legal process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court interfere in the internal ecclesiastical affairs and elections of a religious body?
  • Does a plaintiff have a cause of action to seek a declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 if their own legal character or property rights are not in jeopardy?
  • Under what circumstances can a court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to discretionary relief if they approach the court with unclean hands?
  Read full judgment →
• Binyameen vs The State2017 MLD 1864 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-04-12
  criminal appealabsconding accusedconviction in absentiaanti-terrorismacquittal of co-accusedappraisal of evidencedeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court upon the appellant in absentia for murder and terrorism-related offenses. The core legal question is whether a conviction and sentence can be sustained against an absconding accused when the prosecution evidence has already been thoroughly appraised and found insufficient to convict the co-accused in the same case. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the conviction could not be maintained. The court observed that the co-accused had previously been acquitted by a Division Bench due to a lack of admissible evidence and poor investigative standards. Consequently, the court determined that the conviction of the appellant, based solely on his absconsion, was legally unsustainable. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution evidence has been rejected in the case of co-accused, such evidence cannot form the basis for the conviction of an absconding accused, and the appellate court may set aside the conviction in such circumstances. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can the conviction of an absconding accused be maintained when the co-accused have been acquitted on the same evidence?
  • Is a conviction in absentia sustainable solely on the ground of the accused's absconsion?
  • What remedies are available to an accused convicted in absentia after they surrender or are arrested?
  Read full judgment →
• Binyameen Khalil vs Fop etc2017 LHC 2595 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-29Read full judgment →
• Binyameen Khalil vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1227 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-29Read full judgment →
• Bilawal Ali vs The Judge Atc-III and 2 others2017 MLD 185 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-08Read full judgment →
• Bilal Akhtar and others vs President/Chief Executive Officer and 62017 PLC (C.S.) 564 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-20
  Voluntary Separation SchemeGolden HandshakeEstoppelPast and closed transactionConstitutional petitionService lawEqual protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by former employees seeking a direction to revise their Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) package and grant the benefit of an "anomaly" pay adjustment. The core legal question was whether employees who voluntarily opted for a separation scheme and received full and final payment could subsequently claim additional financial benefits or challenge the terms of their retirement. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the VSS constituted a binding contractual relationship that the petitioners entered into voluntarily without coercion or duress. The Court reasoned that having accepted the full and final payment and signed the necessary documentation, the petitioners were estopped from reopening the transaction. The key principle laid down is that where an employee voluntarily accepts a golden handshake or separation scheme and receives the agreed-upon benefits, the employment relationship is severed, and the matter becomes a past and closed transaction, precluding the employee from seeking further revisions or additional benefits through judicial intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee who voluntarily accepts a separation scheme and receives full and final payment subsequently claim additional financial benefits?
  • Does the principle of equal protection under Article 25 of the Constitution apply to former employees who have severed their employment relationship through a voluntary separation scheme?
  • Is a Voluntary Separation Scheme considered a binding contractual relationship that precludes further litigation regarding pay revisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Zawar vs Sessions Judge Quetta and 2 others2017 PLJ Quetta 31 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-18Read full judgment →
• Bibi Humera vs Ghulam Dastagir and 3 others2017 PLD Balochistan 22 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-06-29Read full judgment →
• Bhooral Khan vs The State2017 MLD 7 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24
  trial in absentiaproclaimed offenderdeath sentence confirmationright to fair trialbinding precedentremandabsconsion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a trial court judgment convicting the appellant in absentia as a proclaimed offender and sentencing him to death for murder, alongside an order dismissing his application under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns the legality of a trial in absentia and whether a previously confirmed death sentence can be set aside in light of evolving binding precedents declaring trials in absentia unconstitutional and violative of the right to a fair trial. The Balochistan High Court held that conducting a trial in absentia without satisfying mandatory statutory inquiries regarding deliberate absconsion violates constitutional guarantees of due process and fair trial, particularly Articles 9, 10, 10-A, and the binding precedents of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The court established that subsequent authoritative judicial dictums declaring trials in absentia unconstitutional override prior confirmation orders by the High Court under Article 189 of the Constitution. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for a fresh trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial in absentia conducted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 without fulfilling mandatory inquiry requirements regarding deliberate absconsion violates the constitutional right to a fair trial?
  • Can a High Court set aside its previously confirmed death sentence and remand a case for retrial in light of subsequent binding judgments of the Supreme Court declaring trials in absentia unconstitutional?
  • Does Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 obligate lower courts to follow the latest prevailing legal dictums of the Supreme Court notwithstanding earlier conflicting decisions in the same matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Benazir Bhutto Hospital, Rawalpindi through Medical Superintendent vs Khalid Pervez and 8 others2017 CLC 1381 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-13Read full judgment →
• Benazir Bhutto Hospital vs Khalid Pervez, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 466 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-13Read full judgment →
• Behramand and 7 others vs Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2017 PLJ Peshawar 364 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Behram Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice &2017 PHC 963 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-18
  constitutional jurisdictiontransfer of civil servantterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunalbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant working as a Reader, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging his transfer order from the Special Court (Control of Narcotic Substances) to the Drug Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court could entertain a constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a civil servant, given the constitutional bar under Article 212 relating to terms and conditions of service. The Court held that transfer and posting fall strictly within the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court pursuant to Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, ruling that matters concerning terms and conditions of civil servants fall within the exclusive domain of the relevant Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a petition against the transfer of a civil servant?
  • Does the expression 'Terms and Conditions' of a civil servant include transfer and posting?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of High Courts in respect of matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Behram Khan and 3 others vs District Officer Revenue and Estate_Collector District Nowshera and others2017 CLC 764 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-08Read full judgment →
• Begum Tahira Qureshi vs M.B.R., etc2017 LHC 192 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-18Read full judgment →
• Begum Noor vs Azad Govt. & 3 others2017 SCR 410 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-02-19Read full judgment →
• Bazar Gul vs Balqiyas Khan and others2017 PHC 888 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-27Read full judgment →
• Basit vs The State etc2017 PHC 836 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-05
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtqatl-i-amdocular evidencematerial contradictionsforensic evidencemurder referenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for the murder of Zard Ali and the attempted murder of the complainant under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given the ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence presented. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed due to material contradictions regarding the time of occurrence, the motive, and the consistency of witness statements. Furthermore, the failure to conduct forensic analysis on recovered crime empties and the lack of blood-stained earth at the complainant's alleged location created significant doubt. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove its case to the hilt, and an accused's failure to substantiate a plea of alibi does not automatically validate the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative, establishing that contradictions and investigative lapses entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to prove a plea of alibi relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when there are material contradictions in the ocular testimony regarding the time and circumstances of the occurrence?
  • Does the absence of forensic analysis on recovered crime empties, where multiple accused are charged, create reasonable doubt regarding the involvement of specific individuals?
  • Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient for conviction if it is tainted by contradictions and improvements?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1298 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-10
  narcoticsheroin recoveryofficial witnessessection 103 Cr.P.C.CNS Actcriminal appealsub-section 9(c)
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court-II (CNS) Karachi, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of twenty kilograms of heroin and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the credibility of official witnesses in the absence of private mashirs, the applicability of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to narcotics cases, and the sufficiency of evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the testimony of excise officials, when trustworthy and corroborated by a positive chemical report, is sufficient for conviction, especially given that section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, excludes the application of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court laid down that official witnesses are competent witnesses like any others and that public reluctance to act as mashirs does not vitiate recovery proceedings, modifying only the default sentence for the fine while dismissing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of excise or police officials can be relied upon without independent corroboration in narcotics cases?
  • Does section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply to searches and arrests made under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • What is the effect of the public's reluctance to act as mashirs on the validity of a recovery under narcotics laws?
  • Can a conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, be sustained solely on the evidence of official witnesses supported by a positive chemical report?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs The State2017 MLD 1773 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-02
  murderdeath sentenceocular accountmedical evidencebenefit of doubtacquittalrelying upon a single circumstance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for a murder allegedly committed over a motive of suspicion of illicit liaison. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the consistency between medical and oral evidence regarding the number of fire shots, and the plausibility of the eyewitnesses' presence at the crime scene. The Lahore High Court held that discrepancies between the medical evidence—which indicated a single shot trajectory rather than multiple shots—and the eyewitness accounts, coupled with the unexplained and doubtful presence of the witnesses at the scene, rendered the prosecution's case unsafe for sustaining a capital conviction. The court laid down the principle that material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, along with doubtful presence of witnesses, create a reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether inconsistencies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of fire shots are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • Does the unexplained and doubtful presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene vitiate the reliability of the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction and death sentence be sustained solely on corroborative pieces of evidence like recoveries and forensic reports when the substantive ocular and medical evidence fail?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal based on a single circumstance that creates a non-illusory doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution's narrative?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Khalid Sibghatullah & othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-17
  criminal acquittal appealpresumption of double innocencedirect complaintcriminal intimidationcheatingmiscarriage of justiceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged an order of the trial court acquitting the respondents in a direct complaint case involving allegations of cheating and criminal intimidation under Sections 420 and 506(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that after purchasing agricultural land, the respondents failed to provide possession and subsequently threatened him with weapons. The trial court acquitted the respondents, relying on official duty certificates indicating they were stationed elsewhere during the alleged incident, concluding that the charge was groundless and conviction unlikely. The High Court reviewed the matter, noting that the complainant failed to demonstrate any misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Court affirmed that an order of acquittal creates a presumption of double innocence, which cannot be disturbed unless the acquittal is shown to be fanciful, erroneous, or a miscarriage of justice. Finding the trial court's reasoning sound and the complainant's allegations implausible given the respondents' official positions, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order of acquittal create a presumption of double innocence that requires strong grounds to overturn?
  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 249-A or Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the charge is groundless and conviction is unlikely?
  • Is an appellate court permitted to interfere with an acquittal order if the appellant fails to demonstrate that the trial court's reasoning was fanciful or erroneous?
  Read full judgment →