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.

• Arshad Khan vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB) etc2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-15Read full judgment →
• Arshad Javed Ghuman vs S.N.G.P.L., etc2017 KLR Labour & Service Cases 126 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2016-10-19
  grievance petitiongrievance noticedepartmental appealindustrial relationsmaintainabilitymandatory provisionservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a grievance petition under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, challenging his termination order dated 22-11-2013. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition due to the non-service of a mandatory grievance notice, arguing that a departmental appeal filed by the petitioner could not be substituted for a grievance notice. The petitioner contended that the departmental appeal should suffice and that technicalities should not impede justice. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that the service of a statutory grievance notice is a mandatory prerequisite for maintaining a grievance petition and that a departmental appeal cannot be treated as a substitute for such a notice. Consequently, the Commission upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the grievance petition as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the service of a grievance notice is mandatory before filing a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Can a departmental appeal filed by an employee be treated as a substitute for the mandatory grievance notice?
  • What is the effect of failing to serve a grievance notice on the maintainability of a grievance petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Iqbal vs Muhammad Hayat2017 YLR 2358 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-05
  pre-emptioncivil revisionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadwaiver of rightmisreading of evidencerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the respondent against the petitioner-vendee regarding property sold by the respondent's brother. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate court maintained the decision. The core legal questions concerned whether the pre-emptor had validly performed the requisite Talbs (demands) and whether the right of pre-emption had been waived. The High Court held that the pre-emptor, being the vendor's brother, had immediate knowledge of the sale, rendering the claim of performing Talb-i-Muwathibat after twenty days fictitious. Furthermore, the court found the proof of Talb-i-Ishhad deficient due to the failure to produce the correct postal official and relevant delivery records. The court established that the right of pre-emption can be waived by conduct, such as failing to object to a sale despite knowledge. Consequently, the High Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that they resulted from misreading and non-reading of evidence, and dismissed the pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure to produce the specific postal official who delivered a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad render the proof of service insufficient?
  • Can the right of pre-emption be waived by the conduct of the pre-emptor?
  • Does an adverse inference arise under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when a party withholds a material witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Beg vs The State2017 SCMR 1727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-24
  murderSection 302(b) PPCocular accountsubstitution of accusedfailure to prove motivemitigating circumstancelife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a decision of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of Arshad Beg under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) for the murder of Sharif Beg. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the appellant's conviction and death sentence were sustainable on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Supreme Court observed that the daylight occurrence was promptly reported, and the consistent ocular testimony of the deceased's real brothers was adequately corroborated by medical evidence. The Court affirmed that substitution of a single accused by close relatives is a rare phenomenon. However, the Court identified that the prosecution failed to prove the vague motive alleged in the FIR, as the complainant admitted under cross-examination that he lacked direct knowledge of the motive incident. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the failure to prove motive served as a mitigating circumstance. The Court maintained the conviction under Section 302(b), P.P.C., but altered the death sentence to life imprisonment while maintaining the compensation and granting the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Is the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive a mitigating factor for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment under Section 302(b) PPC?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) PPC be sustained on the consistent ocular account of close relatives corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Is substitution of a sole accused by close relatives of the deceased a rare phenomenon in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad and another vs State2017 PLJ FSC 151 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-04-06
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of the doubtcriminal appealmurderdacoityrecovery pointationmedical report
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from jail criminal appeals filed by the appellants against their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 396, PPC, passed by the District & Sessions Judge/Judge Juvenile Court Charsadda. The core legal question involves determining whether a conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence, specifically recoveries of a skeleton, mobile phones, and identity cards, in the absence of direct eyewitnesses, a medical/post-mortem report confirming the identity of the remains, and independent corroboration of recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt due to glaring gaps, including uncorroborated recoveries from jointly occupied premises, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, lack of medical or post-mortem evidence to establish identity or cause of death, and non-examination of key independent witnesses. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, laying down the principle that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused, and where material links and medical corroboration are missing, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction based on circumstantial evidence be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce a medical or post-mortem report to establish the identity of a recovered human skeleton?
  • Whether the recovery of incriminating articles from a room not in the exclusive use and occupation of the accused can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained delay of nearly a month in lodging the FIR cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the failure to examine key independent recovery witnesses and failure to produce the primary crime property during trial entitles the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad alias Hera and another vs The State and another2017 MLD 775 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-30
  double murderocular accountchance witnessesbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealacquittalforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions of the appellants for the double murder of a couple, allegedly motivated by a grudge regarding a second marriage. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the credibility of the ocular account and the reliability of the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's evidence was fraught with improbabilities and inconsistencies. The court found the eye-witnesses to be "chance witnesses" whose presence at the scene lacked a credible explanation, and the narrative regarding a "trap" laid by a family member was deemed implausible. Furthermore, the court noted significant delays in reporting the incident to the police and a negative forensic report. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that when the prosecution's case is riddled with doubts, the benefit of such doubt must be extended to the accused. This judgment reaffirms the principle that conviction in a criminal case cannot be sustained on weak, improbable, or uncorroborated evidence, and the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's ocular account relies on chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene is unexplained?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report and conducting the post-mortem examination cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt applicable when the forensic evidence is negative and the prosecution's narrative contains significant inconsistencies?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali Cheema, Assistant Director/Credit Officer vs President,2017 PLJ Lahore 75 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-17Read full judgment →
• Arsalan Bari, Etc vs Province of Punjab, Etc.2017 LHC 2236 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-24
  sub-inspector appointmentprobationer trainingin-service quotaterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of high courtservice tribunalcivil servant probation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges a memorandum directing newly recruited Sub-Inspectors (T/SIs) appointed from in-service quotas to report for a Probationer Training Class Course. The core legal questions involve whether in-service candidates selected as Sub-Inspectors through the Punjab Public Service Commission are exempt from mandatory probationer training and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable in matters concerning terms and conditions of civil servants. The Lahore High Court held that selection of in-service ASIs as Sub-Inspectors via the Public Service Commission constitutes a fresh appointment subject to mandatory probation and training courses under the applicable rules and the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The court laid down the principle that training courses form part of the terms and conditions of service for civil servants on probation, thereby barring the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, in favor of the departmental hierarchy and the Punjab Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an in-service Assistant Sub-Inspector selected as a Sub-Inspector through initial recruitment or selection via the Public Service Commission is exempt from mandatory probationer training courses?
  • Does participation in a mandatory probationer training course fall within the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution barred in matters relating to the service training and probation of civil servants?
  • Can a civil servant bypass the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by framing a service grievance as a violation of Fundamental Rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Arsalan Bari, etc vs Province of Punjab, etc2017 LHC 2236, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 336, 2017 [M] C.L.R. 877 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-24
  sub-inspectorprobationer trainingin-service quotacivil servantwrit jurisdictionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, working as Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs) in the police department, applied and were selected as Sub-Inspectors through the Punjab Public Service Commission from the in-service quota. They challenged a memorandum directing them to report for a Probationer Training Class Course, arguing that their selection was a continuation of service and that they were exempt from such training unlike newly recruited officers. The core legal questions involved whether in-service candidates selected as Sub-Inspectors through initial recruitment/selection are bound to undergo probationer training, and whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a petition concerning training requirements which form part of the terms and conditions of civil servants. The Lahore High Court held that selection of in-service ASIs through the Public Service Commission constitutes a fresh appointment requiring mandatory probation and training courses under the applicable rules and the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Court ruled that matters concerning training and probation fall within the terms and conditions of service, thereby barring the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution in favor of the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Assistant Sub-Inspector selected as a Sub-Inspector through the Public Service Commission from the in-service quota is required to undergo probationer training?
  • Does a mandatory training course form part of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 barred in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Arsala Ki-Ian and anothers vs Muhammad Falak Sher etc.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. Peshawar 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-01
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseabductionfurther inquiryjuvenile bailprima facie casecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners, Arsala Khan and Said Nabi, who were charged under Sections 365-B and 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Mathra, Peshawar. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offence and the evidence available against each individual. The Court held that the case against Arsala Khan fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and since the evidence, including Call Detail Record (CDR) data, established a prima facie connection to the crime, his bail request was rejected. Conversely, the Court found that the case against Said Nabi, a juvenile, lacked sufficient evidence or CDR data linking him to the offence, rendering his guilt a matter of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to Said Nabi while refusing it to Arsala Khan, emphasizing the necessity of prima facie evidence for bail in non-bailable offences.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the offence charged falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and prima facie evidence connects them to the crime?
  • Does the absence of specific evidence or CDR data linking a co-accused to the commission of a crime entitle them to bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
  • Can bail be granted to a juvenile accused when there is no overt act attributed to them in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Aroosa Munir d/o Munir Akhtar Khan, Junior Science Teachress,2017 SC AJK 66 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Aroma Travel Services(Pvt.) Ltd. through Director and 4 others vs Faisal2017 YLR 1579 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-30
  rejection of plaintspecific performanceoral contractconsensus ad idemterritorial jurisdictionarbitration clausedominus litismisjoinder of causes of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was brought by the plaintiffs seeking specific performance, declaration, injunction, and damages, based on an alleged oral agreement and extensive negotiations for a 25% shareholding in a local company (defendant No. 2) in exchange for financing exceeding Rs. 120 million. The defendants moved for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C., arguing that no concluded contract existed, the court lacked territorial jurisdiction over foreign defendants, and the presence of foreign arbitration clauses in draft agreements ousted the court's jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, holding that for the purposes of Order VII, Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint and accompanying documents are to be considered, and facts must be presumed true. The court ruled that an oral contract is valid and enforceable under Section 10 of the Contract Act, 1872, provided it is proved by satisfactory evidence. Furthermore, pleas regarding arbitration clauses were deemed mutually destructive to the defense that no contract existed. The court concluded that the matter involved triable issues requiring evidence.

  Read full judgment →
• Army Welfare Trust (Nizampur Cement Project), Rawalpindi and anothers vs Collector of Sales Tax (Now Commissioner Inland Revenue), Peshawar2017 PLJ SC 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  sales tax exemptionappellate tribunalquestion of lawoffice objectionjurisdictiontax collectionindustrial incentive
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which had set aside an order of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad. The High Court had restored a sales tax demand against the petitioner, an industrial unit exempted from sales tax for five years under S.R.O. 561(I)/94. The Supreme Court first addressed a preliminary office objection regarding whether a direct appeal or a petition for leave to appeal lay against the High Court's judgment. The Court held that since the Appellate Tribunal is not a 'Court' under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution, a petition for leave to appeal was the correct remedy. On the merits, the Court examined the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and ruled that it is strictly confined to questions of law. The Court found that the High Court erred by overturning a factual finding of the Appellate Tribunal without any evidence of actual tax collection. The Court clarified that internal pricing mechanisms do not constitute proof of tax collection under Section 3-B of the Act, and that the tax exemption was intended to encourage industrialization, not to force lower consumer pricing.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal a 'Court' for the purposes of Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, overturn a finding of fact made by the Appellate Tribunal?
  • Does a manufacturer's internal pricing mechanism that includes a notional sales tax amount constitute proof of actual tax collection under Section 3-B of the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • Is an industrial unit enjoying a sales tax exemption under Section 13 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 legally obligated to pass the benefit of the exemption to consumers by selling its goods at a lower price?
  Read full judgment →
• Army Welfare Trust (Nizampur Cement Project), Rawalpindi and another vs Collector of Sales Tax (Now Commissioner2017 PTD 470 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-10-14
  sales tax exemptionappellate tribunalpetition for leave to appealquestion of lawcollection of excess sales taxconstitutional jurisdictionfindings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court setting aside an order of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and restoring the sales tax demand against the petitioner, an industrial unit enjoying a sales tax exemption under a government notification. The core legal questions involved whether a petition for leave to appeal was the correct remedy against a High Court judgment setting aside a tribunal order, whether the Appellate Tribunal constitutes a 'court' under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan, and whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent factual findings of the Tribunal in an appeal restricted to questions of law under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the Appellate Tribunal is not a court established by the Constitution or law, that the petition for leave to appeal was correctly filed, and that the High Court erred by re-appreciating pure questions of fact without evidence and beyond its jurisdiction under Section 47. The key principle laid down is that an appellate tribunal not founded on the Constitution is not a court under Article 185(2)(d), and High Courts cannot overturn factual findings of a tribunal in the absence of evidence or outside the scope of questions of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is a court for the purpose of a direct appeal under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a High Court interfere with factual findings of the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal filed under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Does the internal pricing mechanism of a manufacturer constitute proof of actual collection of sales tax under Section 3B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Whether a tax exemption notification issued under Section 13 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 requires the manufacturer to pass on the benefit of exemption to consumers in the form of lower market prices?
  Read full judgment →
• Army Welfare Trust (Nizampur Cement Project), Rawalpindi and another vs Collector of Sales Tax (Now Commissioner Inland Revenue), Peshawar2017 P.C.T.L.R. 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  sales tax exemptionAppellate Tribunal statusleave to appealfactual findingsconstitutional interpretationtax collectionSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court addressed whether the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal constitutes a "Court" under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, determining that it does not. Consequently, a judgment of the High Court setting aside an order of the Appellate Tribunal is not appealable as of right under Article 185(2)(d), necessitating a petition for leave to appeal. On the merits, the Court examined whether the petitioner, an industrial unit, had collected sales tax on exempted goods. The Court held that the Appellate Tribunal’s factual finding that no sales tax was collected was final and could not be overturned by the High Court, particularly as the High Court’s decision lacked evidentiary support. The Court emphasized that internal pricing mechanisms do not equate to proof of tax collection under Section 3B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Furthermore, the Court clarified that tax exemptions under the relevant notification were intended to encourage industrialization, not to mandate lower consumer prices, and set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the Appellate Tribunal's order.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal a 'Court' for the purposes of Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a High Court overturn a factual finding of the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal restricted to questions of law under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • Does an internal pricing mechanism of a manufacturer constitute proof of sales tax collection under Section 3B of the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • Does a judgment of a High Court setting aside an order of the Appellate Tribunal allow for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Arjun and Anr. Etc. Etc. vs State of Chhattisgarh2017 SCInd 1194 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-02-14
  culpable homicide not amounting to murdersudden fighthostile witnesscommon intentioninterested witnessSection 304 Part I IPCcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the High Court’s affirmation of the appellants' conviction and life imprisonment for murder. The core legal question was whether the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 was sustainable, or if the incident constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the incident, arising from a verbal altercation over tree-cutting, constituted a sudden fight without premeditation, thereby attracting Exception 4 to Section 300. Consequently, the Court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Key principles laid down include that the evidence of a hostile witness is not to be rejected entirely but may be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution, and that a witness’s relationship to the deceased does not automatically discredit their testimony, which requires careful judicial scrutiny rather than summary rejection.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a prosecution witness be relied upon if they have been declared hostile?
  • Does the relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • What are the essential requirements to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 regarding a sudden fight?
  • When does a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 warrant modification to Section 304 Part I?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Oosman vs Habib Bank Limited through Recoveries and Litigation2017 CLD 1176 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-30Read full judgment →
• Arbab A. Munir vs Mackinno NS Mackenzie and Company through2017 PLC (C.S.) 409 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-27
  pension rightsinterim injunctionrestrictive covenantsfreedom of tradeemployment contractretrospective applicationnon-disclosure agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for an interim injunction filed by a former employee against his former employer, seeking to restrain the defendant from withholding pension benefits. The core legal questions were whether the defendant could withhold pension payments based on a non-compete/non-disclosure clause in the employment contract and whether a subsequently amended pension rule could be applied retrospectively to the plaintiff. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff had disclosed any trade secrets or confidential information. Furthermore, the court determined that the defendant could not enforce restrictive covenants to prevent the plaintiff from engaging in his profession, as such restrictions would violate the fundamental right to freedom of trade and business. Additionally, the court ruled that the amended pension rule could not be applied retrospectively to deprive the plaintiff of his accrued pensionary rights. The key principle laid down is that restrictive employment covenants cannot be used to unreasonably restrain an individual from earning a livelihood, and vested pension rights cannot be extinguished by retrospective amendments to company rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer withhold pension benefits based on a non-compete clause if no trade secrets were disclosed?
  • Does a restrictive covenant in an employment contract that prevents an individual from practicing their profession violate the constitutional right to freedom of trade?
  • Can a company retrospectively apply an amended pension rule to deny benefits to a former employee who resigned before the amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Arabian Gulf Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive vs Province2017 YLR 262 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-22Read full judgment →
• Arab Shah vs State2017 PHC 843 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-11
  criminal appealmurderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencesole eyewitnessacquittalFIR discrepancies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed upon the appellant for the murder of his son and the attempted murder of another son. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the case relied on a sole eyewitness account and contained material evidentiary contradictions. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies, including discrepancies between the FIR registration time and the medical examination, contradictions between the site plan and the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries, and the failure to produce supporting ocular testimony. The court affirmed that a conviction cannot be sustained on weak evidence where the prosecution's narrative is inherently improbable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitting the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that abscondence alone is insufficient for conviction and that the burden of proof remains strictly on the prosecution to present a consistent and credible case, which was not achieved in this instance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of a complainant when the prosecution's case contains material contradictions?
  • Is the abscondence of an accused sufficient grounds for conviction in the absence of other incriminating evidence?
  • Does a discrepancy between the time of the FIR and the medical examination of the victim undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqeel Khan vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1432 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-23
  quashment of proceedingsdouble jeopardysame offencecriminal trialacquittalArms Actconstitutional protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of proceedings pending before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013. The petitioner contended that he had already been tried and acquitted by a Sessions Judge in relation to the same FIR, and therefore, a subsequent prosecution for an offence under the Arms Act constituted double jeopardy. The Court examined whether the petitioner was being prosecuted for the same offence twice. The Court held that the petitioner had only been tried for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the previous trial, not for the offence under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013. Consequently, the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate were found to be legally permissible. The Court affirmed that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the statutory bar under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply only when an accused is prosecuted for the same offence, which was not the case here.

  Questions settled

  • Does a previous acquittal for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bar a subsequent trial for an offence under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013 arising from the same FIR?
  • Does the protection against double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply when the offences in the two trials are distinct and independent?
  • Under what circumstances does Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibit a second trial for the same offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqeel alias Mundri vs The State2017 YLR 375 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-12
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtrelated witnessesmedical evidence inconsistencywithholding of witnesscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Aqeel alias Mundri, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of Ghulam Abbas. The core legal questions involve the credibility of related and inimical eyewitnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence and alleged weapon recovery, the impact of unexplained delay in reporting the crime, and the rule of benefit of doubt when co-accused have been acquitted on similar evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, withholding of natural witnesses, and doubtful motive. The court laid down the principle that related and inimical witness testimony requires strict corroboration from independent sources, and the withholding of natural witnesses attracts an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting a crime to the police casts doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Can a criminal conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of related and inimical eyewitnesses in the absence of strong independent corroboration?
  • Does the withholding of a natural and material witness by the prosecution warrant an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Whether inconsistencies between ocular accounts and medical evidence are sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to an accused in a capital punishment case?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqal Zameer vs Mohi-Ud-Din and another2017 PLD Peshawar 179 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-27
  murdercriminal appealcapital punishmentcommutation of sentenceinjured eye-witnesssubstitution of accusedappreciation of evidencemitigating circumstance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), 324, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence and imprisonment terms. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, the effect of minor improvements and omissions in the First Information Report, the evidentiary value of recoveries, and the determination of the appropriate quantum of sentence where a post-mortem report is absent. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through a reliable injured eye-witness, medical evidence, and corroborative recoveries, including the weapon of offense. However, taking into consideration mitigating circumstances such as the absence of a post-mortem report, the court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life while maintaining the convictions and other concurrent sentences. The key principle laid down is that minor omissions or technical lapses by the investigating agency do not vitiate a criminal trial if the ocular and circumstantial evidence remains confidence-inspiring and proves the guilt of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor omissions in the First Information Report regarding an additional eye-witness are fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of a post-mortem report when supported by medical reports and ocular testimony?
  • Does the non-availability of a post-mortem report entitle an accused person to acquittal?
  • Whether the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life is justified under mitigating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Appellant: Mr. Javed Iqbal. vs Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.C. SRB,PTCL 2017 CL. 613 · Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board · 2017-01-23Read full judgment →
• Apna TV Channel (Private) Limited through General Manager and 32017 CLC 199 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-28Read full judgment →
• Anwer Ali vs Govt of KP and others2017 PHC 966 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Anwarulhaq Chaudhry vs District Officer (Revenue), Narowal and 42017 CLC 66 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-26
  land acquisitionenhancement of compensationlimitation periodreference to courtcompensation without protestremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 challenges the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Narowal, which dismissed the appellant's reference for enhancement of compensation for acquired land. The core legal questions involve whether the Trial Court was competent to dismiss a reference under Section 18 of the Act on the ground of limitation once forwarded by the Collector, and whether a landowner who receives awarded compensation without protest retains the right to claim enhancement. The Lahore High Court held that once a Collector makes a reference to the court, the court is incompetent to examine whether the initial petition under Section 18 was filed within the prescribed limitation period. However, a landowner who accepts compensation without protest has no lawful right to seek enhancement. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh decision along specific framed issues. The key principle laid down is that the reference court cannot look behind a reference regarding limitation, but acceptance of compensation without protest bars a claim for enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court competent to go beyond a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to determine if the initial petition was filed within the period of limitation?
  • Does a landowner who receives awarded compensation without protest have the lawful right to file a reference for enhancement of compensation?
  • What is the effect of receiving compensation under protest versus without protest on subsequent land acquisition references?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Yahya and 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2017 PTD 1069 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-09
  capital gains taxsecuritiesvested rightsretrospective legislationfiscal statutecharging provisionincome taxstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions challenged the retrospective application of amendments made to Section 37A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, by the Finance Acts of 2014 and 2015, which altered the taxation of capital gains on securities. The petitioners argued that they acquired vested rights based on the tax regime existing at the time of share acquisition. The High Court rejected the argument that rights vest at the time of acquisition, noting that capital gains are unknowable until disposal. However, the Court held that the proviso to Section 37A(1), which exempted securities held for over a year, created a vested right for any shares that reached that holding period before the proviso's omission on July 1, 2014. Furthermore, the Court identified an irreconcilable inconsistency between the substantive charging provision and the First Schedule's Table for the tax year 2015. Applying the principle that the charging section prevails over the schedule, the Court declared that capital gains on shares held for over 12 months and disposed of between July 2014 and June 2015 could not be taxed.

  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Jan and 44 others vs Muhammad Masood Khan and 7 others2017 PLJ AJ&K 14, 2017 YLR 193 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-09-20
  second appealremand of caseframing of issuesadditional evidencepart performancepossession-cum-ownershipimprovements
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Poonch/Rawalakot, remanding a possession-cum-ownership suit to the trial court for a fresh decision after framing additional issues. The core legal question was whether the first appellate court was justified in remanding the entire case for framing omitted issues and recording fresh evidence when substantial evidence was already on record. The High Court held that while ordinarily a case should not be remanded in routine and the appellate court should decide matters on merits where possible, the trial court's failure to frame proper issues based on the pleadings—specifically regarding a registered agreement to sell and claimed improvements—justified the framing of additional issues. However, the High Court held that under Order XLI, Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the first appellate court erred in remanding the whole case, and should instead have kept the appeal pending while remitting the matter to the trial court solely to record additional evidence and return findings on the new issues. The judgment laid down that the primary duty of framing proper issues rests on the court rather than the parties, and procedural mechanisms for partial remand under Order XLI Rule 25 must be strictly followed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in remanding a case for framing additional issues when parties failed to request them at the trial stage?
  • Can the whole case be remanded under Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 instead of retaining the appeal and calling for findings on additional issues?
  • Does the failure of parties to remain vigilant at the framing of issues absolve the court from its legal obligation to frame proper issues arising from the pleadings?
  • Under what circumstances is an appellate court permitted to remand a civil suit rather than deciding the controversy on its own merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ahmed and others vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority2017 SHC 319 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-12Read full judgment →
• Anwar Zaman vs The State2017 MLD 32 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-10
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionprohibitory clausefurther inquirypolice witnessescriminal antecedentspresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged under Sections 6 and 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the alleged possession of 500 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the nature of the recovery, the lack of private witnesses, and the existence of prior criminal cases. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the offence charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the investigation was complete with the challan already submitted. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the mere registration of other criminal cases, without conviction, does not negate the presumption of innocence or justify the refusal of bail. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the prosecution case relies solely on police evidence, the accused is entitled to bail pending trial, provided the case requires further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused justify the refusal of bail?
  • Does an offence under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution case rests entirely on police evidence and the investigation is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwaar Masood Khan vs The State, etc.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 904, 2017 LHC 2545 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-14
  post-arrest baildishonour of chequestale chequefurther inquirynegotiable instrumentbanking practicecriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged dishonour of 18 cheques. The core legal questions were whether the presentation of cheques beyond the six-month validity period renders them 'stale' for the purposes of criminal prosecution under Section 489-F, and whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the large financial amount involved. The court held that cheques presented after six months are considered stale under banking practice and the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, meaning they cannot form the basis for criminal proceedings under Section 489-F. Furthermore, the court noted discrepancies in the complainant's claim between the FIR and a parallel civil suit. Applying the principle that bail is a procedural relief independent of the ultimate trial outcome, the court granted bail, emphasizing that the rule is 'bail, not jail' unless there are exceptional circumstances like abscondence, repetition of the offence, or tampering with evidence. The petitioner's case fell under the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presentation of a cheque after six months from its due date render it stale for the purposes of criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can bail be denied solely on the ground that the alleged offence involves a large financial amount?
  • Does a discrepancy between the claim in an FIR and a parallel civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 entitle an accused to the benefit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Anti-Narcotics Force through Regional Director_Force Commander vs Nasir Khan2017 P Cr. L J 1193 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-10
  criminal revisionmaintainabilityrevisional jurisdictionenhancement of sentenceControl of Narcotic Substances ActCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent by the Special Court (CNS) under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question addressed was whether a criminal revision petition is maintainable against an order or judgment passed by a Special Court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that it is not maintainable. The Court ruled that sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are inconsistent with the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, specifically sections 47 and 48, which exclusively provide the remedy of an appeal against orders of a Special Court, thereby excluding revisional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal revision petition maintainable against an order or judgment passed by a Special Court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Do the provisions of sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to proceedings under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • What is the remedy provided against an order of a Special Court comprising a Sessions Judge under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Ansar Khan vs Secretary Commerce Government of Pakistan and 42017 PLC (C.S.) 890 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-18
  constitutional petitionpromotionvested rightcompetent authorityconcealment of factsdiscretionary reliefservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by a Sales Manager of the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan challenging an order denying his promotion to the post of Area Manager based on specific promotional criteria. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction can substitute its opinion for that of a competent selection authority, whether disputed questions of fact and allegations of mala fide can be resolved without recording evidence, and whether concealment of material judicial orders disentitles a litigant to discretionary relief. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the competent authority gave cogent reasons for declining promotion based on the established criteria, that the High Court cannot act as a selection authority or substitute findings of fact, that disputed facts and allegations of mala fide require evidence, and that a petitioner guilty of concealing material facts from the court is not entitled to discretionary relief. The court also reiterated that promotion is not a vested right.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction substitute its opinion for that of a competent authority in service matters?
  • Is promotion considered a vested right of an employee?
  • Does the concealment of a material order passed by the Supreme Court disentitle a petitioner to discretionary relief?
  • Can disputed questions of fact and allegations of mala fide be resolved in writ jurisdiction without recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ansar Ali and 3 others vs The State2017 MLD 1981 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-18
  kidnapping for ransomanti-terrorismidentification paraderecovery of ransommitigating circumstancesdeath sentence commutationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and capital sentence reference arose from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under Sections 365-A, 392, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, sentencing them to death inter alia. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony, the validity of the identification parade, the corroborative value of recoveries of ransom and robbed property, and the determination of appropriate quantum of sentence where abductees were released unharmed. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular evidence, identification parades, and prompt recoveries of ransom and weapons. However, considering that the abductees were released safely without harm, the court found a mitigating circumstance warranting commutation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The High Court established the principle that the safe release of abductees without injury serves as a mitigating factor sufficient to substitute the death penalty with life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case when no culprit is named therein?
  • Does the safe release of abductees without physical harm constitute a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be legally invoked for a conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade duly conducted under judicial supervision?
  Read full judgment →
• Ans Capital (Pvt.) Limited and 5 others vs Director (SMD), Securities2017 CLD 686 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2015-05-22Read full judgment →
• Anoop Kumar and 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Director2017 MLD 1402 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-26Read full judgment →
• Annaii Medical College & Hospital and Anr vs Union of India and Anr2017 SCInd 1332 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-09-14Read full judgment →
• Anjum Ghaffar And others vs The State And Another2017 MLD 2038 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-22
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailfirearm injurymedical evidence contradictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous petition for suspension of sentence pending appeal filed by the petitioner, Anjum Ghaffar, who was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with other offences. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's sentence ought to be suspended and bail granted pending the decision of his main appeal, given glaring discrepancies in the prosecution's case regarding the locale of the firearm injury, improvements by eye-witnesses, unestablished motive, and lack of recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the evidence underpinning the conviction requires detailed reappraisal at the hearing of the main appeal and that the petitioner has made out a case for suspension of sentence. The court laid down the principle that pointing out patent deficiencies and contradictions already noted in the trial court's judgment does not amount to a deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the suspension of sentence and grant of bail can be allowed pending a criminal appeal when the trial judgment contains patent deficiencies in the prosecution evidence?
  • Does pointing out discrepancies already observed in a trial court judgment constitute impermissible deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
  • Whether inconsistencies between the initial FIR allegations and medical evidence regarding the locale of a firearm injury justify the suspension of a life sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Anees Ul Murtaza alias Abid vs The State2017 MLD 1109 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-21
  suspension of sentenceDiyatjuvenile offenderbail pending appealdestitutionjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a juvenile convicted under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, sought suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending appeal. He argued that his destitution and inability to pay the imposed Diyat rendered his continued incarceration unjust, citing precedents suggesting that an accused should not be imprisoned indefinitely due to poverty. The prosecution opposed the application, noting that the petitioner had failed to pay any installments of the Diyat despite the passage of time, had not demonstrated his alleged indigence, and was represented by private counsel, contradicting his claim of extreme poverty. The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of destitution, noting that he was represented by private counsel throughout the proceedings and had not raised the issue of financial hardship during his trial. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to exercise judicial discretion in his favor, emphasizing the need to balance the interests of justice for both parties, and dismissed the application for suspension of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a convict be released on bail solely on the ground of inability to pay Diyat due to destitution?
  • Is the representation by private counsel a relevant factor in determining a claim of indigence for bail purposes?
  • Does the failure to pay any installment of Diyat after conviction justify the refusal of bail pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Andrus Wilson vs Ramzi Mahmoud Alharayeri2017 SCMR 1851 · Supreme Court of CanadaRead full judgment →
• And Services (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Dcir, Unit-05 WHT Zone Rto-II, Karachi , .2017 PTD (Trib.) 1175 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-02-21Read full judgment →
• and Ameer Faisal, Member-I Muhammad Asif and others vs Government2017 PLC (C.S.) 42 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 2015-12-30
  service appealssurplus employeesabsorption of civil servantssalary arrearsappointment regularitydue processSindh Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns service appeals filed by employees of the defunct Executive District Officer (Information Technology) Ghotki, whose salaries were withheld following the repeal of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether these employees, appointed on a regular basis, were entitled to continued salary payments and absorption into other government departments after their office was abolished. The Sindh Service Tribunal held that the appellants were validly appointed by a competent authority and their appointments remained protected under the repealing legislation. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the provincial government to arrange for the payment of salary arrears and to absorb the appellants into the surplus pool in accordance with Rule 9-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The Tribunal established the principle that the government cannot unilaterally withhold salaries of regular employees without due process. If the government suspects irregularities in appointments, it must initiate formal disciplinary proceedings under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000, rather than arbitrarily stopping remuneration.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees rendered surplus due to the abolition of a department entitled to absorption under the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974?
  • Can the government unilaterally stop the salary of a regular civil servant without initiating formal disciplinary proceedings?
  • Does the repeal of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001 invalidate appointments made by authorities under that Ordinance?
  • What is the proper procedure for the government to follow if it suspects an appointment was made in violation of law?
  Read full judgment →
• An Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director vs Federation of Pakistan2017 PTD 665 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-27Read full judgment →
• Ammad Aslam Cheemma. vs Tariq Ali Sheikh & 2 others2017 LHC 1555 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-16Read full judgment →
• Ammad Aslam Cheemma vs Tariq Ali Sheikh and 2 others2017 [M] C.L.R. 673 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-16Read full judgment →
• Amjid Ali vs State2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-18Read full judgment →
• Amjad Shah vs The State2017 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-01
  murder convictionmitigation of sentenceocular evidencelack of motivecapital punishmentlife imprisonmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, maintained by the High Court. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account given the absence of a proven motive and whether the sentence warranted mitigation. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular evidence credible and corroborated by medical reports, despite the prosecution's failure to establish a clear motive or premeditation against the appellant. However, the Court held that the absence of a proven motive, coupled with the appellant's youthful age at the time of the offense, constituted significant mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence from death to life imprisonment under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The judgment reaffirms the principle that while lack of motive does not necessarily invalidate a conviction based on clear eyewitness testimony, it serves as a valid ground for mitigating the quantum of punishment in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can the absence of a proven motive serve as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Is a conviction sustainable based on ocular evidence when the prosecution fails to establish a motive?
  • Does the youthful age of an accused at the time of the offense constitute a valid ground for mitigating a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Shah vs State2017 PLJ SC 288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-01
  murderdeath sentencecommutation of sentencemitigating circumstanceslack of motiveocular evidencecriminal appeallife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The High Court had maintained the conviction while acquitting the co-accused. The Supreme Court examined the ocular evidence, finding it credible and corroborated by medical evidence, thereby sustaining the conviction. However, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive for the appellant, noting the absence of premeditation and the appellant's lack of relation to the acquitted co-accused. Furthermore, the appellant's youth at the time of the incident was considered a mitigating factor. Consequently, the Court held that in the absence of a proven motive, the interests of justice warranted a reduction in the sentence. The Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, affirming that life imprisonment is a lawful punishment under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, notwithstanding the possibility of executive remissions. The appeal was thus partly allowed, with the sentence modified accordingly, while maintaining the fine and default imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a proven motive for a murder justify the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is life imprisonment a lawful sentence under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite the availability of executive remissions?
  • Can the youth of an accused at the time of the offense be considered a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive invalidate a conviction based on credible ocular evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Rehman and 3 others vs Farad Ali and another2017 CLC 1160 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-05Read full judgment →
• Amjad Khan and others vs Superintendent of Customs (Aso), Customs2017 PTD (Trib.) 2463 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2016-04-04Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman2017 YLR 1 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-27
  post-arrest bailpecuniary jurisdictionNational Accountability BureauStandard Operating Procedureoverlapping jurisdictionvoluntary returnplea bargainsales tax refund fraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose out of a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was accused in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference of obtaining fraudulent Sales Tax Refunds amounting to Rs. 4,374,792/- using fake invoices. The primary legal questions addressed by the Sindh High Court were whether the NAB had proper pecuniary jurisdiction over minor or petty corruption cases, and how overlapping jurisdictions among anti-corruption agencies like the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and Provincial Anti-Corruption Establishments (ACE) should be resolved. The High Court affirmed that the primary purpose of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO) is the recovery of large-scale ill-gotten wealth rather than petty penal prosecution. Consequently, the court judicially endorsed NAB's Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) setting a general threshold of Rs. 100 million for NAB cases, subject to the Chairman's discretion to initiate or transfer lower-value cases under Section 18(d) NAO. Turning to the bail application, the court held that reasonable grounds linked the petitioner to the alleged crime and dismissed the post-arrest bail petition while directing an expeditious trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 have an overriding effect over other anti-corruption statutes like the FIA Act, 1974?
  • Whether the National Accountability Bureau can transfer corruption cases involving amounts below its pecuniary threshold to other investigating agencies?
  • Does the Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau hold discretion to take cognizance of a corruption case regardless of the monetary amount involved?
  • Should post-arrest bail be granted under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 where tentative assessment shows reasonable grounds linking the accused to corruption?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain Khan vs Mumtaz Hussain Khan & 7 others2017 SCR 1405 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali, etc. vs The State2017 P.S.C. (CrL) 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-27
  triple murderprivate vendettaplace of worshipjurisdictionanti-terrorism courtocular accountdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction and death sentences of the appellants for triple murder, attempted murder, and terrorism-related offences. The prosecution alleged that the appellants launched a brutal attack starting in a mosque, chasing the victims into a street, and finally into their house. The trial court and High Court concurrently convicted the appellants. On reappraisal, the Supreme Court found the ocular account of natural and injured witnesses to be consistent, prompt, and corroborated by medical and ballistic evidence. Regarding sentences, the Court held that the extreme brutality of the attack precluded any mitigating circumstances. On the legal question of terrorism, the Court clarified that while firing in a place of worship makes a case triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court under the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, a private vendetta without the design or object contemplated by Section 6 does not constitute terrorism. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions under Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, while maintaining the murder convictions and death sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Does firing at a personal enemy in the backdrop of a private vendetta ipso facto constitute terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Does the inclusion of an offence in the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 automatically make the substantive offence one of terrorism under Section 7 of the Act?
  • Can minor discrepancies in the estimated distance between the assailant and victim defeat ocular evidence when the crime scene was dynamic and spread across multiple locations?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali vs The State2017 Y LR 594 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-05
  extortionanti-terrorismsentencing discretionmitigating circumstancesfirst-time offenderreformationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by appellants convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court for extortion and illegal possession of arms. The core legal question was whether the appellants, having been convicted of offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and the Sindh Arms Act 2013, were entitled to a reduction in their sentences based on mitigating factors such as being first-time offenders and their conduct in custody. The court maintained the convictions but modified the sentences, reducing them to the period already served. The judgment holds that while the administration of criminal justice must balance deterrence and retribution with reformation, courts should exercise discretion in favour of reformation for first-time offenders, particularly when the offences are not capital in nature and the accused have demonstrated satisfactory conduct. The court emphasized that sentencing must be judicious, and while deterrence is essential to maintain societal peace, it should not preclude leniency when mitigating circumstances exist, such as the lack of prior criminal history and the potential for rehabilitation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone if the accused is a first-time offender and the offence is not capital?
  • Does the failure to properly exhibit case property and examine it during the trial constitute a mitigating factor for sentencing?
  • Is it permissible for a trial court to conduct a joint trial for scheduled and non-scheduled offences if they have a nexus?
  • What is the judicial criterion for balancing the twin objectives of deterrence and reformation in criminal sentencing?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali vs Federal Shariat Court through Its Registrar, Etc2019 PLC (C.S.) 91, 2017 IHC 245 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-11-15
  writ jurisdictionArticle 199(5)Federal Shariat Courtadministrative ordersjudicial comitymaintainabilityservice matterconstitutional bar
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging administrative orders passed by the Chief Justice and a Bench of the Federal Shariat Court regarding the petitioner's dismissal from service. The core legal question was whether the bar contained in Article 199(5) of the Constitution, which excludes courts and tribunals from the definition of 'person' for writ jurisdiction, extends to administrative or executive orders passed by judges of the Federal Shariat Court. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on precedents from larger benches of the Supreme Court, the Court determined that the constitutional bar under Article 199(5) applies to acts performed by a judge in their capacity as a 'judge of the Court' or 'member of the Court,' including administrative decisions. The Court distinguished recent contrary authority, affirming that judicial comity and the doctrine of coordinate jurisdiction necessitate that such administrative orders remain immune from writ jurisdiction under Article 199, except in limited circumstances like quo warranto or actions in a private capacity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar under Article 199(5) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, apply to administrative orders passed by a judge of the Federal Shariat Court?
  • Are acts performed by a judge of a superior court in their capacity as a member of the Court immune from writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • What are the recognized exceptions to the bar on writ jurisdiction against superior courts under Article 199(5) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali Khokhar vs Chief Engineer & 3 others2017 SCR 87 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-11-18Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali Khokhar s/o Abdul Laif Khokhar r/o Lower Dherian Muzaffarabad,2017 SC AJK 67 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Amjad Ali Khan Minhas vs Zahid Mehmood Khan & 3 others2017 SCR 514 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-01-26Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali and others vs The State2017 PLD Supreme Court 661 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-27
  murderterrorismprivate vendettainjured witnessocular accountmedical evidencemosquejurisdictioncapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of three persons and the injury of another. The trial was conducted by an Anti-Terrorism Court, which sentenced the appellants to death under Section 302(b)/34 PPC and Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the reappraisal of ocular and medical evidence, the validity of a partial compromise, and whether the incident—originating from a private vendetta but involving firing in a mosque—constituted 'terrorism' under Section 6 of the ATA. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions for murder, finding the eye-witness testimony of natural and injured witnesses consistent and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. However, the Court set aside the convictions under Section 7(a) of the ATA. It held that while firing in a mosque makes a case triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court under the Third Schedule, it does not automatically constitute terrorism unless the 'design' or 'object' specified in Section 6 is present. Private vendettas without such design remain ordinary crimes.

  Read full judgment →
• Amir Shameem & 23 others vs Azad Government & 11 others2017 SCR 684 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  ad-hoc appointeesvested rightsamendment of service rulesrecruitment policyNational Testing Serviceteachers recruitmentprospective operation of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgments of the High Court dismissing several writ petitions filed by temporary and ad-hoc teachers and educators in the Elementary and Secondary Education Department. The appellants sought to quash subsequent advertisements and recruitment policies, including testing through the National Testing Service (NTS), contending that they were appointed under older service rules and that changes in qualifications and recruitment criteria could not adversely affect their accrued vested rights. The core legal questions involved whether ad-hoc or temporary appointees acquire a vested right to be governed by repealed service rules and whether the government is competent to alter qualifications and introduce new recruitment policies prospectively. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that temporary and ad-hoc appointees do not possess a vested right to be governed by any particular set of rules and that the competent authority is fully empowered to amend qualifications and recruitment procedures in the public interest. The Court laid down the principle that candidates holding posts on a temporary or ad-hoc basis without final selection on merit do not acquire vested rights, and the executive authority may lawfully alter recruitment rules and introduce transparent testing mechanisms like NTS prospectively.

  Questions settled

  • Whether temporary or ad-hoc appointees acquire a vested right to be governed by previous service rules upon the introduction of new recruitment policies?
  • Does the competent authority have the power to alter qualifications and change recruitment criteria for public posts prospectively?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained against recruitment advertisements when the selected candidates on merit have not been arrayed as parties?
  • Whether mandatory requirements under rule 32 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 regarding certified copies warrant dismissal when documents are admitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Shahzad vs The State2017 YLR 292 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-16
  criminal appealmurderdeath sentenceocular evidenceeye-witness testimonyblood relationsappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Amir Shahzad, for the murder of his two-year-old nephew under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular account provided by the victim's parents, despite the appellant's claim of false implication. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was proved through consistent, reliable, and trustworthy eye-witness testimony. The Court affirmed that the parents, being the victim's natural guardians, had no motive to falsely implicate a close blood relative, and their presence at the scene was natural. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and the death sentence, finding no mitigating circumstances to warrant a reduction. The judgment reinforces the principle that in cases involving the murder of a child by a close relative, the testimony of parents is highly credible, and the theory of substitution is generally ruled out in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of parents as eye-witnesses in the murder of their child considered credible and sufficient for conviction?
  • Does the existence of blood relations between the accused and the complainant party automatically render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Can a death sentence be maintained where the prosecution proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt without mitigating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Kamal Abbasi vs Vice Chancellor Mirpur University of Science2017 PLJ AJ&K 99 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-11-26Read full judgment →
• Amir Hussain vs Magistrate Section 30, Mailsi District Vehari and 22017 PLJ Lahore 441 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-24Read full judgment →
• Amir Hani Muslim, SH. Azmat Saeed, Manzoor Ahmad Malik & Faisal2017 PLJ SC 83 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Amir Ghulam alias Chorra vs The State etc2017 LHC 3635 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-17
  narcotics controlcriminal appealsafe custody of contrabandspy informerbenefit of doubtacquittal of co-accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9-B of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for possessing 350 grams of charas. The core legal questions involved the reliability of police testimony based on an unproduced spy informer, the implication of the appellant who allegedly fled from the spot while his co-accused was acquitted, and the safe custody and transmission of the narcotic samples where an unauthorized Excise and Taxation Officer handled the case. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's identity and safe custody of the contraband beyond a reasonable doubt, especially given the acquittal of the co-accused on the same evidence and procedural flaws regarding the chemical examiner's report. The court laid down the principles that an unexamined spy informer's testimony cannot establish identity without independent corroboration, that the acquittal of a co-accused on identical evidence warrants the same for the remaining accused, and that safe custody of narcotics is mandatory for conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unproduced spy informer's information is sufficient to establish the identity of an accused who allegedly fled from the spot?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the same set of evidence and witnesses require the acquittal of the remaining accused?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples are compromised by involving an unauthorized official?
  • Can a conviction under Section 9-B of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained when the recovery of the contraband is doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Baz Khan vs State through Additional Advocate-General and another2017 P Cr. L J 1328 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-18
  bail cancellationcheatingfraudunregistered sale deedprohibitory clausefurther inquirycivil nature dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by the complainant under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to allegations of fraud and cheating in land transactions through unregistered sale deeds. The core legal question was whether exceptional grounds existed to recall the pre-arrest or post-arrest bail already granted by the competent court. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the principles governing the grant of bail and its cancellation are distinct, that the dispute primarily appeared to be of a civil nature requiring further inquiry regarding the authenticity of the sale deeds, and that the impugned bail order was neither perverse nor illegal. The court laid down the principle that cancellation of bail requires strong, exceptional reasons showing the bail order to be patently illegal, erroneous, or resulting in a miscarriage of justice, and that mere status as a fugitive or absconder does not automatically bar bail if the merits warrant it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principles for the grant of bail are different from the principles for the cancellation of bail?
  • Can bail granted by a competent court be recalled without showing strong and exceptional grounds that the order is patently illegal or perverse?
  • Does a dispute arising from unregistered sale deeds of land primarily partake of a civil nature warranting caution in criminal bail matters?
  • Does being an absconder or fugitive from justice automatically preclude an accused from being granted bail on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Ahmed through Legal Heirs vs Z.A. Khan through duly Constituted2017 YLR 1365 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-05Read full judgment →
• Aminullah & another vs Mst: Robina Pervaiz & others2017 PHC 1235 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-27Read full judgment →
• Amina Bibi and others vs Zafar Iqbal and others2017 SCMR 704 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-22
  inheritancemutationlegitimacy of childrevisional jurisdictionmisreading of evidencebirth certificatenon-appearance of witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil dispute over inheritance rights following the death of Shah Muhammad. The core legal question was whether the respondent, Mst. Sardar Begum, was the legitimate daughter of the deceased and thus entitled to a share of his estate, despite the appellants' challenge to her parentage. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had dismissed the suit, but the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, finding that the lower courts had misread the evidence regarding her parentage. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. The Court held that the non-appearance of the respondent in the witness box was not fatal to her case because she had died before the trial concluded. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the respondent's parentage was sufficiently established through a birth certificate and corroborating oral testimony from family members, which remained unrebutted by the appellants. The key principle laid down is that where documentary evidence like a birth certificate is produced and remains unrebutted, and is supported by credible oral testimony, the failure of a party to appear in the witness box due to death does not invalidate the claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-appearance of a plaintiff in the witness box due to death during trial automatically invalidate a claim of inheritance?
  • Can a High Court in revisional jurisdiction reverse concurrent findings of lower courts if evidence has been misread?
  • Is a birth certificate that remains unrebutted sufficient to prove parentage in an inheritance dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Hamza vs The State and others2017 P Cr. L J 21 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-08-18
  post-arrest bailstatutory baildacoityhardened criminaltrial delaySection 497 CrPCcriminal history
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner, accused in a dacoity case under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued for bail on statutory grounds due to the delay in trial, asserting that the delay was attributable to the prosecution. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite the trial delay, fell within the exception of the fourth proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically regarding the classification of a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal.' The court held that while the petitioner met the criteria for statutory bail, this right was defeated by the fourth proviso. The court affirmed that the classification of a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' does not strictly require a previous conviction. Given the nature of the offence—involving the snatching of official police property—and the petitioner’s involvement in ten other criminal cases, the court concluded he was a dangerous criminal and dismissed the bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fourth proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require a previous conviction to classify an accused as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal'?
  • Can the right to statutory bail due to trial delay be defeated by the classification of the accused as a dangerous criminal?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right if the delay in trial is not attributable to them?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Haider and another vs General Manager (Punjab-North), National Highway Authority, Shahpur Interchange, Thokar Niazbeg, Multan Road, Lahore and 9 others2017 PLJ Lahore 542 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-30Read full judgment →
• Ameer Ali vs The State and 2 others2017 YLR 946 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-17Read full judgment →
• Ameen vs The State2017 MLD 1514 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-03
  narcotics possessionchemical examiner reportpolice witness testimonydirectory vs mandatory rulesrecovery of narcoticsdelay in chemical analysisControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of five kilograms of Charas. The core legal questions concerned whether the conviction could be sustained despite the absence of independent witnesses, the reliance solely on police testimony, and a delay in dispatching the seized narcotics to the chemical examiner. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that police officials are as competent as private witnesses, and the absence of independent witnesses at odd hours does not render a recovery doubtful. Furthermore, the Court established that the 72-hour timeframe for sending samples to a chemical examiner under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, is directory rather than mandatory. Consequently, a delay in dispatching samples is not fatal to the prosecution's case unless the accused demonstrates that the evidence was tampered with or manipulated during the transit period.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses at the time of recovery invalidate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is the testimony of police officials sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of private witnesses?
  • Is the requirement to send narcotic samples to the chemical examiner within 72 hours under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 mandatory or directory?
  • Does a delay in sending seized narcotics to the chemical examiner automatically render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameen Masih vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2017 LHC 2488 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-07Read full judgment →
• Ameen Masih vs Federation of Pakistan, etcK.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 195 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-19Read full judgment →
• Ameen Masih vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 LHC 2488, 2017 PLJ Lahore 875, 2017 PLD Lahore 610, K.L.R. 2017 Civil · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-19
  Christian divorceirretrievable breakdown of marriageminority rightsfundamental rightsconstitutional viresDivorce Act 1869no-fault divorcehuman dignity
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Christian citizen of Pakistan, sought a declaration that the omission of Section 7 of the Divorce Act, 1869 via item 7(2) of the Second Schedule to the Federal Laws (Revision and Declaration) Ordinance, 1981 was unconstitutional, as it restricted Christian divorce grounds exclusively to adultery and prevented dissolution of dead marriages, violating fundamental rights and minority protections. The core legal question was whether the repeal of Section 7 of the Divorce Act, 1869 by the 1981 Ordinance violated the constitutional rights and minority protections guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned repeal of Section 7 was unconstitutional, illegal, and violative of minority rights, fundamental rights to life, liberty, dignity, and non-discrimination. The Court declared item 7(2) of the Second Schedule of the 1981 Ordinance void and restored Section 7 of the Divorce Act, 1869 in its pre-1981 position, enabling Christians in Pakistan to seek divorce based on principles under the UK Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 harmoniously read with Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869. The key principle laid down is that State laws governing minorities must be interpreted in light of fundamental constitutional rights and international obligations, protecting human dignity by preventing individuals from being chained to irretrievably broken marriages.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the repeal of Section 7 of the Divorce Act, 1869 by the Federal Laws (Revision and Declaration) Ordinance, 1981 is unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights of Christian minorities?
  • Can State laws governing the personal rights and divorce of religious minorities be judicially reviewed on the touchstone of constitutional fundamental rights and minority protections?
  • Whether the right to human dignity and liberty under the Constitution of Pakistan encompasses the freedom to dissolve an irretrievably broken marriage?
  • How does the restoration of Section 7 of the Divorce Act, 1869 operate harmoniously with Section 10 of the said Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah---Appellant vs Inamullah and 5 others---Respondents2017 M LD 1699 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-20Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs The state2017 PHC 1044 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-26Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Karachi) 302 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-30
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailconcurrent sentencesappellate discretionjail rollcorruption offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal filed by the appellant, Amanullah, who was convicted and sentenced for various offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having already served a major portion of his concurrent sentences, was entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail pending the final adjudication of his appeal, given the likelihood of delay in the appellate process. The Court, upon reviewing the jail roll, observed that the appellant had served a significant portion of his sentence and that the remaining unexpired term was relatively short. Relying on established precedents regarding the suspension of sentences where the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future, the Court held that the appellant should be enlarged on bail. The key principle laid down is that where an appellant has served a substantial part of their sentence and the final disposal of the appeal is expected to take considerable time, the court may exercise its discretion to suspend the sentence and grant bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended and bail granted pending appeal if the appellant has already served a major portion of their sentence?
  • Does the likelihood of delay in the final adjudication of an appeal justify the suspension of a sentence?
  • Should a sentence be suspended when the remaining unexpired portion of a concurrent sentence is short?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanulah vs Government of Balochistan and 2 others2017 SCMR 192, 2017 PLC (C.S.) 707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-04-25
  out-of-turn promotioncivil servant promotionrelaxation of rulesChief Minister discretionservice tribunalseniority cum fitnessDistrict Promotion Committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, which set aside an out-of-turn promotion granted to the petitioner (Amanullah) as Risaldar Major by the then Chief Minister of Balochistan. The core legal question was whether the Chief Minister possessed the unfettered executive authority or power under Section 23 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, or general clauses legislation, to relax statutory service rules, bypass the District Promotion Committee, and grant out-of-turn promotions, thereby superseding senior civil servants. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Minister has no arbitrary power or authority to relax statutory rules governing promotions or to dole out favoritism in abdication of his oath of office, and that terms and conditions of civil servants must strictly follow applicable legislative acts and rules. The Court laid down the principle that executive authorities cannot bypass mandatory statutory promotion criteria, departmental committees, and seniority-cum-fitness requirements under the guise of rule relaxation, as such practices violate fundamental rights and civil service laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Minister have the authority under Section 23 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 to relax rules and grant out-of-turn promotions to civil servants?
  • Can executive authorities bypass the recommendation of the District Promotion Committee for civil servant promotions?
  • Whether out-of-turn promotions granted on personal whims or favoritism violate the fundamental rights to equality and lawful consideration for promotion?
  • Does a service tribunal's finding on the proper service of notice to a party warrant interference by the Supreme Court when supported by record?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ullah vs Karam Din and others2017 MLD 1539 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-21Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali vs The State2017 SCMR 1976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-18
  murdercapital punishmentcommutation of sentencemitigating circumstancesabscondanceocular evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of Rashid Latif, for which he was sentenced to death by the trial court. The conviction was upheld by the High Court, and the death sentence was confirmed. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant did not challenge the conviction but sought the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court reviewed the ocular evidence, which was consistent with the medical evidence, and noted the appellant's prolonged abscondance as corroborative proof of guilt. However, the Court identified mitigating circumstances, specifically noting that the prosecution's motive was not believed by the trial court and that the recovery of the weapon was significantly delayed, rendering it inconsequential. Consequently, the Court held that while the conviction was sound, the case did not warrant capital punishment. The appeal was partly allowed, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was extended to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment based on mitigating circumstances despite a proven conviction?
  • Does a significant delay in the recovery of a weapon render the recovery evidence inconsequential?
  • Does the abscondance of an accused serve as corroborative evidence of guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah vs The State and another2017 YLR 1263 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryidentification parade delaymedical grounds for bailtentative assessmentbenefit of doubtheinousness of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 337-F(v), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was not named in the initial crime report, was identified after a four-month delay, and suffered from chronic medical conditions, made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2). The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's complicity fell within the scope of further inquiry as he was not attributed any fatal or physical injury, the identification parade suffered from a significant four-month delay, and his medical condition showed he suffered from chronic kidney disease requiring specialized care. The court emphasized that heinousness of an offence alone cannot deny bail where a case of further inquiry is made out, and the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused at the bail stage. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a four-month delay in conducting an identification parade make the accused's complicity a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be denied solely on the ground of the heinousness of the offence when the accused is otherwise entitled to it?
  • Is chronic illness and the necessity of specialized medical treatment a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether deeper appreciation of evidence is permissible at the bail stage under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah vs SHO P.S Munda & other2017 PHC 578 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-15Read full judgment →
• Altamash Medical Society through Secretary vs Dr. Anwar Ye Bin Ju and 9 others2017 MLD 785 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-16
  amenity plotrejection of plaintrestrictive covenantlease deedcause of actiondeclaratory suittemporary injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil suit for declaration, directions, cancellation, and injunction concerning an amenity plot allegedly sold in violation of a restrictive covenant in its lease deed. The core legal questions involve whether the plaintiff has a cause of action or the requisite legal character to challenge the transfer of an adjacent amenity plot, and whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court held that where a substantial question of facts or law is raised, particularly concerning the alleged misuse or unauthorized transfer of an amenity plot, the matter cannot be disposed of on technicalities under Order VII Rule 11 and requires evidence. The key principle laid down is that plaints raising mixed questions of law and fact regarding public amenity plots and substantial grievances should proceed to trial rather than being rejected summarily.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. when the case involves mixed questions of law and fact regarding the alleged violation of lease covenants on an amenity plot?
  • Does a third party or adjacent plot holder have the legal character or cause of action to challenge the transfer or breach of restrictive covenants in a lease deed of an amenity plot?
  • Whether a declaratory suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 is maintainable when the plaintiff's own legal character or proprietary right is not directly infringed?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The State2017 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 67, 2017 P Cr. L J 1639 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-03-09
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryprohibitory clauserevision petitionheroinCharasProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the order of the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur, which declined post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Altaf Hussain, accused in a case registered under sections 3, 4, and 26 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985, following the alleged recovery of three kilograms of Charas and 100 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the large quantity of narcotics recovered, which attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that prima facie, the petitioner was connected with an offence punishable with up to life imprisonment under section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985, bringing his case within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that where a large quantity of narcotics is recovered from an accused and reasonable grounds exist to believe their involvement in a non-bailable offence falling within the prohibitory clause, bail should not normally be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when a large quantity of narcotics exceeding the threshold for life imprisonment is recovered?
  • Does the recovery of more than 10 grams of heroin bring a case within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the High Court or Shariat Court should interfere with the judicious exercise of discretion by a lower court in declining bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs State through Additional Advocate General, Mirpur2017 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 67 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-03-09
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryprohibitory clauseprohibition enforcementcriminal revisionnon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order of the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur, which declined post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Altaf Hussain, in a case involving the recovery of narcotics. The petitioner was apprehended with 3 kilograms of Chars and 100 grams of heroin, leading to charges under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the potential for life imprisonment under the relevant statute. The Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the petition should be dismissed. The court reasoned that the recovery of a large quantity of heroin brings the offence within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the offence carries a potential sentence of life imprisonment. The court established the principle that where there are reasonable grounds to believe an accused is involved in a non-bailable offence involving a large quantity of narcotics, bail is generally not warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a large quantity of heroin bring an offence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985 within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when charged with an offence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985 that carries a potential sentence of life imprisonment?
  • Does the recovery of more than 10 grams of heroin trigger the life imprisonment provision under Section 4(2) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs Gulzar Ahmed Khushikh and 5 others2017 YLR 2528 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-03Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs Aftab Ahmad2017 YLR 365 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-24Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain and others vs State and othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 375 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-25
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencefirst versionadmissibility of evidencedeath sentenceQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of an accused's "first version" statement to the police and the reliability of ocular evidence that had been rejected regarding the appellant's co-accused. The Lahore High Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitting the appellant. The court established that a "first version" statement made to the police by an accused is inadmissible for conviction under Article 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, the court affirmed the principle that where prosecution evidence is disbelieved regarding the majority of identically placed co-accused, it cannot be used to sustain a conviction against the remaining appellant without strong, independent corroboration, which was absent here. The court found the prosecution's ocular account inherently contradictory, noting significant discrepancies in timelines and the sequence of events, which rendered the case unsafe. Consequently, the benefit of the doubt was extended to the appellant, resulting in his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a 'first version' statement made by an accused to the police admissible as a basis for conviction?
  • Can prosecution evidence that has been disbelieved regarding the majority of co-accused be relied upon to convict the remaining accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does a significant discrepancy in the timing and sequence of events in ocular testimony render a prosecution case unsafe?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Anjum vs Bushra Begum and 2 others2017 CLC 1368 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-27Read full judgment →
• Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. through Authorized Representative vs Messrs2017 CLD 1091 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-30Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Ltd vs Chenab Ltd. and others2017 CLD 910, 2017 P.C.T.L.R. 44 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-16Read full judgment →
• Allied bank Ltd vs Anti corruption establishment govt of KPK etc2017 PHC 1099 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-20Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Messrs Fatima Enterprises Limited and others2017 CLD 1711 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-21Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Maqbool Usman Fibers2017 CLD 1115 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-14Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Judge Banking Court-I, Gujranwala, etc2017 LHC 1944 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-18Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Chenab Limited and 20 others2017 CLD 910 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-25Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Bankers Equity Ltd., etc2017 P.C.T.L.R. 68 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-20Read full judgment →