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.

• Awais Saeed, etc vs Govt. of Punjab, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1421 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-18Read full judgment →
• Awais Afzaal vs Mst. Safia Irshad and others2017 YLR 837 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-10Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs Managing Director, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited2017 PLC 12 · Lahore High Court · 2016-07-26
  industrial relationsjurisdiction of appellate tribunalback benefitsreinstatementsaving clauserepeal and savings
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition and a connected petition challenge a judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the dismissal and subsequent reinstatement of an employee of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited. The core legal questions involve whether the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the appeal after the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and whether back benefits were rightly denied for want of an explicit assertion of unemployment in evidence. The Lahore High Court held that provincial labour laws must yield to federal legislation and that upon the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain or decide the appeal, whereas the initial judgment of the Labour Court remained a valid decision protected by statutory saving clauses. The court laid down the principle that judgments rendered by legally constituted forums under previous statutes prior to a change in jurisdiction or forum remain saved with prospective effect, and appellate matters pending before tribunals divested of jurisdiction must be transmitted to the competent forum under the prevailing federal law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal retains jurisdiction to decide labour appeals after the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Are prior judgments passed by a Labour Court saved under Section 88 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does a change in forum through subsequent legislation render all previous legal decisions of lower courts illegal or ultra vires retrospectively?
  • Whether a dismissed employee is entitled to back benefits without asserting in evidence that they remained jobless during the intervening period?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Qureshi vs Muhammad Maroof, Watchman (Multi Sector2017 P.S.C. 1662 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Qureshi s/o Muhammad Javid Qureshi, Junior Clerk, B-7, office2017 SC AJK 400 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-07-18Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2017 PHC 761 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-22
  writ jurisdictionpromotion defermentcivil servantservice tribunalservice matterssupersession
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by a civil servant challenging the repeated deferment of his promotion to BPS-21 by the Provincial Selection Board. The petitioner contended that the deferment, based on a pending criminal case and the non-availability of Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs), was illegal and malafide. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere with the deferment of promotion or if such matters fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that the deferment of promotion is neither a punishment nor a final adverse order, but a temporary procedural measure that ceases upon the resolution of the underlying reasons. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petition was not maintainable, as disputes regarding promotion deferment must be adjudicated by the Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1974, rather than through writ jurisdiction. The principle established is that deferment is distinct from supersession, and the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain challenges to such administrative deferments.

  Questions settled

  • Is the deferment of a civil servant's promotion considered a final adverse order subject to judicial review by the High Court?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a challenge against the deferment of promotion of a civil servant?
  • What is the legal distinction between the deferment of promotion and the supersession of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb alias Peejo-- vs State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 283 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-14Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Abbasi and another vs Police Station City Muzaffarabad, through S.H.O. City Police Station, Muzaffarabad and 2 othersK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 329 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  quashment of FIRpublic servantanti-corruption establishmentscheduled offencelocal police station jurisdictionwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, serving as Junior Clerks in the Electricity Department, filed a writ petition under Section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered against them at a local police station for alleged misappropriation of electricity bill amounts under Sections 109 and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether a local police station is authorized to register and investigate an F.I.R. involving scheduled anti-corruption offences committed by public servants. The High Court held that since the petitioners were public servants at the relevant time and the alleged offence under Section 409 was a scheduled offence under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Anti-Corruption Establishment Act, 1993, the local Station House Officer lacked the legal authority to register the F.I.R., rendering it coram non judice. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and quashed the impugned F.I.R., laying down the principle that criminal cases against public servants for scheduled anti-corruption offences must be handled by the Anti-Corruption Establishment in accordance with the relevant law rather than by local police stations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a local police station is authorized to register an F.I.R. against a public servant for scheduled anti-corruption offences?
  • Can an F.I.R. registered against public servants by an unauthorized local police officer be quashed by the High Court?
  • Does the Anti-Corruption Establishment have the exclusive mandate to investigate scheduled offences committed by public servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb & 4 others vs Muhammad Ayub & another2017 SCR 464 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-01-24Read full judgment →
• Aurangzaib alias Guddu vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 699 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-04
  criminal appealmurderpointationdiscovery of factbenefit of doubtQanun-e-Shahadat Orderadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder and destruction of evidence. The prosecution's case relied on the appellant's alleged pointation of the burial site of the deceased's skeletal remains. The core legal question was whether this pointation constituted admissible evidence under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court held that for Article 40 to apply, the information provided by the accused must lead to the discovery of a fact previously unknown to the police. Since the skeletal remains had already been recovered by the police prior to the appellant's arrest and pointation, the disclosure was inconsequential and failed to connect the appellant to the crime. The Court established that a conviction cannot be based on a pointation that does not lead to a new discovery of fact. Consequently, the Court found the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the pointation of a burial site if the dead body was already discovered by the police prior to the accused's arrest?
  • What are the requirements for the application of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 regarding the discovery of facts?
  • Is a disclosure statement leading to a pointation admissible if the police already possessed knowledge of the fact from another source?
  Read full judgment →
• Attiq-Ur-Rehman and another vs The State2017 YLR 840 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-12-02
  murder during dacoityhudood ordinanceeyewitness testimonycriminal appealidentification paradeconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced for imprisonment for life under section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for committing murder during the course of a dacoity. The core legal question in the appeal was whether the prosecution successfully established the identity of the accused and their direct involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and circumstantial evidence. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of the eyewitness, who was the daughter-in-law of the deceased and knew one of the accused previously, remained unshaken during cross-examination, and that prompt lodging of the FIR coupled with corroborative medical and recovery evidence proved the guilt of the appellants. The key principle laid down is that minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses do not discredit a confidence-inspiring eyewitness account supported by prompt FIR and corroborative circumstantial evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor contradictions in prosecution evidence are sufficient to discard an otherwise reliable eyewitness account?
  • Does the prompt lodging of an FIR negate the possibility of false implication of accused persons?
  • Whether unshakeable ocular testimony corroborated by recovery of weapons and prompt reporting is sufficient to maintain a conviction under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Attiq-Ur-Rehman and another vs State2017 YLR 840, 2017 PLJ FSC 50 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-12-02
  criminal appealocular evidenceidentification parademurderrobberyOffences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979eyewitness testimonycircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for their role in a murder during a robbery. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the appellants' guilt through ocular and circumstantial evidence, specifically regarding the reliability of the eyewitness identification. The Federal Shariat Court held that the conviction was sound. The court found the testimony of the eyewitness, who was the daughter-in-law of the deceased, to be consistent, unshaken during cross-examination, and corroborated by the recovery of weapons and identification parade results. The court emphasized that in the absence of any proven enmity or motive for false implication, and given the prompt filing of the FIR, the prosecution's evidence was confidence-inspiring. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the ocular and circumstantial evidence sufficiently connected the appellants to the crime, and no material contradictions existed in the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the identification of an accused by an eyewitness who had prior familiarity with the accused carry weight in a criminal conviction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence that remains unshaken during cross-examination?
  • Is the absence of proven enmity or motive for false implication a relevant factor in evaluating the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
  • Does the recovery of weapons and identification parade results provide sufficient corroboration for ocular testimony in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaullah vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 767 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-28
  extortionanti-terrorismcircumstantial evidencehostile witnessillegal police custodybenefit of doubtrecovery of SIM cardscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Peshawar, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 7-h of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellant made threatening phone calls demanding extortion money while identifying himself as a representative of a proscribed organization. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, the legal effect of illegal police custody prior to formal arrest, the evidentiary value of a hostile complainant, and mandatory compliance with Police Rules regarding recoveries and sealing of incriminating items. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to broken links in the circumstantial evidence, illegal detention of the appellant prior to formal arrest, failure to establish ownership of the SIM cards, and non-compliance with mandatory Police Rules. The court laid down that illegal police custody vitiates all subsequent proceedings, that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, and that the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence without relying on presumptions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether illegal custody of an accused person vitiates subsequent police proceedings including recoveries and confessional statements?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a star witness who has been declared hostile by the prosecution?
  • Does the failure to seal recovered incriminating articles on the spot in accordance with Police Rules render the recovery doubtful?
  • Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of admissions made by his defense counsel during cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaullah Jan vs KP Ehtesab Commission and others2018 MLD 1905, 2017 PHC 1258 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-08Read full judgment →
• Atta-Ur-Reh Man vs Aamir Zahoor-Ul-Haq, Etc_2017 NLR Civil 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  review petitionHoubara Bustardwildlife conservationsustainable huntinginternational conventionsseparation of powerstreaty incorporation
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard review petitions under Article 188 of the Constitution challenging its earlier judgment dated August 19, 2015, which had imposed a perpetual ban on the hunting of the Houbara Bustard. The petitioners, including the Federation and provincial governments, argued that the perpetual ban was contrary to provincial wildlife laws that permit regulated hunting under licenses, and that international conventions like the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) do not mandate a complete ban but rather advocate for sustainable use. The majority court held that international treaties are not domestically enforceable unless incorporated into municipal law through legislation. It further observed that under the constitutional separation of powers, the judiciary cannot direct the legislature to enact specific laws, nor can it render valid statutory provisions redundant without a constitutional challenge. Finding apparent errors on the face of the record, the majority allowed the review petitions, set aside the previous judgment, and ordered a fresh hearing of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Are international treaties and conventions enforceable by domestic courts in Pakistan if they have not been incorporated into municipal law through legislation?
  • Can the Supreme Court place a perpetual ban on an activity permitted by valid provincial statutes when the constitutional validity of those statutes has not been challenged?
  • Can the superior courts issue a direction to the legislature to enact laws on a particular subject under the constitutional principle of separation of powers?
  • What is the scope of the Supreme Court's review jurisdiction under Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta-Ur-Rahman and anothers vs The State2017 MLD 386 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-04-06Read full judgment →
• Atta Ullah vs The State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 767, 2017 P Cr. L J 992 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-28
  anti-terrorismcircumstantial evidencehostile witnessillegal police custodybenefit of doubtextortioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 7-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellant made threatening phone calls demanding extortion money while claiming to represent a militant organization. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, the effect of illegal police custody prior to formal arrest and nomination, the reliability of unsealed recoveries, and the consequences of the star complainant witness turning hostile. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish an unbroken chain of conclusive circumstantial evidence, that the appellant was shown arrested after being kept in illegal police custody, and that vital links such as ownership of SIM cards and voice matching were missing. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, laying down that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, and that illegal police custody vitiates subsequent recoveries and proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can secure a conviction based on circumstantial evidence without establishing an unbroken, conclusive chain linking the accused to the crime?
  • What is the legal effect of illegal police custody of an accused prior to formal arrest on subsequent recoveries and judicial proceedings?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of admissions made by defense counsel during cross-examination without an admission under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary value of alleged incriminating recoveries that are not sealed on the spot in accordance with the Police Rules 1934?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Ullah and 12 others vs Chief Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 62 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-26
  regularization of servicesbeneficial legislationpromotion quotalegitimate expectancycivil servicecontract appointmentremedial statute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple writ petitions challenging the validity of the North West Frontier Province Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, which regularized ad hoc and contract employees in the Education Department. Petitioners, existing civil servants, contended that the Act was unconstitutional, blocked their promotion avenues, and bypassed established recruitment procedures. The core legal questions were whether the Act constituted valid beneficial legislation and whether the regularization process infringed upon the legitimate expectancy of existing employees to be considered for promotion. The Court held that the Act is a valid piece of beneficial and remedial legislation, intended to cure defects in previous recruitment practices, and thus upheld its constitutionality. However, recognizing that the en bloc regularization adversely affected the promotion prospects of in-service employees, the Court ruled that promotion quotas must be strictly implemented. It directed the authorities to calculate and fill the promotion backlog within thirty days, emphasizing that while promotion is not a vested right, the right to be considered for promotion in accordance with established rules is a protected interest.

  Questions settled

  • Is the North West Frontier Province Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, a valid piece of beneficial and remedial legislation?
  • Does the regularization of contract employees under the North West Frontier Province Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, violate the rights of existing civil servants to be considered for promotion?
  • Can the High Court interfere with service matters under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does an existing civil servant have a vested right to promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Abbas Zaidi vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau (NAB)2017 PLD Sindh 120 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-02
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayhardship bailNational Accountability Bureauconstitutional petitionexpeditious trialcorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed by Atta Abbas Zaidi seeking post-arrest bail on statutory grounds of delay in National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Reference No. 27 of 2015, relating to corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The core legal questions addressed by the Sindh High Court were whether statutory bail based on delay is applicable in NAB cases, and under what circumstances an accused person can be granted bail on hardship grounds due to inordinate trial delays. The Court held that statutory bail on account of delay is no longer applicable in NAB cases in view of Section 9(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 and recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, but bail can be granted in hardship cases where prolonged detention without trial conclusion violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 10A of the Constitution. The Court laid down the principle that while statutory delay provisions do not apply to NAB proceedings, the superior courts may grant discretionary bail in hardship cases by evaluating factors such as the duration of custody, absence of delay attributable to the accused, likelihood of trial completion, and the constitutional guarantee of an expeditious trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is bail on statutory grounds of delay available in cases under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Can the High Court grant bail in National Accountability Bureau cases under its constitutional jurisdiction on the ground of hardship due to inordinate delay?
  • What factors are considered by the court to determine whether a National Accountability Bureau case qualifies as a hardship case for the grant of bail?
  • Does prolonged pre-trial detention without conclusion of trial violate the right to an expeditious trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Atiq-Ur-Rehman and another vs Returning Officer, U.C. Nos,57 to 63 and 6 others2017 CLC 1488 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-11Read full judgment →
• Ateeb Ali vs Im Sciences through its director etc2017 PHC 670 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-19Read full judgment →
• Association for the Welfare of Owner and Staff of Qingqi2017 SCMR 1098 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-29
  Qingqi rickshawpublic transport regulationmotor vehicle fitnessregistration of vehiclesright to lifetransport authorityroad safety
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legality and regulation of Qingqi rickshaws operating across Pakistan. The core legal question was whether these vehicles, often modified or manufactured by unauthorized entities, could be permitted to ply on public roads without adhering to established safety and registration standards. The Supreme Court held that the operation of such vehicles must strictly comply with existing motor vehicle laws to ensure public safety and the protection of life as guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court directed that only Qingqi rickshaws manufactured by registered, authorized entities, meeting approved design specifications, and possessing valid fitness certificates, registration, and route permits may operate. The key principle laid down is that the State has a bounden duty under Article 9 of the Constitution to protect the life and liberty of citizens by ensuring that all public transport vehicles, including Qingqi rickshaws, are constructed, manufactured, and operated in strict accordance with statutory standards, with failure to enforce these regulations resulting in potential departmental and criminal liability for responsible officials.

  Questions settled

  • Does the State have a constitutional duty to ensure public transport vehicles meet safety standards?
  • Can Qingqi rickshaws be permitted to operate on public roads without valid registration and fitness certificates?
  • Are Provincial Transport Authorities mandated to ensure that only authorized manufacturers produce public service vehicles?
  • What are the legal consequences for officials failing to enforce motor vehicle regulations regarding Qingqi rickshaws?
  Read full judgment →
• Associated Textile Consultants (Pvt) Ltd & Atc Technology Consultants2017 SHC 369 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-22Read full judgment →
• Associated Constructors Ltd vs Malir Development Authority and another2017 MLD 1822 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-29Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner, Unit-4, SRB. vs M/s. Optimus Capital ManagementPTCL 2017 CL. 619 · Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board · 2017-01-23Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner, Unit-4, SRB vs M/s Optimus Capital Management2017 SRB 1 · Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board · 2017-01-23Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner, Unit-4, SRB vs Messrs Optimus CapitalPTCL 2017 CL. 619, 2017 PTD (Trib.) 2108 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2017-01-23Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner, Unit-16, SRB vs M/s Target TMC (Pvt.) Limited2017 SRB 113 · Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board · 2017-01-26Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner, SRB vs M/s. Elixir Securities Pakistan (Pvt.) LimitedPTCL 2017 CL. 781 · Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board · 2017-01-30Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner, SRB vs M/s Elixir Securities Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited2017 SRB 90 · Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board · 2017-01-30Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner Unit-21, SRB, Karachi vs M/s Ravi Advertising2017 SRB 153 · Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board · 2017-09-26Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner SRB, Karachi vs M/s Elf international Engineering2017 SRB 133 · Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board · 2017-08-15Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner SRB, Karachi vs M/s Bhayani Securities2017 SRB 128 · Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board · 2017-08-11Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner (Unit-21), SRB vs M/s Mindshare Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd2017 SRB 98 · Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board · 2017-03-21Read full judgment →
• Assistant Collector of Customs, Afu, Airport, Lahore. vs The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Lahore. 2. M_s. Kaleem Ullah and Company, Lahore2018 PTD (Trib.) 2353, PTCL 2017 CL. 851 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2017-05-22Read full judgment →
• Assad Ullah vs The State2017 YLR 1232 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-06-23Read full judgment →
• Asoke Kumar Chaudhuri and Others vs Kunal Saha and Another2017 SCInd 297 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-01-17
  quashing of criminal proceedingsmedical negligencecriminal conspiracydisappearance of evidencejudicial proceedingsdisciplinary inquirypublic servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court order refusing to quash criminal proceedings initiated against members of an Inquiry Committee of the West Bengal Medical Council. The complainant alleged that the appellants, by suppressing expert reports during a disciplinary inquiry into medical negligence, committed offences under Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, failed to satisfy the essential ingredients of the charged offences. Specifically, the Court determined that the suppression of expert opinions in a disciplinary inquiry does not constitute the 'disappearance of evidence' under Section 201, nor does it establish a criminal conspiracy under Section 120B. Furthermore, the Court rejected the applicability of Section 219, ruling that departmental disciplinary proceedings do not qualify as 'judicial proceedings' as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and the Oaths Act 1969. Consequently, the Court held that the criminal complaint was not maintainable and quashed the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of expert reports during a disciplinary inquiry constitute the offence of causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code 1860?
  • Can disciplinary proceedings conducted by a Medical Council be classified as 'judicial proceedings' for the purpose of Section 219 of the Indian Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 if the complaint fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmat Ullah Khan vs Ansar Javed and 4 others2017 PLJ Lahore 438 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-18Read full judgment →
• Asma Shoaib vs Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. and others2017 CLD 484 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-19
  ex parte decreeservice of summonssubstituted servicebanking courtleave to defendforged mortgage documentfinancial institution recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed by the Banking Court-III, Lahore, which dismissed the appellant's application under section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, seeking to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree. The core legal question was whether the ex parte decree was sustainable given the appellant's claim of non-service and the Banking Court's reliance on presumptions regarding the appellant's knowledge of proceedings initiated by her family members. The Court held that the Banking Court erred in its assessment of service, noting that publication requirements were not fully met as no Urdu newspaper publication occurred, and personal service was absent. Furthermore, the Court found that the Banking Court incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the appellant regarding the change of address, especially since the appellant had denied the execution of the mortgage document itself, asserting it was forged. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the ex parte decree against the appellant, granting her leave to file an application for leave to defend the suit within the stipulated period.

  Questions settled

  • Can an ex parte decree be sustained when the mandatory requirement of publication in both English and Urdu newspapers has not been fulfilled?
  • Does the initiation of legal proceedings by family members regarding a property create a legal presumption that another family member was aware of separate proceedings concerning the same property?
  • Is it legally permissible to hold a party responsible for failing to notify a financial institution of a change of address when that party denies the execution of the underlying mortgage document?
  Read full judgment →
• Aslam Surhiani and another vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 174 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-10
  Anti-Terrorism Actkidnappinglife imprisonmentforfeiture of propertycriminal appealconviction challenge
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants, Aslam Surhiani and Muhammad Suleman, by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Hyderabad, for an offense under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The appellants were convicted for their alleged involvement in a kidnapping case registered under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the recovery of a vehicle and subsequent police investigation. The trial court sentenced both appellants to life imprisonment along with the forfeiture of their movable and immovable properties, granting them the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution's case rests on a sequence of events involving the recovery of a stolen vehicle, the registration of an FIR, and a subsequent police operation based on intelligence reports regarding the whereabouts of an abductee. The matter concerns the sufficiency of evidence and the legality of the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, specifically regarding the application of terror-related charges in the context of the alleged abduction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a vehicle and subsequent police intelligence regarding an abductee satisfy the requirements for a conviction under Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Is the forfeiture of movable and immovable property a mandatory sentence for a conviction under Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be applied to sentences of life imprisonment imposed under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited vs Syed Zulfiqar Rizvi2017 CLD 1298 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited vs Saga Sports (Pvt.) Ltd. and others2017 CLD 162 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-10Read full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited vs Panther CNG Station and one other2017 PHC 1077 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-12Read full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited through their Manager, Mirpur Branch and Area2017 P.S.C. 1539 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited through their Manager Mirpur Branch and Area2017 SC AJK 199 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Askar Abbas vs State2017 PHC 1005 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Asjad Javed alias Javed Akhtar vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Islamabad and others2017 SCMR 1514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-04-18
  transfer of offendersremission of sentenceforeign convictionconstitutional petitioncompetent authorityimprisonmentwrit maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Islamabad High Court which set aside a writ petition filed by the petitioner, a prisoner convicted in the United Kingdom and transferred to Pakistan under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002, who sought release and remissions in his sentence. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to claim remissions and the proper procedure for a transferred offender to seek such relief under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly determined the writ petition to be not maintainable and that the petitioner must approach the Competent Authority under the Ordinance to claim any entitlement to remissions or grievances under section 9(4) or section 12. The key principle laid down is that a prisoner transferred to Pakistan pursuant to the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002 must seek remissions or relief regarding the enforcement and compatibility of their foreign sentence by approaching the designated Competent Authority rather than directly invoking constitutional writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable for seeking remissions in a sentence imposed by a foreign court and transferred under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002?
  • Which authority must a transferred offender approach to claim entitlement to remissions or address grievances under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002?
  • How is the enforcement of a sentence governed when an offender is transferred to Pakistan from a specified country?
  • What power does a court of competent jurisdiction in Pakistan have if the legal nature and duration of a transferred offender's sentence is incompatible with Pakistani law?
  Read full judgment →
• Asjad Javed @ Javed Akhtar vs Federation of Pakistan thr. Secretary2017 SCP 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-07-11
  transfer of offendersremission of sentenceconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitycompetent authorityforeign convictionprisoner transfer agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Islamabad High Court allowing an Intra Court Appeal and setting aside an order passed in a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner, a convict transferred from the United Kingdom to Pakistan under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's constitutional petition seeking remissions and questioning his arrest and detention was maintainable, and whether he was entitled to remissions without approaching the competent authority under the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no illegality in setting aside the initial order and directing the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for any grievance relating to remissions or section 12 and section 9(4) of the Ordinance. The Court laid down the principle that a transferred offender seeking sentence remissions or claiming entitlements under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002 must approach the designated Competent Authority in accordance with the law rather than bypassing administrative remedies through a constitutional writ petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable for claiming remissions without first approaching the Competent Authority under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002?
  • How is the sentence of a prisoner transferred to Pakistan from a specified country enforced and governed under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002?
  • Can a court in Pakistan adapt a foreign sentence to make it compatible with the laws of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Asjad Javaid Ghurai, J. vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 245 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-07
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabductionZina-bil-Jabrcomplainant retractionaffidavit evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 283/2016 involving allegations of abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr under Sections 496-A and 376-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the complainant's subsequent retraction of the allegations. The complainant appeared before the Court, affirming that she was the petitioner's legally wedded wife and that the criminal case was fabricated by her brothers due to a financial dispute. She explicitly stated she had not been abducted or subjected to Zina by the petitioner and consented to his release. The Court held that in light of the complainant's affidavit and statement, the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that a complainant's unequivocal retraction and assertion of a lawful marital relationship can constitute sufficient grounds to warrant further inquiry and the grant of bail in serious criminal matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does a complainant's affidavit denying the allegations and asserting a lawful marriage with the accused constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can an accused be admitted to post-arrest bail when the victim denies the occurrence of the alleged offenses of abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr?
  Read full judgment →
• Asjad Asad Wasi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/o2017 PLC (C.S.) 955 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-26
  resignationwithdrawal of resignationcivil servanttermination of serviceintra court appealdisputed questions of factmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition seeking to set aside the acceptance of his resignation and to allow its withdrawal, thereby claiming regularization in service as a Programmer (BPS-17) with Pakistan Railways. The core legal question revolves around whether a government servant can unilaterally withdraw a resignation after it has been accepted by the competent authority, and whether a resignation tendered voluntarily can be recalled. The court held that a resignation voluntarily submitted by a public servant terminates the employment relationship upon its acceptance by the competent authority, and in the absence of a written withdrawal prior to such acceptance, it attains finality. The key legal principles laid down are that a resignation must be voluntary, that it takes effect upon acceptance by the competent authority, and that it cannot be withdrawn after acceptance unless permitted by the relevant rules or authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government servant withdraw a resignation after it has been accepted by the competent authority?
  • Does the tendering of a resignation amount to termination of service before its acceptance by the competent authority?
  • Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the verbal withdrawal of a resignation?
  • What constitutes a voluntary resignation under service law?
  Read full judgment →
• Asjad Asad Wasi vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary, M/o2017 C.L.R. 94 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-26Read full judgment →
• Asjad Asad Wasi vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary, M/o2017 PLC (C.S.) 955, 2017 PLJ Islamabad 86 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-26
  resignationcivil servicetermination of employmentwithdrawal of resignationwrit jurisdictionemployer-employee relationshipvoluntary resignation
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges an order dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant, who sought to challenge the acceptance of his resignation from the position of Programmer at Pakistan Railways. The core legal question was whether a civil servant can unilaterally withdraw a resignation after it has been accepted by the competent authority, and whether such a resignation, once accepted, terminates the employer-employee relationship. The Court held that the resignation was a voluntary act and that the appellant failed to provide evidence of coercion or a timely withdrawal. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, holding that once a resignation is accepted by the competent authority, the employment relationship is severed, and the employee has no inherent right to withdraw it. The key principle laid down is that while a resignation may be withdrawn before acceptance, it becomes effective and irrevocable upon acceptance by the competent authority, absent specific statutory provisions to the contrary. Furthermore, the Court noted that disputed questions of fact regarding the alleged withdrawal are not appropriately resolved under constitutional writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant unilaterally withdraw a resignation after it has been accepted by the competent authority?
  • Does the acceptance of a resignation by the competent authority effectively terminate the employer-employee relationship?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the withdrawal of a resignation be resolved under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim Yasin vs The State & AnotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 908, 2017 LHC 2531 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-06
  spurious drugsDrugs Act 1976criminal appealbenefit of doubtstandard of proofco-accused statementacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Drug Court, which convicted the appellants for offences under the Drugs Act, 1976, regarding the alleged sale of spurious drugs. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the act of selling spurious drugs to warrant conviction under Section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence. Specifically, the court found that the first appellant was apprehended merely on suspicion of intending to sell, which does not constitute the offence of selling under the Act. Furthermore, the court held that the conviction of the other appellants, based solely on the statements of co-accused without independent corroborating evidence, was legally unsustainable. The court emphasized that a charge is the foundation of a trial and must clearly reflect the nature of the accusation. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, ruling that the prosecution evidence was deficient and fraught with reasonable doubts, thereby extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquitting them.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere intention to sell drugs constitute an offence under the Drugs Act, 1976?
  • Is the statement of a co-accused sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused in the absence of independent evidence?
  • What is the legal consequence of a failure to prove the essential ingredients of an offence under the Drugs Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim Riaz Qureshi vs Bank Al-Falah Limited2017 CLD 538 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-08Read full judgment →
• Asim Raziq vs The State2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-03Read full judgment →
• Asif---Petitioner vs The State and 2 others---Respondents2017 MLD 1611 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-12
  defence evidencefair trialcriminal revisionright to testifymandatory provisionsSection 340(2) Cr.P.C.Section 265-F Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed the petitioner's request to adduce defence evidence and closed the defence case during a trial for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a trial court has the discretion to deny an accused the right to produce defence evidence and testify as a witness in their own defence after opting to do so under Section 265-F(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the trial court's order was illegal and violated mandatory statutory provisions. The ratio established that the right to produce defence evidence and to appear as a witness under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a statutory entitlement that cannot be denied without recording specific reasons regarding vexation or delay, as required by Section 265-F(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that denying these rights constitutes a denial of a fair trial guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, rendering the trial incomplete.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the discretion to refuse an accused the right to adduce defence evidence after the accused has opted to do so?
  • Is the failure of a trial court to allow an accused to appear as a witness in their own defence under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a curable irregularity?
  • What are the specific grounds required for a trial court to refuse an application for the production of defence evidence under Section 265-F(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Zangejo Jatoi vs The StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Karachi) 308 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-15
  post-arrest bailineffective firingfurther inquiryattempted murderpolice encountercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This application for post-arrest bail concerns charges under Sections 324 and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an alleged armed encounter between the applicant and police. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the prosecution's allegations of firing versus the applicant's claim of false implication. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, determining that the case required further inquiry. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that despite the prosecution's claim of an exchange of fire, no police personnel sustained injuries, nor was any police vehicle damaged, rendering the allegations of attempted murder tentative. Additionally, the Court noted that the challan had been submitted, the applicant was no longer required for investigation, and the prosecution witnesses were exclusively police officials. Consequently, the Court established that in circumstances where firing allegations are ineffective and lack corroborating physical evidence of harm to the complainant party, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allegation of firing at police without causing any injury or property damage warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Is a case for bail made out when the challan has been submitted and the accused is no longer required for investigation?
  • Can bail be granted when all prosecution witnesses are police officials?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif vs The State2017 MLD 1917 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-22Read full judgment →
• Asif Naz vs Government of Punjab and others2017 PLD Lahore 271 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-22Read full judgment →
• Asif Mahmood vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others2017 MLD 1397 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-08Read full judgment →
• Asif lqbal vs Aman Ullah, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1285 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-23Read full judgment →
• Asif Javed vs Govt. of the Punjab, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1403 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-19Read full judgment →
• Asif Iqbal vs Aman Ullah and 2 others2017 YLR 2173 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-23Read full judgment →
• Asif Haroon Butt vs Barclays Bank Limited2017 CLD 267 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-05Read full judgment →
• (1) Asif Asadullah, Sub Divisional Officer PWD, now posted in Forward2017 SC AJK 394 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-02
  service lawseniority listpublic works departmentB.Tech (Hons) degreestudy leavecivil servantpromotion quotadepartmental policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns service appeals regarding the seniority of sub-engineers in the Public Works Department. The core legal question was whether sub-engineers who acquired B.Tech (Hons) degrees during service without obtaining formal study leave or a No Objection Certificate (NOC) are entitled to placement in the seniority list reserved for B.Tech (Hons) degree holders, and whether a departmental policy requiring such permissions can retroactively invalidate these degrees for seniority purposes. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly ordered the preparation of separate seniority lists for diploma holders and B.Tech (Hons) degree holders. The Court ruled that the acquisition of a degree without prior study leave is a matter of conduct and discipline, not a factor that disqualifies a civil servant from seniority benefits if they otherwise possess the requisite qualification. Consequently, the Court affirmed the inclusion of qualified employees in the B.Tech (Hons) seniority list. The key principle laid down is that statutory promotion and seniority rules cannot be overridden by departmental directives regarding study leave, as such directives pertain to disciplinary matters rather than eligibility for promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquisition of a higher educational qualification without prior study leave disqualify a civil servant from seniority benefits if they otherwise meet the statutory qualification requirements?
  • Can a departmental policy regarding study leave override statutory rules governing seniority and promotion?
  • Are separate seniority lists required for sub-engineers holding diplomas versus those holding B.Tech (Hons) degrees under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Works Department Service Rules, 1992?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Zangejo Jatoi vs The State2017 MLD 46 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-20
  post-arrest bailineffective firingfurther inquirypolice encountercommon intentioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from the refusal of the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, to grant post-arrest bail to the applicant, who was charged under Sections 324 and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an alleged encounter with police. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the prosecution's allegations of firing upon police officers. The High Court observed that despite the prosecution's claim of an exchange of fire involving numerous rounds, no police personnel sustained injuries, nor was any police vehicle damaged. The applicant, however, had sustained a firearm injury. The Court held that because the firing was ineffective and no injuries were caused to the police party, the case against the applicant required further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence under Section 353 was bailable, the investigation was complete, and the prosecution witnesses were police officials, minimizing the risk of evidence tampering. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing that ineffective firing in an alleged encounter, absent injury to the complainant party, constitutes grounds for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does ineffective firing during an alleged encounter with police constitute grounds for further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an offence under Section 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered bailable?
  • Does the absence of injury to police personnel during an alleged shootout entitle an accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Asian Mutual Insurance Company (Guarantee) Limited vs Federation2017 CLD 1525 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-25Read full judgment →
• Asian Mutual Insurance Company (Guarantee) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & others2017 P.C.T.L.R. 532 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Asian Mutual Insurance Company (Guarantee) Limited vs Director2017 CLD 412 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2015-12-10Read full judgment →
• Ashir Azeem vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage and 8 others2017 PLD Sindh 1 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-06
  Motion Pictures OrdinanceCensor BoardFilm DecertificationEighteenth AmendmentProvincial AutonomyAudi Alteram PartemFundamental RightsFreedom of Expression
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a federal notification declaring the Urdu feature film "Maalik" uncertified and banning its exhibition across Pakistan under Section 9(2)(a) of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved whether the Federal Government retained the power to uncertify films in provinces that had enacted their own legislation following the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment, and whether the decertification order was vitiated due to mala fides and a failure to afford an opportunity of hearing. The Sindh High Court held that following the abolition of the concurrent legislative list by the Eighteenth Amendment and subsequent provincial legislation (such as the Sindh Motion Pictures Act, 2011), the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 stood repealed in its application to the provinces of Sindh and Punjab, applying only within the Federal Capital under Entry 58 of the Federal Legislative List. The court further held that action under Section 9(2)(a) of the Ordinance requires prior notice and an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem), and the impugned mechanical decertification without recording statutory satisfaction was unlawful. The notification banning the film was accordingly quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government retains the power to uncertify a film under the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 in provinces that have enacted their own legislation on the subject following the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment?
  • Does Section 9(2)(a) of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 implicitly require the issuance of a show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing prior to the decertification of a film?
  • Can Entry 58 of the Federal Legislative List sustain the application of federal censorship laws across the provinces after the omission of the concurrent legislative list?
  • Is an order of decertification passed by the Federal Government sustainable when the authority fails to record independent satisfaction regarding the statutory grounds enumerated in the proviso to Section 9(2)(a) of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashique Ali vs Province of Sindh through Home Secretary Government2017 MLD 1232 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-22Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain vs The State2017 SCMR 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-11-14
  murderdeath sentenceinjured eye-witnessesre-appraisal of evidenceabscondencecriminal trespasssupreme court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Ashiq Hussain, for murder and house trespass. The core legal questions involved the re-appraisal of evidence, the reliability of injured eye-witnesses, the presence of adequate electric light for identification, and the sufficiency of corroboration regarding motive and the appellant's status as a proclaimed offender. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts were based on consistent, prompt ocular evidence supported by medical reports, prompt FIR registration, and the appellant's abscondence. The Court ruled that where eye-witnesses are natural, injured, and corroborated by material evidence and motive, the conviction is unassailable, and the brutality and context of the crime justified the confirmation of the death sentence. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, when consistent and corroborated by prompt medical examination and surrounding circumstances, is sufficient to maintain a capital conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of injured eye-witnesses provides sufficient basis for a murder conviction when corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Does the abscondence and proclamation of an accused as an offender furnish valid corroboration to the ocular account?
  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and High Court warrant interference by the Supreme Court upon re-appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaque alias Shaka vs The State and others2017 P Cr. L J 359 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-29
  murder convictionocular evidencemitigating circumstancesquantum of sentencebenefit of doubtdeath sentence commutationforensic evidence reliability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account, the validity of the recovery of the weapon, the establishment of motive, and the appropriateness of the death penalty. The court held that the conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was sustainable based on the consistent and trustworthy ocular testimony, which remained unshaken during cross-examination. However, the court discarded the recovery evidence, noting that the possibility of manufacturing crime empties could not be ruled out, and rejected the prosecution's stated motive. Consequently, the court affirmed the principle that while ocular evidence may suffice for conviction, the failure to prove motive and the unreliability of forensic evidence constitute significant mitigating circumstances. The court held that an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the quantum of sentence when the prosecution fails to establish the complete narrative. Accordingly, the court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, granting the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when the recovery evidence and motive are discarded?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing?
  • Is the death sentence appropriate when the forensic evidence connecting the weapon to the crime is unreliable?
  • Are accused persons entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmed, Chief Executive and 8 otherss vs The Executive Director, Corporate Supervision Department Company Law Division2017 CLD 169 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2016-04-05Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad, etc vs State, etcPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 638 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-28
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencecriminal appealmurder convictionstandard of proofdeath sentenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of a minor child, Zeeshan, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the theory of 'last seen' and an alleged extrajudicial confession, as there were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution's case was based on suspicion, stage-managed evidence, and a failure to establish a definitive nexus between the accused and the crime. The Lahore High Court examined the evidentiary value of the circumstantial evidence, particularly the testimony regarding the 'last seen' witness. The Court emphasized that in cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a chain of events so complete and unbroken that it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of the accused's innocence. Finding that the prosecution failed to meet this high standard of proof, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, holding that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof in criminal jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is incomplete?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a 'last seen' witness in a criminal trial when the timeline is not established?
  • Does suspicion, regardless of its strength, constitute sufficient legal proof to uphold a conviction in a capital case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad vs Muhammad Asif etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 515, 2017 LHC 1073 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-22Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad Abbasi vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others2017 PLC 67 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-25
  workman definitionlabour lawmanagerial capacitysupervisory dutiesgrievance petitionconstitutional jurisdictionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner’s grievance petition regarding his termination from employment as an Area Sales Incharge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s job description and assigned duties qualified him as a "workman" under the applicable labour laws. The High Court upheld the lower forums' decisions, holding that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of a "workman." The Court reasoned that the "pith and substance" of the petitioner's duties—which included managing distributors, checking records, and providing guidance—were managerial, supervisory, and directional in nature, rather than predominantly manual or clerical. The Court affirmed the established legal principle that job designation is not determinative of one's status; instead, the nature of duties performed is the decisive factor. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the burden of proof rests on the employee to demonstrate that their primary functions are manual or clerical, and incidental tasks do not alter the overall managerial character of the employment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a job designation determine whether an employee qualifies as a 'workman' under labour laws?
  • What is the test to determine if an employee is a 'workman' versus a person employed in a managerial or administrative capacity?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the status of a 'workman' in a labour dispute?
  • Do incidental manual or clerical tasks performed by a manager alter their status to that of a 'workman'?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Ashfaq Ahmad (2) The State vs (1) The State (2) Ashfaq AhmadPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 638, 2017 LHC 1212 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-28
  circumstantial evidenceextrajudicial confessionlast seen evidencebenefit of doubtcapital punishmentcriminal appealjudicial confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court upon the appellant for the murder of his six-year-old cousin. The prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically the 'last seen' testimony, an extrajudicial confession, and a subsequent confession recorded before the trial judge. The core legal question was whether these pieces of circumstantial evidence were sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable nexus between the appellant and the crime. The court found the 'last seen' evidence lacked temporal proximity, the extrajudicial confession was weak and lacked independent corroboration, and the confession recorded before the trial judge was involuntary, given the suspicious circumstances of its recording and the appellant's subsequent retraction. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that suspicion cannot substitute for positive proof and that convictions cannot be sustained without a solid evidential basis, thereby upholding the principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the prosecution fails to establish a clear nexus between the accused and the crime?
  • Is a confession recorded before a trial judge admissible if the circumstances suggest it was not made voluntarily?
  • Does the principle of safe administration of criminal justice allow for a conviction based on weak, uncorroborated extrajudicial confessions?
  • Can a confession recorded on oath be considered a valid piece of evidence against an accused in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Asher Iqbal vs Additional District Judge, Sahiwal and 3 others2017 [M] C.L.R. 1541 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Asha Ranjan, Chandrakeshwar Prasad vs State of Bihar and others, Union2017 P.S.C. (Crl) 23 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• Asghar Bin Shahid Jafri vs Defence Housing Authority and another2017 LHC 197 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-12Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad vs State2017 PHC 815 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-11Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali, etc vs State etcPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 570 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-15
  murderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRmedical and ocular conflicttainted evidenceself-defenceappellant acquittalenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment handed down by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, unexplained inordinate delays in lodging the First Information Report and conducting the post-mortem examination, contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, and the legal effect of withholding natural independent witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to fatal flaws, including delayed reporting leading to deliberations, unnatural conduct of eyewitnesses whose presence at the scene was doubtful, irreconcilable conflicts between the medical evidence and the alleged weapon, and failure to prove the motive. The court established that tainted evidence cannot corroborate another piece of tainted evidence and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the revision for enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay of several hours in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a clear and irreconcilable conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony?
  • Whether a self-exculpatory statement made by an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be used as a confession or as incriminating evidence against him?
  • Is one piece of tainted evidence sufficient to corroborate another piece of tainted evidence?
  • Whether the withholding of natural and independent eyewitnesses creates an adverse presumption against the prosecution under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State and another2017 MLD 535 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-16
  cross-examinationfair trialinherent powerslawyers strikeabuse of process of lawdelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition, filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, challenges concurrent orders passed by the lower courts forfeiting the petitioner-accused's right of cross-examination due to repeated adjournments and defaults in appearance. The core legal question concerns whether an accused can indefinitely delay cross-examination or use lawyers' strikes and dilatory tactics to frustrate the trial, and whether the High Court should interfere with the forfeiture of such a right under its inherent jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that while the right of cross-examination is a valuable component of a fair trial, it cannot be exercised at the whim of the accused to hold the judicial process in abeyance or harass witnesses in attendance. Furthermore, a lawyers' strike does not provide a valid cover for failing to arrange representation or cross-examination. The petition was dismissed in limine, establishing that persistent avoidance of cross-examination justifies forfeiture of the right to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right of cross-examination can be forfeited due to persistent delays and failure of the accused to arrange representation?
  • Can a strike by members of the Bar serve as a valid ground to seek adjournment and excuse the failure to cross-examine a witness in attendance?
  • What is the scope of invoking inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to challenge the forfeiture of the right of cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali Khan and 4 others vs Janan and 15 others2017 YLR 301 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-01
  arbitration awardrule of the courtcivil revisionarbitrator's dutymaintainability of applicationprocedural compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent orders of the Additional District Judge-I, Bannu, and the Civil Judge-XI, Bannu, which dismissed the petitioners' application to make an arbitration award a rule of the Court. The dispute concerned agricultural land and verkha jaat, resolved initially through an arbitration agreement. The core legal question was whether a party can unilaterally file an arbitration award in court to have it made a rule of the court, particularly when the award was acted upon prior to judicial authentication. The Court held that under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, it is the arbitrator's responsibility to file the award in court, not the parties. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that it cannot mechanically approve an award; it must determine the award's legality, maintainability, and executability. The Court affirmed that when the law prescribes a specific manner for an act to be performed, it must be followed strictly. Finding the concurrent findings of the lower courts convincing, the High Court dismissed the revision petition as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Is a party to an arbitration agreement authorized to file an award in court to make it a rule of the court?
  • Does the court have a duty to mechanically approve an arbitration award presented to it?
  • What is the correct procedure for filing an arbitration award in court under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali Bhatti and others vs Election Tribunal, Multan and 6 others2017 PLJ Lahore 296 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-14Read full judgment →
• (1) Asghar Ali (2) The State etc vs (1) Shaukat Ali Khan (2) Asghar Ali etc2017 LHC 1251, PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 570 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-15
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencedelayed FIRacquittalself-defense
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged ocular testimony, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant. The Court identified significant infirmities, including an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report, unnatural conduct of the prosecution witnesses, and a direct conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular account regarding the weapon used. Furthermore, the Court noted the failure to examine independent witnesses and inconsistencies in the forensic evidence. Establishing that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits, the Court laid down the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a direct conflict between medical evidence and the ocular account provided by prosecution witnesses?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case independently, or can it rely on the failure of the defense's plea?
  • Can tainted evidence be used to corroborate other tainted evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Asfandyar and another vs Kamran and another2017 P.S.C. (Crl.) 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-29
  local inspectionSection 539-B CrPCCCTV footage admissibilityQanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984inherent powers of High CourtSection 561-A CrPCdelegation of judicial power
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment setting aside a trial court order that had appointed a commission to inspect a crime scene. The core legal questions concerned the trial court's power to delegate local inspection duties under Section 539-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the evidentiary requirements for CCTV footage under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Supreme Court held that the power of local inspection under Section 539-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is exclusive to the trial judge and cannot be delegated to a commission or subordinate officer. Regarding evidence, the Court ruled that CCTV footage is not admissible merely upon production; it must be proven by examining the person who prepared the footage to ensure authenticity. Finally, the Court affirmed that Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not a substitute for statutory revisional remedies under Sections 435 to 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, though it upheld the High Court's decision as substantively correct. The principle established is that judicial powers of inspection are non-delegable, and modern electronic evidence requires strict proof of authenticity.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court delegate its power of local inspection under Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to a commission?
  • Is CCTV footage admissible as evidence without examining the person who prepared it?
  • Can the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked when an express statutory remedy exists?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to follow proper procedure regarding local inspection constitute an illegality not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Ullah vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 18 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-06-23
  post-arrest bailabscondingconfessional statementdelay in trialright to libertyanti-terrorism case
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under FIR No. 41/2012 at Police Station Basin, Gilgit, involving murder and attempt to murder. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on sketchy evidence consisting of a conditional confessional statement and alleged absconding, and whether the pendency of the trial and prolonged incarceration over three years warranted withholding bail. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that since the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR and the prosecution lacked prima facie evidence apart from the confessional statement and absconding, and given the unjustified delay in the trial, the petitioner's right to liberty prevailed over the general practice of declining bail during ongoing trials. The court laid down the principle that an accused entitled to bail cannot be denied the concession on the pretext of trial pendency, and prolonged incarceration without substantial trial progress in anti-terrorism cases violates the spirit of law and fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be denied to an accused merely on the ground that the trial of the case is in progress?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without substantial progress in an anti-terrorism trial justify the grant of bail?
  • Does an un-nominated accused facing sketchy evidence and long detention become entitled to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Khan vs The State2017 PLD Supreme Court 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-24
  Triple murderAppealAcquittalBenefit of doubtSolitary eyewitnessCorroborationUnnatural deathBurden of proofEvidence reappraisal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences of the appellant for the triple murder of his wife and two minor children. The core legal question involved a reappraisal of the evidence, particularly the reliability of the solitary eyewitness and the applicability of the principle regarding an accused's obligation to explain unnatural deaths within their household. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the sole eyewitness was a chance witness whose presence was unsubstantiated and whose testimony lacked independent corroboration. Furthermore, the motive was unestablished, the recovery of the alleged weapon was doubtful, and significant delay in post-mortem examination suggested fabrication. While acknowledging that an accused may have an obligation to explain unnatural deaths of dependents in their house, the Court emphasized that this burden does not shift if the prosecution's entire case is demolished or found utterly unbelievable, preventing conviction based merely on inference.

  Read full judgment →
• Asad Khan vs State2017 PLJ SC 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-24
  murder trialbenefit of doubtchance witnesspost-mortem delaypre-emption suitzar-e-soimdeposit of sale priceact of court shall prejudice no man
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal and civil judgment from the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses multiple matters, notably an appeal against a murder conviction and issues regarding pre-emption suits. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence in a murder trial where the sole eye-witness is a chance witness, and the interpretation of mandatory time limits for depositing the sale price under pre-emption laws. The Court held that where the prosecution case is based on a doubtful chance witness, unexplained delay in post-mortem examination, and unverified motive, the entire prosecution case collapses, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal. Furthermore, regarding pre-emption, the Court held that the statutory thirty-day period for depositing one-third of the sale price commences from the date the plaint is presented or filed, and courts possess no discretion to extend this period beyond thirty days, though an omission by the court itself to order the deposit may be remedied under the maxim that an act of the court shall prejudice no man.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted for the unnatural death of a dependent in his house when the entire prosecution case has been demolished?
  • From which date is the thirty-day period for depositing one-third of the sale price in a pre-emption suit to be reckoned?
  • Does a court have the power to extend the time for depositing the zar-e-soim beyond the maximum statutory limit of thirty days from the filing of the suit?
  • How does a court remedy its own omission in failing to timely order a pre-emptor to deposit the sale price?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali vs The State2017 NLR Criminal 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal appealmurderdacoitytest identification paradedock identificationbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court upholding the convictions and varying the sentences of the appellants for offences including dacoity and murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through uncorroborated identification parades, dock identifications, and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitting the appellants. The Court held that test identification parades where accused are not identified with reference to specific roles are legally laconic and of no evidentiary value. Furthermore, dock identification after accused have been visible in court during earlier proceedings is unsafe. The Court reiterated that uncorroborated evidence of doubtful identification, unmatched weapon recoveries, and inconclusive medical and circumstantial evidence fail to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a test identification parade where the accused are not identified with reference to any specific role played in the incident?
  • Is dock identification of an accused during trial considered safe when the witness has had prior opportunities to see the accused in the courtroom?
  • Does an uncorroborated test identification parade coupled with defective recoveries and delayed witness statements warrant the extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Abbas Magsi, Section Officer, Agriculture Department, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore and another vs Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and anotherK.L.R. 2017 Labour and Service Cases 163 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  regularization of servicecontract employeesseniorityprobationerPMS rulescivil servantspensionary benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal addresses the legality of certain conditions attached to the regular appointment of the appellants, who were initially inducted as Section Officers on a contract basis in the Punjab Civil Secretariat in 1999, 2004, and 2005 on compassionate/special grounds, and subsequently regularized on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission in August 2012. The core legal questions involved whether the PMS (Probationers) Training, Final Passing Out Examination and Seniority Rules, 2012 applied to the appellants, and whether their prior contractual service could be excluded for the purposes of seniority and pensionary benefits. The Tribunal held that the appellants do not qualify as "probationers" under the 2012 Rules since they were not inducted through the combined competitive examination, and that the 2012 Rules do not apply retrospectively to recommendations made prior to their commencement. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that regularization is a continuation or confirmation of existing employment rather than initial recruitment, and therefore the appellants' seniority and pensionary benefits must be reckoned from their initial contract appointment dates. The appeals were accordingly accepted and the impugned departmental orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the PMS (Probationers) Training, Final Passing Out Examination and Seniority Rules, 2012 apply to civil servants who were recommended for regular appointment prior to the commencement of said rules?
  • Whether a contract employee appointed without a competitive examination qualifies as a "probationer" under the PMS (Probationers) Training, Final Passing Out Examination and Seniority Rules, 2012?
  • Does regularization of service amount to an initial recruitment or the confirmation of an existing employment for the purpose of determining seniority?
  • Can the period of service rendered on a contract basis be counted towards seniority and pensionary benefits upon subsequent regularization?
  • Are terms and conditions accepted by a civil servant under threat of unemployment or unequal bargaining power considered to be given with free consent?
  Read full judgment →
• Artistic Denim Mills Ltd. vs Federal Board of Revenue and others2017 PTD 730 · Sindh High Court · 2016-07-15
  customs duty exemptionsales tax exemptionpower generation machineryin-house power generationtax clarificationcivil court jurisdictionstatutory interpretationtaxing statute
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses several consolidated suits filed by industrial entities engaged in the manufacture and export of textile products, challenging tax demands and seeking an interpretation regarding their entitlement to import duty and sales tax exemptions on generating sets under Schedule V of the Customs Act, 1969 and Schedule VI of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question revolves around whether Entry No. 11 of the Fifth Schedule of the Customs Act extends the exemption concession to power-generating machinery used for in-house consumption, or whether it is restricted solely to independent power producers supplying electricity externally, as claimed by the Federal Board of Revenue through an executive clarification dated December 5, 2014. The Court held that the civil suits are maintainable notwithstanding Section 217 of the Customs Act, since the tax demands were raised without issuing mandatory show-cause notices under Section 32 or Section 80. On merits, the Court ruled that Entry No. 11 is plain and unambiguous, containing no restriction against in-house power generation, and that the FBR cannot add conditions or supply omissions through executive clarifications. The suits were consequently decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, setting aside the impugned clarification and demands.

  Questions settled

  • Whether civil suits challenging tax demands issued without statutory show-cause notices are barred under Section 217 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does Entry No. 11 of the Fifth Schedule to the Customs Act, 1969 restrict customs duty exemptions solely to independent power projects selling electricity externally, or does it include in-house power generation?
  • Is the Federal Board of Revenue competent to add conditions or restrictive definitions to statutory entries through executive clarifications?
  • Can an explanation appended specifically to a distinct entry in a statutory schedule be construed to apply to other separate entries within the same schedule?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad, etc. vs The State, etc.K.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 339 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-17
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidencerecovery of weaponsprivate complaintacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies between the ocular account, the medical evidence, and the recovered weapons. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The judgment emphasizes that where eye-witnesses provide inconsistent accounts—specifically regarding the roles and weapons attributed to the accused in the FIR versus a subsequent private complaint—and where the medical evidence contradicts the ocular testimony, the witnesses cannot be deemed reliable. Furthermore, the Court established that when recovered weapons differ from those alleged in the crime report, and the motive is vaguely asserted without independent corroboration, the prosecution's case is fundamentally weakened. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, holding that the benefit of the doubt must always be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material contradiction between the FIR and a subsequent private complaint regarding the role and weapons of the accused render the ocular account unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the weapons recovered from the accused differ from those alleged in the crime report?
  • Is the prosecution's case undermined when the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account regarding the nature and number of injuries?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused persons based on the same evidence used against the appellants necessitate a re-evaluation of the credibility of the eye-witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mehmood s_o Faiz Muhammad, r_o House No. 309, Sector B-1, Mir_c4c6d0592017 SC AJK 91 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood Khan vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 668 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-07
  narcoticssafe custodychain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtlink evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of six kilograms of Charas. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody of the recovered narcotics and whether the conviction can be sustained given the contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of the recovered substance and the sample parcels, noting significant contradictions in the testimony of police witnesses regarding the nature of the substance (Heroin versus Charas) and the handling of the case property. Furthermore, the Court found the Chemical Examiner's report deficient as it lacked the necessary procedural data to support its opinion. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of link evidence regarding the seizure, safe custody, and transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner to sustain a conviction under narcotics laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to establish the safe custody of recovered narcotics and sample parcels entitle an accused to an acquittal?
  • Is a Chemical Examiner's report valid if it provides an opinion without disclosing the procedure and reasons supporting that opinion?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the nature of the recovered contraband?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the unbroken chain of link evidence for the seized property from the time of recovery until its analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Khan vs The State2017 SCMR 564 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-11-14
  MurderAppealReappraisal of evidenceBenefit of doubtEyewitness testimonyMotiveRecovery of weaponMedical evidenceOnus of proofAcquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned an appeal against the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife, upheld by the High Court. The core legal question involved a reappraisal of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to several inconsistencies and flaws. These included the unreliability of chance eyewitnesses whose presence near the crime scene was not established, the prosecution's failure to prove the asserted motive, the flawed recovery of the alleged murder weapon from an open place in violation of Section 103 Cr.P.C., and doubts raised by medical evidence regarding the time of death and delayed post-mortem. The Court reiterated that while an onus may shift to an accused to explain an unnatural death in the matrimonial home, this only applies if the prosecution first discharges its initial onus, which it failed to do in this case.

  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Khan vs The Chairman National Accountability Bureau NAB2017 YLR 1111 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-14Read full judgment →
• Arshad Khan vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau through Deputy Prosecutor General NAB and 2 others2017 P Cr. L J 1276 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-15
  hardship bailNational Accountability Ordinancespeedy trialprolonged incarcerationjoinder of chargesconstitutional petitionNAB reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the bail application of an accused facing charges under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, who has been incarcerated since April 2015. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of "hardship" due to the prolonged delay in the conclusion of his trial, despite the non-applicability of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to cases under the Ordinance. The Court held that while Section 497 is not strictly applicable, the broader principle allows for bail in "hardship cases" characterized by a shockingly long delay in trial proceedings. The Court found that the prosecution's failure to conclude the trial after two years, compounded by the joinder of charges leading to a de novo trial with 99 witnesses, constituted an indefinite and excessive delay. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution exhibits lethargic conduct and the trial cannot be concluded within a reasonable timeframe, the continued detention of an accused becomes a hardship, justifying the grant of bail to uphold the right to a speedy trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused facing charges under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 be granted bail on the ground of delay in trial despite the non-applicability of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the exercise of a legal right to seek joinder of charges constitute a delay attributable to the accused for the purpose of denying bail?
  • What constitutes a 'hardship case' justifying the grant of bail for an accused in a National Accountability Bureau reference?
  Read full judgment →