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.

• Bashir Ahmad vs The State, etc.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 987, K.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 337 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-19
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryzinaabductioncorroborative evidencedelay in F.I.R.Section 164 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from an F.I.R. registered under Sections 365-B, 376, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of abduction and zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps and the circumstances surrounding the delay in reporting the crime. The Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged with a significant delay, and the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was recorded over a month after the incident, during which time she remained with her parents, raising the possibility of deliberation. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of corroborative medical evidence, such as Chemical Examiner or D.N.A. reports, and highlighted that a co-accused had already been granted bail. Holding that the prosecution's case rested solely on the victim's oral assertion without corroboration, the Court determined the case fell under the category of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing that the absence of corroborative evidence and unexplained delays in legal proceedings can render a case one of further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in recording a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while the victim is with family, warrant a grant of bail?
  • Can the absence of DNA or Chemical Examiner reports in a zina case constitute grounds for treating a case as one of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail to a co-accused a relevant factor in determining the bail application of another accused in the same case?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State etc.2017 LHC 2039 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-02
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular testimonycorroborationacquittalmurdermedical evidencerecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and assault under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly considering significant contradictions in the ocular testimony, the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence, and the delayed recovery of the weapon. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with doubts. The court ruled that where ocular testimony has been disbelieved regarding one set of accused, it cannot be relied upon against others without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the court emphasized that medical evidence is merely corroborative and cannot independently connect an accused to a crime, and that a significant delay in weapon recovery renders such evidence unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can ocular testimony disbelieved for one set of accused be used against others without independent corroboration?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to connect an accused to the commission of a crime?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovered after a significant delay?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if the prosecution's case suffers from reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State and others2017 YLR 1196 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-27
  murderbenefit of doubtocular evidencefair trialcourt witnessprivate complaintdeath penaltycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellant killed the deceased following a dispute over a second marriage. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, while acquitting three co-accused. The core legal question was whether the ocular evidence, which suffered from material contradictions and the improper examination of a court witness, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to the complainant's belated private complaint, which introduced new witnesses and accused not mentioned in the initial report. Furthermore, the court ruled that allowing the complainant to cross-examine a court witness (the deceased's wife) violated the principles of fair trial and the procedural safeguards of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction, and declined to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complainant cross-examine a witness summoned as a court witness to improve the prosecution's case?
  • Does the omission of names of eyewitnesses in the initial police complaint render their subsequent testimony unreliable?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to provide a serological report for a recovered murder weapon?
  • Does the improper examination of a court witness violate the principles of a fair trial under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 166 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-02
  murderdeath sentencemedical evidenceocular accountbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealrebuttal of evidenceeyewitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular evidence, the consistency between medical and ocular evidence regarding the number of gunshots and weapon trajectory, the naturalness of the presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene, and the sustainability of corroborative evidence. The Lahore High Court held that discrepancies between the medical evidence (indicating a single shot trajectory rather than multiple shots) and the ocular account, coupled with the improbable presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene and flaws in the recovery evidence, created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's narrative. The court laid down the principle that an accused is entitled to an acquittal by the extension of the benefit of the doubt when material contradictions emerge between the medical and ocular accounts, and when the presence of eyewitnesses is unexplained or unnatural. Consequently, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions between medical evidence and an ocular account regarding the number of gunshots and trajectory are sufficient to create reasonable doubt?
  • Does the unverified and unnatural presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when corroborative evidence such as weapon recovery suffers from temporal discrepancies and the primary ocular account is found unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs State, etcPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 987 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-19
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabductionzinacorroborative evidencedelayed F.I.R.criminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Bashir Ahmad, who was accused in an F.I.R. registered under Sections 365-B, 376, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged abduction and zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, including the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the absence of corroborative medical evidence. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the F.I.R. was lodged with a significant delay, the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was recorded after a substantial delay of over one and a half months, and there was a lack of DNA or chemical examiner reports to connect the petitioner to the crime. The Court established the principle that where the prosecution's case relies solely on oral assertions without corroboration and medical evidence is absent, the case falls under the category of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in recording a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for further inquiry in bail matters?
  • Can bail be granted when there is an absence of DNA or chemical examiner reports to corroborate the prosecution's allegations?
  • Does the grant of bail to a co-accused in a similar case provide a basis for granting bail to the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Qureshi vs State and 2 others2017 PLJ Lahore 865 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-11Read full judgment →
• (1) Bashir Ahmad (2) The State (3) Muhammad Zafar etc vs (1) The State2017 LHC 3640 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-18
  benefit of doubtocular accountdark night occurrencesuppression of injuriescorroboratory evidencemurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, which convicted the appellants for murder and related offences. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the circumstances of a dark-night occurrence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. The Court found the ocular account unreliable due to the absence of a credible source of light, material contradictions regarding the reporting of the incident to the police, and the suppression of injuries sustained by one of the appellants. The Court emphasized that once the intrinsic value of an ocular account is discarded, corroboratory evidence, such as weapon recoveries, cannot sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt, and answered the Murder Reference in the negative, declining to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained solely on corroboratory evidence if the primary ocular account is discarded?
  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by an accused during the occurrence affect the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Is the testimony of an injured witness automatically considered gospel truth in criminal proceedings?
  • Does a delay in conducting an autopsy indicate that the prosecution's story was fabricated?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 689 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-10-27
  post-arrest bailqatl-bis-sababSection 322 PPCsuicidecontributory negligencedelay in FIRprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by an accused booked under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the deceased committed suicide by shooting herself due to continuous maltreatment and atrocities committed by the petitioner after their love marriage. The petitioner argued that the FIR was delayed by five days, lacked eyewitnesses, and that the alleged offence did not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court examined the record and noted that the petitioner remained a silent spectator during the incident, failed to provide medical assistance to save the deceased's life, and contributed through his conduct to her death. The Court held that a prima facie case of contributory negligence towards death was made out against the petitioner. Consequently, considering the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the Court dismissed the post-arrest bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether inaction and failure to provide medical aid to a suicide victim can constitute grounds to refuse post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 322 PPC?
  • Whether an accused who creates circumstances forcing a victim to commit suicide can be refused post-arrest bail on the grounds of prima facie involvement?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali vs Muhammad Safdar and another2017 SCMR 1601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-11
  acquittaldying declarationFIR genuinenessmaterial contradictionsbenefit of doubtmedical evidencemurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave was filed by an eye-witness (PW.6) against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted Respondent No.1 of charges under Sections 302/34/109 PPC and answered a Murder Reference in the negative. The prosecution case rested primarily on the dying declaration/statement of the deceased complainant recorded in the FIR, supported by eye-witness testimony. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted major, glaring contradictions between the testimony of the doctor (PW.1), the investigating officer (PW.10), and the eye-witnesses regarding the recording and verification of the deceased's statement. Crucially, the doctor admitted that the deceased's statement was not recorded in his presence, signed by him, or read over and explained to the deceased, but was merely verified at the behest of the I.O. The Court held that when the genuineness of the FIR statement—the very origin of the case—is rendered doubtful, and where material contradictions exist alongside the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Finding no merit, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration verified by a medical officer at the instance of the investigating officer, without being recorded in the doctor's presence or read over to the deceased, retains evidentiary value?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution case when the genuineness of the FIR statement made by the deceased is rendered doubtful?
  • Is the accused entitled to acquittal when material contradictions exist in the statements of prosecution witnesses and co-accused have been acquitted on the same evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali vs Additional District Judge etc.2017 LHC 1973 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-21Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali Khan vs Muhammad Akbar2017 P.S.C. 1, 2017 SCMR 309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-10-03
  review petitionpre-emptionTalb-i-Ishhadregistered post acknowledgment duemandatory requirementwaiver of statutory rightpublic policymaintainability of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against its earlier judgment which had decreed a pre-emption suit in favor of the respondent. The petitioner/vendee contended that the Court failed to consider that the respondent/pre-emptor did not plead or prove the service of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad via 'registered post acknowledgment due' as mandated by Section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The respondent argued that the petitioner had waived this objection by not raising it in earlier proceedings. The Court held that the four elements of Talb-i-Ishhad—written notice, two witnesses, registered cover, and acknowledgment due—are mandatory statutory requirements implementing public policy. Such requirements cannot be waived by a party, and failure to prove any element is fatal to the suit. Finding that the respondent failed to produce the acknowledgment due card or the postman's testimony, the Court concluded that the maintainability of the suit was defeated. Consequently, the Court allowed the review petition, set aside its previous judgment, and dismissed the pre-emption suit.

  Read full judgment →
• Basar & others vs The State Complainant: Fakhar-ul-Jamil2017 SHC 134 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-13Read full judgment →
• Barkatullah vs The State and another2017 YLR 1296 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-23Read full judgment →
• Barkat Hussain through L.Rs vs Chief Administrator Auqaf, Azad Jammu2017 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 101, 2017 MLD 1885 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-04-17Read full judgment →
• Barkat Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs vs Chief Administrator Auqaf, Aj&K Muzaffarabad and others2017 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 101 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Barkat Hussain (Deceased) represented by legal heirs vs Chief2017 P.S.C. 1604 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Barkat Hayat vs State through Additional Advocate-General Peshawar2017 P Cr. L J 167 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-04
  sine die adjournmentquashment petitionconcurrent proceedingscriminal liabilitycivil liabilitybounced chequeinherent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging concurrent orders from lower courts that dismissed his application for the sine die adjournment of a criminal case. The criminal case, registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involved a bounced cheque, while a parallel civil suit for specific performance of an agreement regarding the same transaction was pending. The core legal question was whether a criminal trial must be stayed pending the outcome of a related civil suit. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that there is no legal provision requiring the stay of criminal proceedings merely because a civil suit involving the same transaction is pending. The Court affirmed that criminal and civil proceedings are distinct entities that can proceed concurrently. The key principle laid down is that criminal cases must be allowed to proceed on their own merits, as criminal liability and civil liability are separate matters, and the pendency of civil proceedings does not constitute a legal bar to the maintainability of criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal trial be adjourned sine die solely because a civil suit involving the same transaction is pending?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding a transaction constitute a legal bar to the maintainability of criminal proceedings arising from the same transaction?
  • Are criminal and civil proceedings distinct entities that can proceed concurrently?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali (deceased) through Legal Heirs and 6 others vs Mohammad2017 MLD 1339 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-08Read full judgment →
• (1) Barkat Ali (2) The State vs (1) The State (2) Barkat Ali2017 LHC 3623 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-08
  criminal appealmurder convictiondeath sentence commutationmitigating circumstancesocular evidencemotiveabscondanceQanoon-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of ocular evidence, the impact of an unproven motive, and the appropriateness of the death penalty. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent eye-witness testimony and corroborating medical evidence, despite the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged motive and the withholding of the ballistic report. While maintaining the conviction, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Court laid down the principle that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive set up in the crime report, such failure may serve as a mitigating factor for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment. Furthermore, it reaffirmed that when a case qualifies for both death and life imprisonment, courts should, as a matter of caution, prefer the lesser sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive set up in the crime report warrant the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can the non-production of a ballistic report by the prosecution lead to an adverse inference under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the long-term abscondance of an accused create an adverse inference regarding their guilt?
  • When a case qualifies for both death and life imprisonment, which sentence should the court prefer as a matter of caution?
  Read full judgment →
• Bankers Equity Limited and 5 others vs Messrs Pangrio Sugar Mills Ltd.2017 CLD 1148 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-20Read full judgment →
• Bank of Punjab, etc. vs Additional District Judge, etc.2017 LHC 169, 2017 PLJ Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-04Read full judgment →
• Bank of Punjab, etc vs Additional District Judge, etc2017 LHC 169 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-04Read full judgment →
• Bank of Punjab vs Poly Pack Pvt. Limited and others2017 CLD 1285 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-15Read full judgment →
• Bank of Punjab vs Messrs Sultan Motors and others2017 CLD 923 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-05Read full judgment →
• Bank of Punjab vs Messrs Saadullah Khan and others2017 CLD 515 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-06Read full judgment →
• Bank of Punjab vs Messrs Anmol Textile Mills Limited and others2017 CLD 631 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-09
  recovery of financesfinance facilitiesunrebutted evidenceleave to defendbank suithypothecationpledge
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was filed by the plaintiff bank under Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, seeking recovery of outstanding finance facilities, including Cash Finance (pledge), Cash Finance (hypothecation), and letters of credit, following the defendants' default. The core legal questions were whether the plaintiff bank proved its claim through admissible evidence, whether the finance facilities were validly availed, and whether the defendants' objections regarding document admissibility and typographical errors in the plaint were sustainable. The Court held that the plaintiff bank successfully proved its claim through overwhelming documentary evidence, including offer letters and finance agreements, which remained largely unrebutted during cross-examination. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding the lack of finance agreements, noting that the defendants had continued to avail the facilities. Furthermore, the Court found that typographical errors in the plaint did not invalidate the claim, as the evidence clearly established the correct facilities. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff bank, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable for the outstanding amount.

  Questions settled

  • Does a typographical error in a plaint regarding a document number invalidate a bank's claim if the evidence clearly identifies the correct document?
  • Can a defendant challenge the admissibility of finance documents on the ground that the witness was not the author of the documents if the execution of the documents is not in dispute?
  • Is a bank entitled to recover finance facilities if the defendant continues to avail the facility despite a temporary nil balance in the account?
  Read full judgment →
• Bank of Punjab vs Al-Wasay Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. and others2017 P.C.T.L.R. 184, 2017 CLD 179 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-06Read full judgment →
• Bank of Punjab through Lawful Attorney vs Messrs Gas Naturale (Pvt.)2017 CLD 959 · Lahore High Court · 2016-07-04Read full judgment →
• Bank of Punjab through Chief Executive/Chairman and 2 others vs2017 YLR 1463 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-04Read full judgment →
• Bank of Punjab through Attorney vs Dewan Salman Fiber Limited2017 CLD 451 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-25Read full judgment →
• Bank Islami Pakistan Ltd., Karachi vs The C.I.R., Audit Unit-4 Zone-II, Ltu, Karachi2017 PTD (Trib.) 1517 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2013-12-03Read full judgment →
• Bank Alfalah Limited vs Interglobe Commerce Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and 5 others2017 PLJ Karachi 85 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Balochistan Medical Association through President vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Health, Civil Secretariate & others2017 PLJ Quetta 37 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Balochistan Medical Association through President vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Health and others2017 PLJ Quetta 37, 2017 CLC 1195 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-16
  constitutional petitionlocus standiaggrieved personwrit jurisdictionpublic interest litigationin-service training
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by the Balochistan Medical Association through its President, challenging the selection of private respondents for Master of Public Health training at the Institute of Public Health without adhering to prescribed rules and procedures. The core legal questions addressed were whether the petitioner association possessed the requisite locus standi to maintain the writ petition, and whether the petitioner qualified as an "aggrieved person" under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Balochistan High Court held that the petitioner association was neither a registered body nor affiliated with a recognized association of doctors, and that the President of the association was not an employee under the Health Department nor eligible for the training program. The court ruled that a petitioner invoking constitutional jurisdiction must establish a direct or indirect injury, a substantial interest, and qualify as an aggrieved person with a personal interest in the performance of a legal duty. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate locus standi or meet the requirements of an aggrieved person, the petition was dismissed as non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unregistered association can maintain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can a person who is not an eligible candidate for a training program be considered an aggrieved person to challenge selections made to that program?
  • What are the prerequisites for establishing locus standi as an aggrieved person in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does a petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction in public interest litigation need to disclose a personal interest in the performance of a legal duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Balochistan Bus Owners Association (Regd.) through President vs Government of Balochistan Home and Tribal Affairs through Secretary and 4 others2017 MLD 356 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-11-02Read full judgment →
• Bakhtiar vs State and another2017 YLR 2526 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-21
  post-arrest bailjuvenile bailjuvenile offenderattempted murderstatutory interpretationembargo on bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Lakki, District Lakki Marwat. The core legal question was whether a juvenile aged fourteen years is entitled to bail under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 regardless of the nature or gravity of the offence. The Peshawar High Court held that under Section 10 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, the statutory embargo on granting bail in heinous or serious offences applies specifically to a child of fifteen years of age or above, whereas a child below fifteen years is entitled to bail as a matter of right. The key principle laid down is that the exception restricting bail for juveniles involved in heinous offences does not apply to a child under the age of fifteen years.

  Questions settled

  • Is a child below the age of fifteen years entitled to bail under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 regardless of the nature of the offence?
  • Does the proviso to Section 10 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 restrict the grant of bail to juveniles aged fifteen years or above involved in heinous offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakhtiar Khan vs The State2017 PHC 825 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-15Read full judgment →
• Bakht Zada vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-24
  post-arrest bailmurderjuvenilityprohibitory clauseocular testimonycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a bail application filed by the petitioner, Bakht Zada, seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 110 registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Khaki, District Mansehra, after such relief was denied by the lower court. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on grounds of further inquiry, discrepancies in evidence, non-recovery of empties, and a plea of juvenility. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner is prima facie linked with the commission of a gruesome double murder, that the medical evidence corroborates the ocular account, and that the plea of juvenility does not outweigh the gravity and specific manner of the alleged offense, which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, establishing that heinous offenses executed in such a manner disentitle the accused to bail regardless of tentative pleas.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plea of juvenility automatically entitle an accused charged with a capital offense to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether non-recovery of an empty from the place of occurrence is sufficient to make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497, Cr.P.C.?
  • Does an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the grant of bail when the accused is prima facie connected to a gruesome crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Siddique and 61 others vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2017 PLC (C.S.) 1192 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-01
  regularization of servicewrit jurisdictioncontract employeespublic sector companyemployer-employee relationshipconstitutional petitionPakistan State Oil
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by employees seeking regularization of their services at Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. (PSO). The core legal questions were whether PSO is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether contract employees, ostensibly hired through a third-party contractor, are entitled to regularization under the Government of Pakistan's Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2008. The Court held that PSO, being a public sector company controlled by the Government, performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation and is therefore subject to writ jurisdiction. On the merits, the Court determined that where an employer retains control over the means and method of work, an employer-employee relationship exists regardless of the contractual arrangement. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioners for regularization, applying the principle that long-serving contract employees in public sector entities, who work under the direct supervision of the company, are entitled to be treated as employees of that company.

  Questions settled

  • Is a public sector company like Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does an employer-employee relationship exist between a company and workers hired through a third-party contractor if the company retains control over the means and method of work?
  • Can the National Industrial Relations Commission determine or order the regularization of contract employees in a public sector organization?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Bakht Siddique and 61 others (2) Amanullah Tamimy (3) Syed Farhat2017 PLC (C.S.) 1192, 2017 SHC 273 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-01
  regularization of servicecontract employeesmaintainability of constitutional petitionpublic sector companyemployer-employee relationshipthird-party contractor
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple constitutional petitions filed by employees seeking regularization of their services in Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd (PSO) based on an Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2008 issued by the Government of Pakistan. The core legal questions involve whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against PSO, and whether contract or wage-based workers rendering long-term services—including through third-party contractors—are entitled to regularization. The Sindh High Court held that PSO is a public sector company performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation and is thus amenable to writ jurisdiction. On merits, the court ruled that employees continuously working on permanent posts under the direct or indirect control of the company are entitled to regularization in light of settled precedents and the Government's policy. The petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Chief Executive Officer of PSO to consider the petitioners for regularization without discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd?
  • Does an employer-employee relationship exist between a company and workers supplied through a third-party contractor when the company exercises supervision and control?
  • Are contract employees and wage-based workers continuously serving on permanent posts entitled to regularization under the Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2008?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have exclusive jurisdiction to determine regularization claims, barring the High Court's writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Muhammad Khan & others vs Secretary Water & power2017 PHC 1130 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-22Read full judgment →
• Bakht Afsar vs Raj Bahadar and 2 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 245 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-13Read full judgment →
• Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited through Administrator vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and 11 others2017 CLC 1793 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-14Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Mk)2017 P.S.C. 1612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  statutory instrumentpension rightsBanks (Nationalization) Actofficial gazettelachesestoppelservice rulesNational Bank of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals regarding the statutory status of a 1977 notification and subsequent circular issued by the Finance Division and the National Bank of Pakistan, which established pension and retirement benefits for bank employees. The core legal question was whether these instruments constituted statutory rules under Section 20 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, and whether the Bank's Board possessed the authority to unilaterally alter these benefits. The Court held that the notification and circular were indeed statutory instruments issued under Section 20 of the Act. Consequently, the Bank's Board lacked the legal competence to unilaterally rescind or modify these established pension rights. The Court affirmed that failure to publish a notification in the official Gazette does not invalidate its statutory status if it otherwise possesses the attributes of a statutory instrument. Furthermore, the principle of laches does not extinguish recurring rights like pension, and there can be no estoppel against statutory provisions. The judgment clarifies that administrative boards cannot override statutory mandates regarding employee benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a notification issued by the Federal Government under the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, constitutes a statutory instrument?
  • Does the failure to publish a notification in the official Gazette invalidate its status as a statutory instrument?
  • Can the Board of Directors of a nationalized bank unilaterally rescind or modify pension benefits established by a statutory notification?
  • Does the principle of laches apply to claims regarding recurring rights such as pension benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2017 SCMR 2066, 2017 P.S.C. 1612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-09-25
  pensionary benefitsstatutory rulesNational Bank of Pakistanpension factorofficial gazette publicationlachesestoppelrecurring rightadministrative instructions
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from conflicting High Court judgments concerning the pensionary benefits of National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) officers. The central legal question was whether the Finance Division's notification dated 30.11.1977 and NBP Circular No. 228(C) dated 26.12.1977, which established a 70% pension factor, possessed statutory status despite not being published in the official gazette. The NBP contended that subsequent Board-issued Circular No. 3799 of 1999, which reduced the pension factor to 33% while increasing salaries, was valid due to the Board's autonomy following the dissolution of the Pakistan Banking Council. The Supreme Court held that the 1977 notification was issued under Section 20 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, and thus constituted a statutory instrument. The Court ruled that the NBP Board lacked the authority to unilaterally rescind or repeal statutory rules. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that failure to publish a notification in the official gazette does not necessarily negate its statutory efficacy, and since pension is a recurring right, the claims were not barred by laches or estoppel.

  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed through Special Attorney vs Mst. Fatima Begum and 32017 YLR 453 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-29
  concurrent findings of factconstitutional jurisdictionrent evictionlandlord and tenantcivil revisionabuse of processburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Civil Revision Application and a Constitutional Petition challenging concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the ownership and possession of a property. The applicant sought a declaration of ownership, alleging that the respondents fraudulently obtained title documents. Conversely, the respondents contended that the applicant had sold the property to them, subsequently entering into a tenancy agreement, and had defaulted on rent payments. The trial courts and appellate forums consistently found that the applicant had validly transferred the property and was a tenant in default. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere with concurrent findings of fact established by subordinate courts. The Court held that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof and that the evidence supported the respondents' claim of ownership and tenancy. The Court affirmed the principle that High Court constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for a second appeal or revision to challenge concurrent findings of fact, particularly in rent matters where statutory remedies are limited. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 allow for a second appeal or revision against an appellate order?
  • Is a party entitled to relief when they fail to discharge the burden of proof regarding property ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan and 6 others vs Muhammad Anwar and others2017 YLR 179 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-10-19Read full judgment →
• Bacha Khan vs State & anothers2017 PHC 575 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-12Read full judgment →
• Babar vs The State and others2017 YLR 978 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-02
  post-arrest bailcross-versionfurther inquirycriminal trial delayaggression determinationbail after arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 367/2014, involving charges under sections 337-A(iii), 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, accused of causing head injuries, sought bail after being incarcerated for over ten months. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the existence of a cross-version case and the delayed progress of the trial. The Court held that because a cross-version was recorded during the investigation, the determination of the initial aggressor remained a matter of further inquiry, bringing the case within the ambit of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that an accused cannot be detained indefinitely without trial progress. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that the existence of a cross-version in a criminal case renders the prosecution's case one of further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a cross-version in a criminal case render the matter one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can an accused be kept in jail for an indefinite period when the trial has not seen fruitful progress?
  • Is the determination of the initial aggressor in a cross-version case a ground for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Babar Hussain Awan Electrical Instructor B-14, vocational in Training2017 SC AJK 132 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Babar Ahmad vs The State2017 YLR 153 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-03-24Read full judgment →
• B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association vs Attorney General of British Columbia and others2017 SCMR 542, K.L.R. 2017 S.C. 465 · Supreme Court of Canada · 2017-01-26Read full judgment →
• B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association vs Attorney General of British Columbia and others and Interveners2017 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Canada · 2017-01-26Read full judgment →
• Azra Jamali and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M_o Commerce and another2017 PLC (C.S.) 533 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-17
  Trade Officerspolicy changeexecutive policyjudicial reviewRules of Business 1973constitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicelegitimate expectationservice tenure
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges a judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the appellants' writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, which sought to set aside recall notices issued to them as Trade Officers and to enforce a four-year tenure under the Policy of 2005 and Strategic Trade Policy Framework 2002-2015. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court's jurisdiction is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether the executive can alter a policy to curtail the tenure of Trade Officers and issue recall notices without performance evaluation. The Islamabad High Court held that the matter of performance evaluation and fitness to hold a post is not barred by Article 212(1)(a) and is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199. On merits, the Court held that the executive possesses the prerogative under Rule 15(a) of the Rules of Business, 1973, to formulate and amend policy decisions with the approval of the Prime Minister, and courts will not interfere in pure policy matters unless they violate the Constitution or law. The Court laid down that executive policy decisions regarding tenure and postings cannot be overridden by appointment letters, and public servants do not possess a vested right to specific postings or unalterable policy frameworks, provided they are treated without discrimination under Article 25.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a challenge to the evaluation of performance and tenure of Trade Officers is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the executive branch have the authority under the Rules of Business, 1973 to alter an existing policy and curtail the tenure of public office holders?
  • Can a court interfere with a policy decision of the executive in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Do public servants acquire a vested right or legitimate expectation based on a previous government policy so as to prevent the implementation of a newly amended policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Azmatullah etc vs State2017 PHC 1104 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-08Read full judgment →
• Aziz-Ur-Rehman Chaudhry vs Pakistan International Airlines2017 PLC (C.S.) 745 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-29
  constitutional petitionmaster and servantservice mattersmaintainabilitypension benefitswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), filed this constitutional petition seeking the implementation of various internal circulars regarding pension benefits and the recalculation of his pension arrears. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, is maintainable for an employee of the PIAC to enforce terms and conditions of service. The respondent contended that the petition was not maintainable because the service rules of the corporation are non-statutory, creating a relationship governed by the principle of 'master and servant.' The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on established precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed that PIAC service rules are not statutory, as they were not framed under Section 30 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act 1956 with the required government approval. Consequently, the relationship is contractual, and service-related grievances must be pursued through a court of competent jurisdiction rather than through writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 maintainable for service-related grievances of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation employees?
  • Are the service rules and regulations of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation considered statutory?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to the employment relationship between the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and its employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz-Ur-Rehman and another vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 23 others2017 YLR 2388 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-07-12Read full judgment →
• Aziz ur Rehman vs Rashid Ahmed and Other2017 SHC 343 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-31Read full judgment →
• Aziz L. Jamal, Chief Executive and 6 others vs Director, Corporate2017 CLD 1728 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2017-03-20Read full judgment →
• Aziz L. Jamal, Chief Executive and 6 others vs Commissioner, Securities2017 CLD 1704 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2017-03-20Read full judgment →
• Aziz L. Jamal, CEO and 6 others vs The Director, Corporate Supervision2017 CLD 1715 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2017-03-20Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad etc. vs Mohammad Irshad etc.2017 IHC 125 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-12-16
  revenue recordcorrection of entriescivil court jurisdictionland revenue actlong-standing entriesdeclaratory suitdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate judgment and decree whereby a suit for declaration regarding the correction of revenue entries was decreed. The core legal question concerns the jurisdiction of civil courts versus revenue authorities regarding the alteration of long-standing revenue entries and whether the bar under Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act 1967 applies. The Islamabad High Court held that while Section 172 excludes civil jurisdiction over purely administrative corrections, long-standing entries affecting individual property rights and subsequent vendees cannot be altered in a summary manner by revenue officers without affording an opportunity of hearing, and such disputes fall squarely within the plenary jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 53 of the Land Revenue Act 1967. The petition was dismissed, affirming that aggrieved parties must have their rights fully adjudicated through a regular civil suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act 1967 bar the jurisdiction of a civil court to adjudicate upon disputes involving long-standing entries in the revenue record?
  • Can revenue authorities alter long-standing entries and affect property rights through summary proceedings on a miscellaneous application?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a person aggrieved by an entry in a Record-of-Rights under the Land Revenue Act 1967?
  • Does the correction of revenue entries without issuing notice to affected subsequent vendees violate the principles of natural justice and Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad and others vs Mohammad Irshad and others2017 YLR 1064 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-12-16Read full judgment →
• Azhar Nawaz and another vs The State2017 SCMR 1877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-03
  murdercapital punishmentimprisonment for lifesentencing parityocular accountinjured witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals impugned the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the appellants' appeals against their conviction and sentence for murder and causing injuries. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular account, medical evidence, and recoveries, and whether the death sentence awarded to one of the co-accused was justified given that his role was identical to the other co-accused who received life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case based on consistent ocular testimony of injured witnesses, supporting medical evidence, and corroborative recoveries. However, on the question of quantum of sentence, the Court held that to maintain consistency where co-accused share the same role, the death penalty of one appellant was disproportionate and should be altered to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that where co-accused are assigned identical roles in a crime, parity in sentencing should be maintained to avoid harsh and inconsistent penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of injured eyewitnesses corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a murder trial?
  • Should the death sentence of a co-accused be altered to imprisonment for life to maintain sentencing consistency when another co-accused with an identical role receives life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Mehmood, etc. vs State2017 PLJ SC 64 · Appellate Jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The provided judgment text is empty. Consequently, it is impossible to generate a summary, identify laws, extract keywords, formulate legal questions, or identify the author of the opinion based on the provided input.

  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Mehmood and others vs The State2017 PLJ SC 64, 2017 SCMR 135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-11-02
  DacoityMurderAcquittalBenefit of doubtTest identification paradeIn-court identificationEvidentiary valueReappraisal of evidenceCriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned appeals by leave against convictions and sentences for offences under sections 460, 396, 302(b), and 398 P.P.C. read with section 34 P.P.C., related to a dacoity and double murder. The core legal question involved the reappraisal of evidence, particularly the evidentiary value of test identification parades and in-court identification, as well as other prosecution evidence like alleged overheard conversations and recoveries. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants, and acquitted them by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court held that test identification parades are legally laconic and lack evidentiary value if the accused are not identified with reference to any specific role played in the incident. Furthermore, in-court identification is deemed unsafe when eye-witnesses have had ample opportunities to see the accused in the courtroom prior to their testimony, such as during earlier proceedings or when other prosecution witnesses have testified. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Jawaid vs Federation of Pakistan & others2017 SHC 95 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-13
  Armed Forces inductioncivil servicequota allocationjudicial restraintgovernment policyEstacodeinter-services quota
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the recommendation of the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) for the induction of an Armed Forces officer into the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP). The petitioner, an officer from the Pakistan Navy, argued that the apportionment of vacancies among the three Armed Forces branches (Army, Navy, and Air Force) based on a 1991 meeting's minutes violated the policy laid out in Serial No. 244 of the Estacode, which governs the induction of Armed Forces officers into civil service. The core legal question was whether the inter-services quota allocation was illegal or ultra vires to the established policy. The Court held that the policy decision regarding the distribution of vacancies among the three services was a valid, equitable, and long-standing administrative arrangement that did not violate the Estacode. The Court affirmed that courts exercise judicial restraint regarding government policy unless it is proven mala fide or violates fundamental rights. The principle laid down is that administrative authorities may devise reasonable, non-discriminatory modalities for vacancy distribution to ensure equitable representation, provided such measures do not contravene the primary governing rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Public Service Commission or the government devise an inter-services quota for the induction of Armed Forces officers into civil service?
  • Does the allocation of vacancies among the Army, Navy, and Air Force violate the policy set out in Serial No. 244 of the Estacode?
  • Is a petition challenging the criteria for selection maintainable if the Federal Public Service Commission lacks the authority to change that criteria?
  • To what extent can the High Court interfere with government policy decisions regarding service structure and vacancy distribution?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Jawaid through Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and 3 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 929 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-13
  civil serviceArmed Forces inductionPolice Service of Pakistaninter-services quotaEstacodeFederal Public Service Commissiongovernment policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was brought before the Sindh High Court to challenge the recommendation of the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) for the induction of respondent No. 4 into the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) from the Armed Forces quota, bypassing the petitioner whose merit position was higher. The core legal questions involved whether the inter-services apportionment formula for allocating Armed Forces induction vacancies among the Army, Navy, and Air Force agreed upon in a 1991 meeting violated the governing policy (Estacode Sl. No. 244), and whether the petition was maintainable in light of alternative statutory remedies under the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977. The court held that the 1991 apportionment formula was a fair, equitable, and approved mechanism that did not violate the governing policy, and that the petition was maintainable as the FPSC lacked jurisdiction to review policy criteria. The court laid down the principle that the judiciary will exercise judicial restraint and not interfere with government policies or service allocation modalities unless they are proven to be mala fide, discriminatory, or violative of fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the inter-services apportionment formula for allocating civil service vacancies among the Army, Navy, and Air Force violates Estacode Sl. No. 244?
  • Whether an aggrieved candidate is required to exhaust statutory review before the Federal Public Service Commission when challenging the underlying selection criteria or apportionment formula itself?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with a government policy regarding service induction and quota allocation?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Iqbal. vs Additional District Judge Sahiwal and three others2017 PLJ Lahore 861, 2017 LHC 3152 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Azhar Iqbal vs Additional District Judge Sahiwal and 3 others2017 PLJ Lahore 861 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hayat vs Karachi Port Trust2017 PLC (C.S.) 717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-06-16
  permanent absorptioncontractual employmentsecondmentEstacodeJoint Services Instructionscivil servicewithdrawal of suitarmed forces induction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Pakistan Navy officer seconded to the Karachi Port Trust (KPT), sought a declaration of permanent absorption as General Manager (Operations), challenging notifications that defined his service as contractual. The High Court dismissed his petition, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner had attained permanent status under the Joint Services Instructions (JSI) and the Civil Establishment Code (Estacode). The Court held that the petitioner’s employment was strictly contractual. It clarified that the provisions for permanent absorption in the JSI and Estacode are not self-executing and require specific conditions, such as retirement from the parent service and selection by a High Powered Selection Board, which the petitioner failed to satisfy. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner’s failure to challenge the initial notification defining his status as "re-employed on contract" and the procedural bar under the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the withdrawal of a prior petition further weakened his case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the petitioner held no right to permanent absorption.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a constitutional petition without permission to file a fresh one preclude a subsequent petition on the same subject-matter under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Are the provisions for permanent absorption of seconded armed forces officers in the Joint Services Instructions and Estacode self-executing?
  • Can an officer seconded to a civil post claim permanent absorption without fulfilling the mandatory selection procedures prescribed by the High Powered Selection Board?
  • Does the designation of an officer as 're-employed on contract' in a notification preclude a claim of permanent absorption?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hayat vs Chairman Karachi Port Trust and 2 others2017 PLC (CS.) 632 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-22
  re-employment on contractpermanent absorptionarmed forces officers in civil servicevested rightlocus poenitentiaeboard resolutioncontractual appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a dispute regarding the terms of re-employment of a retired Pakistan Navy officer as General Manager (Operations) in the Karachi Port Trust (K.P.T.). The petitioner contended that he was entitled to permanent absorption based on a K.P.T. Board resolution, whereas the respondents maintained that his re-employment was strictly on a contract basis pursuant to the applicable Joint Service Instructions and government rules. The core legal question was whether a retired armed forces officer of a senior rank could be permanently absorbed into a civil post, and whether a board resolution could override statutory rules and create a vested right under the principle of locus poenitentiae. The court held that officers of the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and above, including Rear Admirals, are eligible only for contractual re-employment under Joint Service Instructions (JSI 4/85) and the ESTACODE, and cannot be permanently absorbed into civil service. The court further held that a board resolution is merely a proposal and does not create a vested right, and that the principle of locus poenitentiae cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or a benefit granted in violation of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retired senior officer of the armed forces can be permanently absorbed into a civil post under the applicable rules?
  • Does a board resolution recommending permanent absorption create a vested right for a public employee?
  • Can the principle of locus poenitentiae be invoked to protect an appointment or benefit granted in violation of law?
  • What is the tenure and nature of re-employment for retired armed forces officers of the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and above in civil organizations?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Bakhtiar Khilji vs District Co-Ordination Officer and others2017 MLD 1510 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-05Read full judgment →
• Azam Khan vs Pakistan Tobacco Board Govt. of Pakistan through Chairman and 3 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 165 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• (1) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through its Chief Secretary2017 SC AJK 380 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-05-30Read full judgment →
• Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary.2017 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 118 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  seniorityservice tribunalretrospective seniorityinitial recruitmentcivil servantsprocedural defectbatch seniority
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals by leave of the court challenged a judgment of the Service Tribunal whereby the respondent's appeal against a seniority list of Section Officers was accepted, and she was granted seniority from the date her batch fellows joined service. The respondent had qualified the Public Service Commission test/interview in 2009 and stood on the waiting list, but was initially omitted due to withheld posts. Following a writ petition, the High Court directed her appointment, which was issued on 29.04.2013, whereas her batch had joined on 10.03.2011. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant appointed later due to administrative omission or litigation is entitled to retrospective seniority alongside her initial batch based on merit, and whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is liable to dismissal for failure to attach certified copies under procedural rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that where a civil servant is deprived of a vested right through no fault of their own, their seniority must be reckoned with their original batch based on the general order of merit under Rule 8 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977. Furthermore, procedural deficiencies in filing documents before the Service Tribunal are the responsibility of the Registrar to point out, and a litigant cannot be penalized for such omissions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant appointed later due to an administrative omission or litigation is entitled to retrospective seniority along with her original batch based on the general order of merit?
  • Does an appointment by initial recruitment take effect for seniority from the date of the selection batch when the candidate was unlawfully deprived of an appointment order?
  • Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is liable to be dismissed for want of a certified copy of the impugned order where the Registrar failed to point out the deficiency during scrutiny under the Service Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1976?
  • How does the principle of continuous and actual appointment apply when a civil servant's vested right to appointment is delayed through no fault of their own?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary and 52017 YLR 569 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-06-30Read full judgment →
• Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary and 4 others vs Dr. Muhammad Amin2017 PLC (C.S.) 945 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-05-24
  contractual appointmentpleasure of the governmentwrit jurisdictionaudi alteram partemstatutory interpretationtermination of serviceMirpur Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that reinstated the respondent as Chairman of the Mirpur Development Authority (MDA) after his removal. The core legal question was whether an appointee holding office "during the pleasure of the Government" under the Mirpur Development Authority Ordinance, 1974, could be removed before the expiry of his contractual term. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its decision. The Court determined that because the respondent’s appointment was explicitly subject to the "pleasure of the Government" under the governing statute, the government possessed the legal authority to remove him at any time. Consequently, the removal did not constitute a violation of law or contract. Furthermore, the Court held that the principle of audi alteram partem does not apply when an individual accepts an appointment under terms that expressly allow for removal at the pleasure of the appointing authority. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the government’s action was consistent with the statutory framework and the respondent's own accepted terms of employment.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appointee holding office during the pleasure of the Government under a statute be removed before the expiry of their contract term?
  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to the removal of an official whose appointment is explicitly subject to the pleasure of the government?
  • Is a writ petition competent for the enforcement of contractual obligations where the appointment is governed by a specific statutory provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council through Secretary, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council Secretriat, Islamabad vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 5 others2017 PSC 73 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Azad Jammu & Kashmir Rural Support Programme (Ajkrsp) through Attiq-_66d6c34f2017 SC AJK 109 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• (1) Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, through Chief Secretary,2017 SC AJK 99 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-02-11Read full judgment →
• Azad Govt. & another vs Waheed Ahmed Khan & 10 others2017 SCR 175 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, through its Chief2017 SC AJK 338 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and another vs Waheed Ahmed Khan and 10 others2017 YLR 1895 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-02-10
  land acquisitionlimitation periodreference applicationcollector's awardnotice of awarddate of knowledgecompulsory acquisition
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals arose from a High Court judgment concerning land acquisition compensation. The core legal question was whether a reference application filed under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is time-barred when the Collector failed to issue the mandatory notice under Section 12(2), and whether the limitation period runs from the date of the award or the date of knowledge. The Supreme Court held that when an award is made in the absence of the interested party and the mandatory notice under Section 12(2) is not served, the limitation period for filing a reference application commences from the date of knowledge of the award, rather than the date of the award itself. The Court affirmed that the right to challenge an award is a statutory right that cannot be defeated by the Collector's failure to perform the mandatory duty of serving notice. Because the limitation issue presented a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence on when knowledge was acquired, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and remanded the case for framing an issue and recording evidence on the limitation point.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing a reference application under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 commence from the date of the award or the date of knowledge when the Collector fails to serve notice under Section 12(2)?
  • Is the Collector of Land Acquisition legally obligated to serve notice of an award to interested persons who were absent during the announcement of the award?
  • Can a court decide a mixed question of fact and law regarding limitation without framing an issue and recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief2017 MLD 299 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-03-14Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir through its Chief2017 SC AJK 223 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad and another2017 CLC 143 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-10-26Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir through its Chief2017 SC AJK 35 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-03-14Read full judgment →
• Azad Government & 5 others vs M/s. Qureshi Vegetable Ghee and Oil Mills2017 SCR 1231 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Azad Government & 2 others vs Abdul Hameed & 15 others2017 SCR 1034 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Ayyaz Ahmad vs Saqib Nazir, Superintendent, Central Jail2017 PLD Lahore 342 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-20
  contempt of courtprisoner rightsright to medical treatmentPakistan Prison Ruleshigh-profile prisonerjudicial oversightfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This contempt petition was filed against jail authorities for failing to comply with a court order directing medical treatment for the petitioner, an incarcerated individual. The core legal question concerned the state's obligation to provide medical facilities to prisoners and the legality of obstructing such treatment through the arbitrary classification of a prisoner as 'high-profile dangerous.' The Court held that the state is constitutionally and statutorily mandated to provide adequate medical care to all prisoners, whether under-trial or convicted. It found that the petitioner had been denied treatment due to an unjustified 'high-profile' designation, which the authorities subsequently revoked during proceedings. The Court emphasized that the right to health is an inalienable right guaranteed under Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and Rule 197 of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978. It affirmed that judicial oversight, through the ex-officio visitor status of judges and statutory mandates, is essential to ensure that prison administrations fulfill their duty of care, thereby safeguarding the fundamental rights of confined individuals against administrative negligence or victimization.

  Questions settled

  • Does the state have a legal obligation to provide medical treatment to prisoners?
  • Can jail authorities arbitrarily classify a prisoner as 'high-profile dangerous' to deny medical treatment?
  • What is the role of the judiciary in monitoring the health facilities provided to prisoners?
  • Are Sessions Judges empowered to act as ex-officio visitors to prisons to evaluate prisoner welfare?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Bibi vs Talha Mehmood and another2017 P Cr. L J 1080 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-01
  bail cancellationrapedelayed FIRmisuse of bailfurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent-accused in a case registered under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge was perverse, erroneous, or resulted in a miscarriage of justice, thereby warranting cancellation under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the bail order was not patently illegal or factually incorrect. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of over four years, and there was no medical or other evidence prima facie connecting the accused to the alleged offence. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the established principle that bail cancellation is not a punitive measure and should only be exercised when the granting order is perverse, or when the accused has misused the concession of bail by tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses. Finding no such grounds, the Court upheld the bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is the cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a punitive measure?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court cancel bail already granted by a lower court?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ahmed Memon vs Pakistan Railways, Ministry of Railways2017 PLJ Karachi 30 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-18Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ahmed Memon vs Pakistan Railways through Chairman and 82017 PLJ Karachi 30, 2017 PLC (C.S.) 226 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-18
  regularization of servicecontractual employmentpermanent postexploitation of laborconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the regularization of the petitioner, who was appointed as an Assistant Programmer (BPS-16) on a contract basis in 2004. Despite the permanent nature of the post and a previous court order directing the assessment of his suitability for permanent absorption, the respondents failed to regularize his services, continuing his contract for over a decade. The core legal question is whether a contractual employee serving for a significant duration against a permanent post is entitled to regularization, and whether the state's failure to do so constitutes prohibited exploitation. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to regularization, characterizing the prolonged contractual engagement against a permanent post as a form of exploitation. The Court emphasized that public functionaries must act in good faith and in accordance with the law. Key principles established include the state's obligation under the Constitution to eliminate exploitation, ensure social and economic justice, and provide equitable treatment to employees, as well as the principle that long-term service against a permanent post creates a legitimate expectation of regularization.

  Questions settled

  • Is a contractual employee serving for a long period against a permanent post entitled to regularization?
  • Does the retention of an employee on a contract basis against a permanent post for a significant duration constitute prohibited exploitation under the Constitution?
  • Are public functionaries obligated to ensure social and economic justice for employees under the principles of policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayat Ullah vs Appellate Authority of Punjab Local Government2017 PLJ Lahore 96 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Axis Global Limited vs Director (MSRD) Securities and Exchange2017 CLD 392 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2015-01-22Read full judgment →
• Awal Khan and others vs The State thr. Ag-KPK and another2017 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-12
  post-arrest bailcriminal appealsurety bondspersonal recognizancejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the lower courts in a criminal case registered under F.I.R. No. 437 dated 6.8.2016 at Police Station District Lukki. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail pending trial, given the circumstances of the case. Upon consideration of the matter, the Supreme Court allowed the petition, converting it into an appeal, and granted bail to the petitioners. The Court held that the petitioners should be admitted to bail, subject to the condition of furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 each, along with personal recognizance (P.R.) bonds in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The decision reinforces the principle that the grant of bail is a judicial discretion exercised based on the facts and circumstances presented before the court, ensuring that the liberty of the accused is balanced against the requirements of the criminal justice process pending final adjudication of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Are the petitioners entitled to post-arrest bail in the circumstances of F.I.R. No. 437?
  • What are the conditions for the grant of bail in this criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Awal Khan and 7 others vs The State through Ag-KPK and another2017 PLJ SC 310, 2017 SCMR 538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-12
  post-arrest bailconflict between ocular and medical evidencefurther inquiryover-implicationbenefit of doubt at bail stagefirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order refusing post-arrest bail to eight petitioners charged with murder and firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted when a fundamental contradiction exists between the ocular account and the medical evidence, indicating potential over-implication of accused persons. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to all eight petitioners. The Court observed that while nine persons were alleged to have indiscriminately fired automatic Kalashnikov rifles at short range, the deceased sustained only a single bullet wound, the injured suffered shotgun pellet injuries, and the complainant escaped unharmed. Furthermore, shotgun empties were recovered from the scene, contradicting the ocular assertion of exclusive automatic rifle use. The Court established the key legal principle that where medical evidence fundamentally conflicts with the ocular account and suggests that the complainant has thrown the noose too wide by implicating an entire family, the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must go to the accused, rendering the case one of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage when medical evidence fundamentally contradicts the ocular account?
  • Does the potential over-implication of multiple family members render a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of granting post-arrest bail?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted where the medical evidence indicates the use of different weapons than those specifically attributed to the accused in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Awal Khan and 7 others vs State through Ag-KPK and another2017 PLJ SC 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-12
  post-arrest bailmedical evidenceocular accountfurther inquirybenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their bail application by the Peshawar High Court regarding a criminal case involving multiple accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail when the medical evidence appeared to contradict the ocular account provided by the complainant. The Supreme Court observed that while nine accused were charged with firing indiscriminately with Kalashnikov rifles, the medical evidence showed the deceased sustained only one entry and exit wound, and two other injured victims sustained injuries consistent with shotgun pellets rather than rifle bullets. The Court held that the discrepancy between the ocular account and the medical evidence rendered the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioners, establishing the principle that when medical evidence conflicts with the ocular account, the benefit of the doubt at the bail stage must be extended to the accused, as the Court cannot ignore available medical reports when assessing the grounds for bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between medical evidence and the ocular account entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt at the bail stage?
  • Is a court permitted to examine medical evidence when deciding a bail application?
  • When does a criminal case qualify for further inquiry at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Awais Saeed, etc vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2017 LHC 2828 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-18Read full judgment →