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.

• Ahmadullah and others vs Govt of NWFP through Secretary Forest and others2017 PHC 1212 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed Shah vs Government of Pakistani through Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad and 3 others2017 CLC 969 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-18Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Danyal vs Islamia College, Peshawar through Registrar and 102017 PLD Peshawar 193 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-18Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs The State and another2017 MLD 730 · Lahore High Court · 2016-07-26
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurderabscondenceextra-judicial confessiondelayed FIRcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner Ahmad Ali seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 747 of 2011 registered under sections 302, 201, 109, 148, 149, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad. The core legal question involved was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in the circumstances of the case, including delayed eyewitness accounts, conflicting versions regarding accidental firing, weak extra-judicial confession evidence, and the petitioner's absence abroad. The Lahore High Court held that the case called for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that factors like abscondence would not bar bail when reasonable grounds for further probe existed. Consequently, the court accepted the application and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the case calls for further inquiry into his guilt?
  • Does the factum of abscondence automatically bar the grant of bail when the evidentiary value of the prosecution case is weakened?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of an extra-judicial confession that is joint in nature and inordinately delayed without explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs The State and 2 others2017 P Cr. L J 527 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-01
  Anti-Terrorism Court jurisdictionkidnapping for ransomscheduled offenceSection 23 Anti-Terrorism ActSection 21-M(2) Anti-Terrorism Actspeedy trialtransfer of criminal case
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in a case involving kidnapping for ransom, contending that the absence of a 'terrorist' element required the case's transfer to an ordinary court under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question concerned whether such a case must be transferred pre-trial if the specific definition of terrorism is not met. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that kidnapping for ransom is a scheduled offence exclusively triable by the ATC. The Court established that Section 21-M(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, provides a mechanism for the ATC to convict an accused under ordinary penal laws if the terrorism charge fails upon the conclusion of the trial. Consequently, the Court ruled that the practice of invoking Section 23 for pre-trial transfer is unnecessary and counterproductive, as it causes inordinate delays. The judgment mandates that ATCs should proceed with trials and rely on the alternate conviction provision rather than engaging in protracted pre-trial jurisdictional disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a 'terrorist' element in a scheduled offence require the transfer of the case from an Anti-Terrorism Court to an ordinary court?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court convict an accused under ordinary law if the charge of terrorism is not proven at the conclusion of the trial?
  • Is kidnapping for ransom a scheduled offence exclusively triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Should Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, be invoked at the pre-trial stage to transfer cases to ordinary courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs State etcPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 501 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-13
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailcriminal appealevidentiary contradictionsprosecution versionappellate court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending the disposal of a criminal appeal. The petitioner, Ahmad Ali, challenged his conviction, highlighting significant contradictions in the prosecution's evidence regarding the identity of the assailant who fired the fatal shots. The trial court's judgment itself noted inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and the prosecution's initial version. Crucially, the trial court found the complainant's version unreliable and instead accepted the accused's version, which was supported by the investigating officer and circumstantial evidence. The High Court observed that the sole evidence against the petitioner relied upon by the prosecution was the report and opinion of the investigating agency, the weight of which required deeper judicial scrutiny during the main appeal. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for the suspension of his sentence. The petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to bail pending the final decision of the appeal, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution evidence contains material contradictions?
  • Does the reliance on the investigating agency's report as the sole evidence against an accused justify the suspension of a sentence pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab vs The State and others2017 YLR 604 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-05
  narcotic substancesafe custodychemical examiner reportcriminal appealprocedural irregularitysample preparationreasonable doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of heroin. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established the safe custody of the recovered contraband and whether the second chemical examiner’s report, obtained after an initial negative report, was legally valid given procedural irregularities. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody of the recovered substance, noting significant contradictions in the testimony regarding the handling of samples. Furthermore, the Court found that the second sample was prepared without the mandatory judicial supervision required under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that where the prosecution fails to establish safe custody and commits material illegalities in sample preparation, the resulting evidence is unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to establish safe custody of recovered contraband entitle an accused to acquittal in narcotics cases?
  • Is a second chemical examiner report valid if the sample was prepared without judicial supervision under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions regarding the handling and transmission of forensic samples?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Khan vs Muhammad Aslam and others2017 KLR Civil Cases 126 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-02Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed vs District Judge And 2 others2017 MLD 2012 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-09Read full judgment →
• Afsar Ali vs The State2017 MLD 1884 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-31Read full judgment →
• Adnan vs State, etcPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 989 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-16
  criminal appealmurder referenceidentification paradebenefit of the doubtsupplementary statementocular accountweapon recoveryabscondance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant awarded by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected murder reference. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of a belated supplementary statement implicating an accused previously listed as unknown, the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted without attributing a specific role to the accused and without adhering to mandatory procedural safeguards, and the sufficiency of weapon recovery and abscondance as corroborative proof in the absence of a trustworthy ocular account. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's identity beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, procedural flaws in the identification parade, and the lack of a credible eye-witness account linking the appellant to the specific role. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant on the benefit of the doubt, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an identification parade holds evidentiary value when the accused is identified without reference to the specific role allegedly played in the commission of the crime?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of forensic ballistics matching and abscondance when the ocular account is found to be untrustworthy?
  • What is the legal effect of omitting an accused person's identity and description from the initial crime report and inquest report?
  • Are procedural safeguards regarding the concealment of an accused's identity prior to an identification parade mandatory, and does their non-proof vitiate the parade's evidentiary worth?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Prince vs The State through P.O., Punjab and another2017 PLD Supreme Court 147, 2017 PLJ SC 298, 2017 P.S.C. (Crl) 114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-02-01
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayspeedy trialfair trialblasphemy chargesdelay in conclusion of trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal petition for leave to appeal seeking bail after a statutory delay of over three years in the conclusion of the trial, where the petitioner is facing charges under sections 295-A, B, and C of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether bail can be withheld on the ground of adjournments sought by the accused when a prolonged statutory delay in trial has occurred, particularly in light of constitutional guarantees to a fair and speedy trial. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting bail to the petitioner. The Court held that statutory delays caused largely by the prosecution or the court, coupled with the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution, entitle an accused to bail, and previous restrictive case law rendered prior to such constitutional amendments is no longer strictly applicable. The key principle laid down is that unnecessary and inordinate delay in concluding a criminal trial mandates the grant of post-arrest bail to prevent prolonged unjust incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay when adjournments were previously sought by the defense?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution affect the application of earlier precedents regarding bail after statutory delay?
  • Is prolonged incarceration pending trial without conclusion a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Prince vs The State through P.G., Punjab and another2017 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-02-01
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayfair trialblasphemydelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a bail application by the Lahore High Court despite a statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial, which exceeded three years. The core legal question was whether an accused person is entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the trial has been delayed primarily by the prosecution or the court, notwithstanding previous dismissals on merits and adjournments sought by the defense. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that prolonged incarceration due to inordinate trial delays without concluding the proceedings violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, entitling the accused to bail. The key principle laid down is that statutory delay in the conclusion of a trial forms a robust ground for the grant of bail, and bail should not be refused on hyper-technical grounds once the mandatory statutory period has elapsed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of a trial when previous bail petitions have been dismissed on merits?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 affect the application of earlier precedents regarding bail refusal due to defense-sought adjournments?
  • Can bail be refused on hyper-technical grounds when inordinate delay has occurred in the conclusion of a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Prince vs The State through P.G. Punjab and another2017 PLD Supreme Court 147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-02-01
  statutory delaypost-arrest bailright to speedy trialfair trialblasphemy lawscriminal prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a criminal petition for leave to appeal converted into an appeal, filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question revolves around whether post-arrest bail should be refused on the basis of adjournments sought by the accused, notwithstanding a statutory delay exceeding three years, and how previous precedents stand in light of the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the statutory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that where a case of inordinate and un-condonable statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial is made out, bail should not be refused on hyper-technical grounds or past restrictive interpretations that ignore prolonged incarceration. The Court laid down the principle that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental component of a fair trial, and delays primarily attributable to the prosecution or court cannot be used to penalize an accused by denying bail after years of detention.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be refused on the ground of adjournments sought by the accused when there is inordinate statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial?
  • Does the introduction of Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 affect the application of earlier precedents regarding bail refusal based on delay?
  • Is prolonged incarceration without a concluded trial a valid ground for the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Prince vs State through P.G. Punjab and another2017 PLJ SC 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-02-01
  statutory delaypost-arrest bailspeedy trialfair trialprolonged incarcerationcriminal justice reform
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a bail application by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner, facing trial for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, sought bail on the grounds of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial, which had exceeded three years. The core legal question was whether bail should be granted due to inordinate delay in trial proceedings, notwithstanding previous dismissals on merits and adjournments sought by the accused. The Supreme Court held that the prolonged incarceration without trial conclusion, primarily due to prosecution or court delays, entitled the petitioner to bail. The Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, particularly in light of Article 10-A. The ratio established is that where a case of statutory delay is made out, bail should not be refused on hyper-technical grounds, as the accused cannot be compensated for wrongful pre-trial incarceration if eventually acquitted, whereas conviction would allow for re-arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 affect the court's discretion to grant bail in cases of prolonged trial delay?
  • Can bail be granted on the ground of statutory delay even if previous bail petitions were dismissed on merits?
  • Should bail be refused on hyper-technical grounds when there is an inordinate delay in the conclusion of a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Ilyas vs The State and anotherK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 255 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-16
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtocular accountcorroborationmaterial contradictionsacquittalmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a conviction under Section 297 of the same Code. The core legal question involved the reliability of the ocular account, the necessity of independent corroboration for an accused whose co-accused was acquitted on identical evidence, and the evaluation of material contradictions, belated improvements, and unexplained delays in recording witness statements. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with serious inconsistencies, improbable witness presence, uncorroborated improvements regarding motive, and an inexplicable delay by eye-witnesses in reporting the crime. Establishing that brutality alone cannot substitute for evidentiary certainty, the Lahore High Court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction and death sentence, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the complainant's appeal seeking the reversal of the co-accused's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction based on capital punishment be sustained when the prosecution's ocular account suffers from major contradictions, delayed statements, and lack of independent corroboration?
  • Is testimony from an eye-witness who remained silent for days after the incident without a plausible explanation sufficient to safely base a criminal conviction upon?
  • Whether an accused can be convicted solely on the brutality of the crime in the absence of positive proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused placed in an identical evidentiary position necessitate independent corroboration before relying on the same witness testimony to convict another appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Ilyas etc vs State and otherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 336 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-16Read full judgment →
• (1) Adnan Ilyas (2) Pervaiz Akhtar (3) The State vs (1)The State & another2017 LHC 555 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-16
  murderdeath sentenceocular accountbenefit of the doubtcontradictions in testimonyindependent corroborationacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, alongside a murder reference and an appeal against a co-accused's acquittal. The core legal question involves the safety of relying on an ocular account riddled with contradictions, improvements, and delayed statements, especially when the co-accused in an identical position was acquitted and independent corroboration is lacking. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from major inconsistencies, delayed witness accounts, and a lack of reliable independent corroboration, making it unsafe to maintain the conviction. The court laid down the principle that brutality of a crime alone cannot substitute for positive proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that criminal convictions require evidentiary certainty rather than mere moral satisfaction. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the death sentence was not confirmed, and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a brutal crime scene when the ocular account is fraught with contradictions and improvements?
  • Is independent corroboration required to maintain a conviction against an accused when a co-accused in an identical position has already been acquitted by the trial court?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a belatedly introduced ocular account by a witness who remained silent for several days after the occurrence?
  • Does brutality alone suffice to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of evidentiary certainty?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Adnan (2) The State vs (1) The State (2) AdnanPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 989, 2017 LHC 1540 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-16
  murder referenceidentification paradebenefit of doubtQatl-i-amdinquest reportevidentiary valuecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction and death sentence for Qatl-i-amd, alongside a Murder Reference for the confirmation of the death sentence. The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased, allegedly committed with a co-accused. The core legal questions were whether the appellant's identification was legally valid and whether the prosecution's evidence—specifically the ocular account, identification parade, and weapon recovery—was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable due to significant evidentiary flaws. Specifically, the appellant was not named in the FIR, the inquest report failed to mention him, and the identification parade was conducted without attributing a specific role to the appellant, rendering it legally insignificant. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was deemed doubtful, and the ocular account lacked credibility. The Court laid down the principle that an identification parade is of no evidentiary value if it does not require the witness to identify the accused in reference to the specific role played by them in the commission of the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification parade hold evidentiary value if the witness does not identify the accused in reference to the specific role played by them in the crime?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of abscondance and forensic reports when the ocular account is found to be unreliable?
  • Is the omission of an accused's name in the inquest report a factor that undermines the prosecution's case regarding the identity of the perpetrator?
  Read full judgment →
• Administrator Town Municipal Administration Jinnah Town, Faisalabad and others vs As'ghar Ali & 4 others2017 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 216 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  revision petitioninterim orderstatus quogrievance petitioncontempt petitiondaily wagesregularization of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondents during proceedings on a contempt petition. The core legal question was whether a Labour Court can grant the final relief claimed in a pending grievance petition through an interlocutory order prior to the recording of evidence. The Tribunal held that an interim order or status quo cannot be used to grant the main relief or create a new situation before the trial and recording of evidence, as the object of an interlocutory order is merely to maintain the existing situation. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the Labour Court was directed to decide the matter on merits after recording the evidence of the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Labour Court grant the main relief claimed in a grievance petition through an interlocutory order before recording evidence?
  • What is the primary legal objective of passing an interim order or an order of status quo?
  • Whether an interim order not specifically extended continues to remain sustainable in the eye of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil Khan vs Secretary to Government of Pakistan Ministry of Defence, Pakistan and 2 others2017 MLD 937 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-29Read full judgment →
• Adeel Sultan vs Khalid Rasheed and 2 others2017 PLD Lahore 590 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-02
  minor propertynatural guardianalienation of propertyfather as guardiancivil revisionbenefit of minorMuslim Law guardianship
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and possession regarding property alienated during his minority by his father. The core legal question concerns whether a father, acting as a natural legal guardian, can alienate the immovable property of his minor child without express court authority, and under what conditions such a sale is valid. The Lahore High Court held that a father can alienate a minor's property provided the transaction is for the manifest benefit or advantage of the minor, constitutes an act of good management, or is executed for adequate market value. The Court found that the father in this case acted as a prudent natural guardian, obtaining double the per-kanal rate compared to previous transactions and maintaining a cordial relationship involving mutual property transfers with the petitioner. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Can a father without any express authority alienate the immovable property of his minor child?
  • What are the conditions under which a legal guardian can sell the immovable property of a minor under Islamic law?
  • Whether a father's sale of a minor's property can be deemed valid when executed at market price or for the manifest advantage of the ward?
  Read full judgment →
• Additional Prosecutor General, Balochistan, Quetta vs Abdul Qadeer2017 P Cr. L J 313 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-10-27
  second FIRtwo versionscognizable offenceconstitutional petitionregistration of FIRJustice of the Peace
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the Additional Prosecutor General, Balochistan, challenging the order of the Justice of the Peace/Sessions Judge, Mastung, which accepted an application under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). The core dispute arose from two opposing versions of a murder incident: one version claimed the deceased was murdered by unknown persons, while the rival version alleged the deceased was killed during a botched motorcycle snatching attempt, for which an FIR had already been registered. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there is no absolute legal bar against the registration of a second FIR in respect of a different and distinct version of the same occurrence, provided it does not merely amplify the first version. The key principle laid down is that where an aggrieved party presents a genuine, distinct, and separate version of a cognizable offence regarding the same incident, the registration of a second FIR is permissible to ensure that true facts are brought before the court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second FIR be registered in respect of the same occurrence when a different version is presented by an aggrieved party?
  • Does the law impose an absolute bar against the recording of a second FIR regarding an incident for which an FIR has already been registered?
  • What is the legal test to determine whether a second FIR should be registered in a case involving dual versions of the same occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Additional Inspector-General of Police Karachi and another vs Muhammad Ismail Lashari and another2017 PLC (C.S.) 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-09-01
  police disciplineservice tribunalremoval from servicepatchy service recorddouble jeopardycompetent authoritymisconductpolice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals by leave of the court challenged a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, which had set aside the dismissal from service of two police officials—an Inspector and a Sub-Inspector—with patchy service records containing numerous major and minor punishments. The core legal questions involved whether the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) was competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and award dismissal under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 read with Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934, and whether utilizing past recorded penalties to assess cumulative unfitness and incorrigibility violates the double jeopardy protection under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the DIG, as the appointing authority, was fully competent under the applicable statutory framework and notifications to initiate proceedings and impose major penalties, and that Rule 16.2 permits the consideration of cumulative misconduct to measure fitness for police service without violating constitutional double jeopardy protections. The appeals were accordingly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Deputy Inspector General of Police is a competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and award dismissal to a police inspector under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does taking into consideration past penalties and adverse entries in a service dossier under Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934, to assess cumulative misconduct and unfitness violate the protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are statutory provisions permitting the dismissal of police personnel based on the cumulative effect of continued misconduct independent of ordinary civil service rules?
  • Whether quasi-judicial appellate powers delegated under statutory notifications are validly exercised by the designated authority next above the appointing authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Additional Director, Lahore vs Flying Board and Paper Products, Lahore2017 PTD (Trib.) 1536 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2015-04-27
  capacity taxationinput tax adjustmentshow-cause noticestatutory rightdepartmental appealsearch and seizurelocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This departmental appeal challenged the order of the Collector (Adjudication) which vacated a show-cause notice issued to the respondent regarding the alleged illegal adjustment of input tax. The core legal questions concerned the Collector's authority to fix production capacity for a manufacturing unit, the legality of inspection visits conducted without judicial warrants, and the competency of the Additional Director to file an appeal on behalf of the Sales Tax Department. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue dismissed the appeal, upholding the vacation of the show-cause notice. The Tribunal held that the Collector lacked the statutory authority to fix production capacity during the relevant period, and that input tax adjustment is a vested statutory right that cannot be arbitrarily denied. Furthermore, the Tribunal affirmed that inspections conducted without warrants from a Judicial Magistrate are illegal, and that the Additional Director lacked the requisite legal standing to initiate the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the departmental proceedings were unsustainable both on merits and procedural grounds, confirming the order of the Collector (Adjudication).

  Questions settled

  • Did the Collector have the legal authority to fix production capacity for a manufacturing unit prior to the 1994 amendment to the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • Is an inspection of business premises conducted without a warrant from a Judicial Magistrate legally valid?
  • Does an Additional Director possess the legal competence to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue on behalf of the Sales Tax Department?
  • Can a registered person's statutory right to input tax adjustment be defeated by an order of the Collector fixing capacity taxation?
  Read full judgment →
• Additional Director, Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR, Regional Office, Karachi vs Member (Technical), Customs, Federation Excise and Sales Tax and another2017 PTD 1278 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-24Read full judgment →
• Additional Collector of Customs vs Muhammad HussainPTCL 2017 CL. 16 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-15Read full judgment →
• Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 358 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-30
  allotment of official residenceprospective and retrospective operationaccrued rightswaiting listintra-court appealcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a judgment of the learned Single Judge which declared that an amended government accommodation policy applies prospectively rather than retrospectively. The core legal question was whether an administrative amendment to an allotment policy could nullify or wash away the waiting period and maturity of turn already accrued by a government employee under the original policy. The Lahore High Court held that the amendment operates prospectively and cannot take away the maturity of turn accrued under the earlier policy, as the waiting period is an accrued right that cannot be arbitrarily wiped out by subsequent amendments. The key principle laid down is that while government employees may not have an absolute vested right to be provided official accommodation, once a waiting period has been spent and a turn has matured under an existing policy, an administrative amendment cannot retrospectively vitiate that accrued position on the waiting list.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amendment to a government accommodation allotment policy can be applied retrospectively to nullify the waiting period of employees?
  • Does an employee acquire an accrued right in the maturity of their turn on a waiting list under an existing allotment policy?
  • Can administrative amendments to an allotment policy wash away the time spent waiting for official residence under the previous policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Add Oil (Private) Limited & another vs Null2017 SHC 344 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-13Read full judgment →
• Adamjee Polycraft Limited and 3 others vs National Investment Trust2017 CLD 380 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-04
  banking recoverycontract of guaranteesponsor's undertakingco-extensive liabilityprincipal debtorsuretyinvestment agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal, filed under Section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, challenged a banking court decree for the recovery of Rs. 24,959,375 against the appellants. The core legal question was whether a 'Sponsor's Undertaking' executed by the appellant directors constituted a valid contract of guarantee, thereby rendering them personally liable for the company's debt upon default. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Sponsor's Undertaking was an integral part of the main investment agreement. Consequently, the appellants functioned as sureties, and their liability was co-extensive with that of the principal debtor (the company). The Court established that where a sponsor's undertaking is a mandatory condition of an investment agreement, the sponsors become sureties under Section 126 of the Contract Act, 1872. Furthermore, their liability is co-extensive with the principal debtor under Section 128 of the same Act, rendering them jointly and severally liable for the outstanding debt upon the company's default. The judgment emphasizes that such undertakings must be read in conjunction with the main agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Sponsor's Undertaking executed by company directors constitute a valid contract of guarantee under the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Is the liability of a surety co-extensive with that of the principal debtor in the absence of a contrary provision in the contract?
  • Should a Sponsor's Undertaking be read in isolation or in conjunction with the main investment agreement to determine the liability of the sponsors?
  Read full judgment →
• Adam A. Muchhadda vs Captain (R) H.A. Rahim2017 SHC 1, 2017 MLD 1105 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-10Read full judgment →
• Adam A. Muchhadda vs Captain (R) H. A. Rahim2017 SHC 1 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-10Read full judgment →
• Accountant General, Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and (4)2016 SC AJK 120 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Adam vs The State2017 MLD 513 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-11-15
  criminal revisionprohibition orderhaddchemical examiner reportrepresentative samplereduction of sentencecontraband recoverynarcotics and intoxicants
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the appellate court judgment upholding the trial court judgment whereby the petitioner was convicted under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction and sentence for a large bulk recovery of liquor could be sustained when only a small representative sample (two bottles) was sent for chemical analysis. The Balochistan High Court held that in the absence of chemical examination of the entire recovered contraband, the conviction can only be sustained regarding the specific quantity that was tested and verified by the chemical examiner. Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court that separate samples must be taken and tested from distinct containers, the court maintained the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted for the entire bulk of a recovered contraband substance when only a fraction of it was sent for and confirmed by chemical analysis?
  • Whether the failure to send representative samples from each separate container of recovered liquor limits the conviction only to the quantity actually tested?
  • Does the absence of a chemical examiner's report regarding the bulk of recovered bottles leave the matter in the realm of mere suspicion rather than proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Action Against Illegalities, Contraventions and Violations in Appointments Within NAB_ In re vs Not2017 PLC (C.S.) 1045 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-31
  NAB appointmentsillegal appointmentsterms and conditions of servicemethods of appointment and qualificationsuo motu jurisdictiondeputation and absorptionrelaxation of rules
  Summary & questions settled

  These suo motu proceedings were initiated under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan to examine alleged illegalities, contraventions, and violations in appointments, promotions, inductions, and absorptions within the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The core legal question centered on whether appointments and promotions in NAB complied with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Employees Terms and Conditions of Service (TCS), 2002, and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Methods of Appointment and Qualification (MAQ), and whether statutory rules and academic/experience criteria could be bypassed through deeming clauses, relaxation powers, or executive policies. The Supreme Court held that statutory qualifications and eligibility criteria are mandatory, cannot be bypassed through interpretive tactics, and that deputationists or absorbed employees must strictly meet prescribed standards. The Court laid down that statutory rules regarding qualifications cannot be relaxed to accommodate unqualified candidates, deeming clauses in service rules do not exempt inductees from initial qualification requirements, and executive policies from outside the statutory framework cannot override service regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mandatory academic qualifications and experience prescribed in the National Accountability Bureau Methods of Appointment and Qualification (MAQ) apply to employees permanently absorbed from other services?
  • Does the deeming clause in sub-rule (2) of Rule 14.03 of the NAB Employees Terms and Conditions of Service (TCS) 2002 exempt inducted employees from fulfilling the required initial qualifications?
  • Can the Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau exercise powers under Rule 14.01 of the TCS to relax basic eligibility and academic qualifications for initial appointments?
  • Does an executive policy issued by the Prime Minister override statutory service rules and qualification requirements in statutory organizations?
  Read full judgment →
• Access Solar (Pvt.) Ltd. and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 32017 CLC 1259 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-05-09Read full judgment →
• Abul Hassan and another vs Assistant Executive Engineer and 3 others2017 YLR 1266 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-29Read full judgment →
• Abu Bakar vs Iind Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu and 2 others2017 YLR 1248 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-01Read full judgment →
• Abu Bakar Siddique vs The State2017 YLR 1987 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-06-30
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionres-gesteasudden provocationmurdersentence enhancementlast seen theory
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 338 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including medical evidence, recoveries, statements of witnesses, and an extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to a police officer at the hospital immediately after the incident. The core legal questions involved the admissibility and corroborative value of the appellant's statements under the doctrine of res-gestea, the reliability of circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct eyewitnesses, and whether mitigating circumstances warranted an enhancement or reduction of the sentence. The Balochistan High Court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and successfully linked the appellant to the crime, and that his initial statement formed part of the res-gestea under Article 19 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. However, considering the presence of sudden provocation as an extenuating factor, the court upheld the sentence of life imprisonment and dismissed both the appeal and the revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession made to a police officer immediately after an occurrence is admissible under the doctrine of res-gestea as part of the same transaction?
  • Can capital punishment be awarded solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence when the chain of evidence is complete?
  • Whether sudden provocation resulting from a sudden quarrel can be treated as an extenuating circumstance to avoid the death penalty in a murder case?
  • What is the legal burden on an accused who is lastly seen under the same roof with the deceased who meets an unnatural death?
  Read full judgment →
• Abu Bakar Bin Abdul Qadir and another vs Laeeq Ahmed and others2017 SHC 275 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-07
  specific performancerejection of plaintOrder VII Rule 11dishonoured chequestop payment instructiontriable issuecause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed by the Defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the rejection of the Plaintiffs' plaint in a suit for specific performance. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs committed a breach of contract by failing to make timely payments and dishonouring a cheque, thereby terminating the sale transaction. The core legal question was whether the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action or if it warranted rejection at the preliminary stage due to the alleged breach. The Court held that the application for rejection of the plaint was meritless. It determined that the stop-payment instruction issued by the Plaintiffs did not constitute the 'dishonouring' of a cheque, and that the existence of a valid agreement and the disputed nature of the alleged breach presented triable issues requiring evidence. The Court affirmed the principle that the object of Order VII Rule 11 is to terminate frivolous litigation, but it cannot be invoked where the essential ingredients of a contract are present and the dispute requires a full trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a stop-payment instruction on a cheque constitute the 'dishonouring' of a cheque for the purposes of establishing a breach of contract?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the existence of a valid agreement is acknowledged by the parties?
  • Is the alleged breach of a sale agreement a triable issue that precludes the rejection of a plaint at the preliminary stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Abrar Hussain vs VIIth A.D.J. South at Karachi & Ors2017 SHC 358 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abrar Hussain vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 14 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-01
  criminal appealnarcoticsrecovery of charascontradictions in evidencenon-production of case propertybenefit of the doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The core legal questions involve assessing the credibility of prosecution evidence riddled with material contradictions, the legal effect of non-production of case property during trial, and the implications of a delayed dispatch of samples to the Chemical Examiner. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions between witnesses, the failure to produce the recovered contraband in court, and the inordinate delay in sending samples for chemical analysis create serious, incurable doubts in the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that non-production of the case property is fatal to the prosecution, and that an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right where the evidence is shaken and uncorroborated.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of the non-production of case property in court during a narcotics trial?
  • Whether material contradictions between the statements of the complainant and recovery witnesses are sufficient to create doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Does a delay in sending recovered narcotics samples to the Chemical Examiner cast serious doubts on the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution evidence is shaken?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Zareef Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 PHC 1141 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-23Read full judgment →
• Abid Masih vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1053 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-03
  Qatl-i-Amddeath sentence commutationocular evidencemedical evidencequantum of sentencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his brother-in-law under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account and whether the death penalty remained appropriate despite the prosecution's failure to substantiate the alleged motive or prove the recovery of the weapon. The Court held that the conviction was sound, as the ocular testimony was consistent, natural, and corroborated by medical evidence. However, the Court found that the failure to prove the motive and the inconsequential nature of the weapon recovery constituted significant extenuating circumstances. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The judgment reaffirms the principle that while death is the normal penalty for Qatl-i-Amd, life imprisonment is a valid alternative when circumstances warrant mitigation, and courts must exercise extreme caution in determining the quantum of sentence, as accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the severity of punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be maintained solely on ocular testimony when the alleged motive and weapon recovery are not proven?
  • Is the death penalty the mandatory sentence for Qatl-i-Amd, or can it be commuted to life imprisonment based on extenuating circumstances?
  • Does the failure to prove the motive for a crime entitle an accused to a reduction in the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Mahmood and Other vs The State through2017 SCMR 728 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-11
  insufficient datajudgment text missingcase law analysislegal metadataincomplete record
  Summary & questions settled

  The provided input contains only a placeholder for the judgment text and lacks the substantive content required to generate a factual headnote. Consequently, it is impossible to summarize the nature of the matter, the core legal questions, the court's decision, or the principles laid down. Without the specific text of the judgment, no legal analysis or extraction of holdings can be performed. This entry remains incomplete pending the provision of the actual judgment text.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of the judgment when the text is missing?
  • Can a summary be generated without the underlying judgment content?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Khan vs State2017 PHC 929 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-12Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Judge Family Court and others2017 MLD 1713 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-02Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain Bhatti vs The State and another2017 YLR 1042 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-25
  re-summoning of witnessre-examination of witnessdiscretionary powers of courtfair trialdefence counselprocedural delaylacuna in prosecution case
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which dismissed his application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to re-summon and re-examine a prosecution witness (P.W.11). The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to recall a witness for further cross-examination when the petitioner alleged his previous counsel provided inadequate representation. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court acted correctly and within its discretion. The record demonstrated that the petitioner was represented by both state-appointed and private counsel, who had sufficient time to prepare and conduct the cross-examination. The Court held that the discretionary power under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not intended to allow a party to fill lacunae in their case or to unnecessarily protract trial proceedings. The principle laid down is that while the court has broad powers to summon or re-examine witnesses to ensure justice, such powers cannot be invoked to defeat the ends of justice or delay the trial process.

  Questions settled

  • Can the power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to fill lacunae in a party's case?
  • Does the court have the discretion to refuse an application for re-summoning a witness if the trial has been adequately conducted?
  • Is a trial court required to re-summon a witness solely because an accused claims their previous counsel provided inadequate cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Aziz vs Waqas and another2017 MLD 987 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-03
  criminal appealmurderdying declarationbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceeyewitness credibilityacquittalsentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment, alongside a criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value and reliability of an oral dying declaration (FIR) made by the deceased without a medical certificate of consciousness, and whether cumulative contradictions in ocular testimony, medical evidence, and crime-scene recovery create sufficient doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. The Peshawar High Court held that the absence of a medical certificate or recorded opinion affirming the injured person's full consciousness at the time of lodging the FIR undermines its status as a reliable dying declaration, and that multiple inconsistencies regarding weapon caliber, entry wound dimensions, absence of blood at the crime scene or on witnesses, and uncorroborated eyewitness accounts create serious doubt. The court laid down the principle that the benefit of doubt arising from material contradictions in medical and ocular evidence must be extended to the accused, leading to the setting aside of the conviction, acquittal of the appellant, and dismissal of the sentence enhancement revision.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential prerequisites for according the evidentiary status of a dying declaration to a report lodged by a deceased-complainant?
  • Does the absence of a medical certificate or recorded observation regarding the consciousness of an injured person at the time of making an FIR vitiate its reliability as a dying declaration?
  • Whether material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding weapon calibers and injury dimensions are sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to an accused?
  • Can a conviction for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the site plan contradicts the medical evidence and lacks corroborative physical traces such as blood?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid and others vs The State2017 YLR 267 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-16
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubteyewitness testimonydelayed FIRhearsay evidenceacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court for murder under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the evidence presented. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, the reliance on hearsay evidence, and significant contradictions in the ocular accounts provided by the alleged eyewitnesses. Furthermore, the medical evidence regarding the time of death and the post-mortem delay cast further doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, answering the murder reference in the negative. The judgment reaffirms the established legal principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt, whether arising from contradictions or unexplained circumstances, must be resolved in favor of the accused, as the benefit of doubt is a fundamental right of the accused in criminal jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, where the police station is in close proximity, render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the ocular account is based on hearsay and contains material contradictions?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a right of the accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does the presence of undigested food in the stomach during a post-mortem examination, contradicting the alleged time of death, undermine the prosecution's timeline?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali vs The State2017 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-02
  criminal appealmurder convictioneyewitness testimonyreappraisal of evidenceconcurrent findingssentence commutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for murder. The appellant, Abid Ali, was convicted by the trial court for the murder of Manazir Ali under Section 302(b) and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and for house trespass under Section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence. The High Court maintained the convictions but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence. Upon review, the Court found the testimony of the complainant, the mother of the deceased, to be straightforward, natural, and inspiring confidence, noting her presence at the scene was expected given her relationship and proximity as a neighbour. The Court observed that the complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant, especially given the appellant's lack of direct connection to the alleged motive. Finding the medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness testimony and noting the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and the lenient sentence already granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a related eyewitness can be relied upon if it is straightforward and corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of guilt by lower courts when the evidence is found to be reliable?
  • Is the presence of a complainant at the scene of a crime considered natural if the occurrence takes place in the complainant's own home?
  Read full judgment →
• Abeer Qamar and anothers vs Controller of Examinations University2017 MLD 1347, 2017 PLJ AJ&K 112 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-10-28Read full judgment →
• Abeer Qamar and another vs Controller of Examinations, University2017 MLD 1347 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-10-28Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Kalyar vs District Coordination Officer, Chiniot and 32017 PLJ Lahore 230 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-04Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman and anothers vs Javed Mansoor and another2017 YLR 718 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-23Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rauf vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1096 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-24
  Anti-Terrorism Court jurisdictionpossession of explosivesThird Scheduletrial de novoKhyber Pakhtunkhwaexplosive substancescriminal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court for the possession of explosive substances. The core legal question addressed by the Peshawar High Court was whether the mere possession of explosives, absent any evidence of their use in specific locations such as places of worship or court premises, falls within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court held that the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, restricts the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Courts regarding explosives to instances where they are used in specific protected locations. The Court further clarified that while amendments regarding simple possession of explosives exist in other provinces, such amendments are not applicable to the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, ruling that the offence falls under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and is triable by an ordinary Court of Session. The matter was remanded for a de novo trial before the Sessions Judge, Peshawar, ensuring the proper legal forum for the adjudication of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of explosive substances fall within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court in the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?
  • Is the use of explosives in specific places of worship or court premises a prerequisite for Anti-Terrorism Court jurisdiction under the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Are amendments regarding the simple possession of explosives in other provinces applicable to the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?
  • Should a case involving the possession of explosives, which does not meet the criteria for an Anti-Terrorism Court, be remanded to an ordinary Court of Session?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs S. Fida-Ur-Rehman Shah2017 PLD Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-02
  defamationdamagesrejection of plaintfrivolous litigationregular first appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal was filed under Section 15 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree of the trial court which dismissed the appellant-plaintiff's suit for recovery of damages for defamation. The core legal question was whether the trial court could summarily dismiss or reject the plaint under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, and whether the published advertisement constituted actionable defamation. The Peshawar High Court held that although the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 does not explicitly provide for summary dismissal, Section 10 of the said Ordinance makes the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 applicable mutatis mutandis, thereby empowering the court to invoke Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject a plaint at any stage to prevent frivolous litigation. The court further held that the impugned advertisement did not constitute defamatory material under Section 3 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply to proceedings under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002?
  • Can a court summarily reject a plaint under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 by invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • What constitutes actionable defamation under Section 3 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rasheed vs The State2017 KLR Criminal Cases 103, 2017 MLD 557 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-05-26Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rab alias Ali Akber and others vs The State and another2017 SHC 230 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-31
  Anti-Terrorism Actjurisdictionpersonal enmityterrorismtarget killingpublic paniccriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which had declined an application under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, regarding the transfer of a murder case to an ordinary court. The core legal question was whether a murder case involving prior personal enmity and blood feuds could be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court. The Court held that the existence of personal enmity does not automatically exclude a case from the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court affirmed the Anti-Terrorism Court's jurisdiction, noting that the accused had planned the murder, followed the victims from another city, and executed the crime in a public place during the day, thereby creating a sense of fear and insecurity in the public. The key principle laid down is that to determine jurisdiction, courts must assess the motivation, object, design, or purpose behind the act, and the manner of its execution, rather than solely relying on the presence of personal vendetta.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of personal enmity or blood feud automatically exclude a case from the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • What criteria should a court apply to determine if an offence falls within the ambit of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can an act of murder committed in a public place after chasing the victims be classified as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Malik vs Ministry of Information Broadcasting and others2017 PLD Lahore 273 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-30Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan alias Amanat vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 278 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-20
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyattempted murderbinding precedentsubordinate judiciaryineffective firing
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arose from a case registered under Sections 324, 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner and co-accused were charged with attempting to kill the complainant and witnesses by firing at them ineffectively. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the rule of consistency, given that a co-accused with an identical role had already been granted bail by the High Court. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner's case stood on the same footing as that of the co-accused, thereby justifying the concession of bail. The Court laid down the principle that judgments of the superior courts are constitutionally binding on subordinate courts as precedents in cases with identical facts and circumstances. Subordinate courts must strictly follow these precedents or, if declining relief, must explicitly differentiate the case, rather than passing routine, cyclostyle rejection orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to the concession of bail under the rule of consistency if a co-accused with an identical role has already been granted bail?
  • Are the judgments of superior courts binding on subordinate courts in cases involving identical facts and circumstances?
  • Is a subordinate court required to explicitly differentiate the case of an accused from that of a bailed co-accused if it decides to decline bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and 3 others vs The State and another2017 LHC 3534 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wasay vs The StateK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 134 · Balochistan High Court
  murder convictionocular testimonyinterested witnesschance witnessdeath sentencecriminal appealrecovery of weaponappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Abdul Wasay, for murder under Section 302(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside an acquittal appeal regarding his co-accused. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony from related witnesses and the impact of minor improvements in their depositions on the prosecution's case. The Balochistan High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the testimony of the deceased’s father and uncle remained credible and consistent regarding the material facts, despite minor improvements. The court affirmed that mere relationship to the deceased does not render a witness "interested" absent proof of pre-existing enmity and lack of credibility. Furthermore, the court held that the appellant’s immediate arrest at the scene with the crime weapon corroborated the ocular account, eliminating the possibility of mistaken identity or false implication. The court distinguished between natural witnesses and "chance witnesses," discarding the latter's testimony when uncorroborated. Consequently, the conviction was maintained, and the acquittal appeal was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of a witness to the deceased render them an 'interested witness'?
  • Can minor improvements in the testimony of prosecution witnesses justify the rejection of their entire evidence?
  • Is the testimony of a 'chance witness' reliable when it is not corroborated by other evidence?
  • Does the immediate arrest of an accused at the crime scene with the weapon of offense strengthen the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wasay and another vs The State and othersK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 134, 2017 MLD 1778 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-05
  murderconvictiondeath sentence commutationocular testimonyinterested witnesschance witnessacquittal appealmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction, a murder reference, and an acquittal appeal arising from a judgment of the trial court. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved the charge against the convict-appellant beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, and whether the acquittal of the co-accused and the imposition of the death penalty were warranted. The Balochistan High Court held that the ocular testimony of natural and related witnesses, corroborated by immediate arrest at the spot with the crime weapon and medical evidence, established the guilt of the appellant Abdul Wasay for murder. However, considering mitigating circumstances such as a previous landed dispute, cross-cases, and the acquittal of co-accused, the court maintained the conviction under Section 302(b) but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while upholding the acquittal of the other respondents. The key principles laid down include that the mere relationship of eye-witnesses with the deceased does not render them interested witnesses when their presence is natural, and that existence of mitigating circumstances warrants the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment in murder cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased make them interested witnesses under criminal law?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when mitigating circumstances such as previous landed disputes and cross-cases exist?
  • Is the testimony of a chance witness reliable when direct and natural eye-witnesses are available?
  • Does the immediate arrest of an accused at the spot with the crime weapon sufficiently corroborate the prosecution's ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wajid vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2017 PLJ Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Deedar Ali Issran and others2017 SHC 391 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Wajid and others vs Bank of Punjab and others2017 CLD 1650 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs Mir Akbar khan and Others2017 SC AJK 436 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-12-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs M. Naseer-ud-din2017 SHC 13 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs Additional Sessions Judge and others2017 MLD 1319 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-27
  physical remandrevision petitionjudicial orderlocus standiconstitutional jurisdictionmisappropriationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition called in question the validity of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, whereby a revision petition against a Judicial Magistrate's order refusing further physical remand of the petitioner was accepted and the remand was granted. The core legal questions involved were whether an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate refusing physical remand is a judicial order subject to revision, and whether a complainant has the locus standi to file a revision petition against such an order. The Lahore High Court held that refusing physical remand constitutes a judicial function and that a complainant, being an aggrieved person, possesses the locus standi to file a revision petition under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, finding no illegality or valid ground to interfere with the impugned order in its constitutional jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that revision is maintainable against a Magistrate's refusal of physical remand in cases involving serious financial misappropriation.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate refusing physical remand considered a judicial order?
  • Does a complainant have the locus standi to file a revision petition against an order of a Judicial Magistrate refusing physical remand?
  • Whether a revision petition is maintainable against an order of a Magistrate refusing further physical remand of an accused?
  • Can the High Court interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with an appellate or revisional order granting physical remand for recovery in a fraud case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab through Legal Heirs vs Abdul Rasheed and others2017 PLD Sindh 56 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Khattak and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 PHC 624 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab and 4 others vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 568 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-12-26
  abduction for ransomchild witnessbenefit of doubtconfessional statementsuspicion vs proofappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Quetta, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 365-A read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question before the Balochistan High Court was whether the prosecution had established the charges of abduction for ransom and recovery of the minor abductee beyond reasonable doubt through consistent and reliable evidence. The High Court accepted the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the testimonies of the star prosecution witnesses were contradictory, the child witness's statement lacked independent corroboration and was tutored, the recovery of the abductee and weapons was highly doubtful, and material witnesses were withheld. The key principle laid down is that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of legal evidence, and even a single slight doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for abduction for ransom be sustained solely on the basis of contradictory testimonies and an untutored child witness lacking independent corroboration?
  • Whether suspicion can take the place of legal evidence in criminal trials?
  • Does a delay in recording a child witness's confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 diminish its evidentiary value?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to establish recovery and links to the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wadood vs The State2017 YLR 2310 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-12-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs Lahore High Court, Lahore and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 348 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-02
  writ jurisdictionHigh Court administrative ordersproforma promotionterms and conditions of servicemaintainability of petitionjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired employee of the Lahore High Court, sought proforma promotion and pensionary benefits, alleging that his juniors were promoted over him in 2014. He challenged the rejection of his representation, arguing that a writ petition against the High Court is maintainable based on a Supreme Court judgment regarding the Islamabad High Court. The Court addressed the core question of whether an administrative decision regarding service terms and conditions by the High Court is amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It distinguished the petitioner's case from the Supreme Court precedent, noting that the cited judgment concerned specific violations of Islamabad High Court Service Rules and did not establish that every administrative order is subject to writ jurisdiction. The Court reaffirmed the principle established in Abrar Hussain v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1976 SC 315) that actions and orders taken by the High Court or its judges in the exercise of their official functions are generally not amenable to writ jurisdiction, particularly absent any violation of rules or infringement of fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Are administrative orders passed by the High Court or its Chief Justice regarding service matters amenable to writ jurisdiction?
  • Does the Supreme Court judgment regarding Islamabad High Court appointments establish that all administrative orders of a High Court are subject to writ jurisdiction?
  • Is a petition seeking proforma promotion maintainable against the High Court when no violation of service rules or fundamental rights is demonstrated?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The Bank of Punjab through Branch Manager2017 CLD 1247 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-23
  financial institutionsex parte judgmentbanking courtservice of summonsrecovery of financesappeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 against an order of the Banking Court which dismissed an application to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree. The core legal question addressed is whether the appellant was validly served and whether an appeal directed solely against the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte order—while omitting to challenge the underlying judgment and decree—is maintainable. The Lahore High Court held that the appeal is without merit as the appellant was properly served through a bailiff and subsequent fixation at his residence, which constitutes valid service under the banking dispensation. Furthermore, the Court held that omitting to challenge the actual judgment and decree, which had attained finality, creates a fatal contradiction. The key principle laid down is that service through any one of the recognized modes under the law is sufficient, and a failure to challenge the final judgment and decree renders an appeal against collateral procedural orders ineffective.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal directed solely against the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte order is maintainable when the underlying judgment and decree are not challenged?
  • What constitutes valid and sufficient service of summons in a banking dispensation under the law?
  • Is it necessary to prove service through all modes simultaneously or is any one mode sufficient?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Mandokhel vs Administrator (CDGK)2017 SHC 328 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar etc. vs State.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 488 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-16
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencesifting grain from chaffmurder referenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences awarded by the trial court for the murder of two brothers. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s ocular account, which was partially discredited by the investigative exoneration of co-accused and inconsistencies with medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the appellants' convictions. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution’s case was fraught with reasonable doubts. The court observed that the exoneration of other co-accused, coupled with the implausibility of the bullet trajectory and the lack of independent corroboration, rendered the ocular testimony unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution case is partially discredited or fails to establish the guilt of all accused through reliable evidence, the principle of sifting grain from chaff cannot be invoked to sustain convictions against others in the absence of independent corroboration, as justice and truth must remain synonymous.

  Questions settled

  • Can the principle of sifting grain from chaff be applied to sustain a conviction when the prosecution case is found to be unreliable regarding other co-accused?
  • Is it safe to maintain a conviction based on ocular testimony when it contradicts the medical evidence regarding the trajectory of the bullet?
  • Does the exoneration of co-accused during the investigation process necessitate independent corroboration to sustain the conviction of the remaining accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Dadabhoy and 2 others vs Director-General, National2017 PLD Sindh 331 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-05
  National Accountability Ordinance 1999Accountability Courtclosure of investigationSection 9(c) NAOjudicial reviewconstitutional jurisdictioncheck and balance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an Accountability Court's order rejecting the National Accountability Bureau's (NAB) application to close an investigation against the petitioners under Section 9(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The core legal question concerned whether the Accountability Court acts merely as a rubber stamp for the Chairman NAB’s closure decision and whether the Court’s approval power under Section 9(c) is contingent upon the accused being in custody. The Court held that the Accountability Court is not a rubber stamp; the legislative intent behind Section 9(c) is to provide a check and balance on the Chairman’s powers. The Court must apply its judicial mind to the investigation material and issue a speaking order. The custody status of the accused is a separate, secondary limb of Section 9(c) and does not limit the Court's authority to review closure applications. While the Court cannot compel the Chairman to file a reference, it may provide non-binding recommendations. The impugned order was set aside and remanded for reconsideration regarding the nature of the dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Accountability Court have the jurisdiction to reject the Chairman NAB's application to close an investigation under Section 9(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Is the Accountability Court's power to approve or reject the closure of an investigation under Section 9(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 dependent on whether the accused is in custody?
  • Can an Accountability Court direct the Chairman NAB to file a reference after rejecting an application to close an investigation?
  • What is the scope of the Accountability Court's role when reviewing an application to close an investigation under Section 9(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Abdul Sattar (2) Muhammad Shoaib (3) The State vs (1) The State (2)2017 LHC 965 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-16
  murderbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidenceprinciple of siftingindependent corroborationcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the murder of two brothers, Abdul Ghaffar and Zulfiqar Hussain, in District Rawalpindi, for which appellants Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Shoaib were convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, alongside convictions for related injuries under Sections 337-A(ii) and 337-F(i). The core legal question addressed is whether the conviction of the appellants could be sustained when the prosecution case suffered from major flaws, including the exoneration of co-accused during investigation, contradictions between ocular accounts and medical evidence, and a lack of reliable independent corroboration. The Court held that the prosecution case was fraught with serious doubts, the principle of sifting grain from chaff could not be invoked to rescue a compromised case, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The Lahore High Court consequently allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and death sentences, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction of an accused can be sustained when the prosecution case is fraught with doubts and contradictions regarding the role of co-accused?
  • Can the principle of sifting grain from chaff be applied to uphold a conviction in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the firearm injury trajectory warrant the extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to acquittal when the investigation exonerates multiple co-accused and the remaining evidence lacks independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sammad alias Sammad vs The State and another2017 YLR 1967 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-18
  double murderdeath sentence confirmationocular evidenceabscondanceminor contradictionscriminal appealinjured witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence handed down by the trial court for double murder and causing injuries to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s case, based on ocular testimony, medical evidence, and motive, was sufficient to sustain the conviction despite defense arguments regarding minor contradictions and existing enmity. The Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence, finding the prosecution's evidence reliable and consistent. The court held that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not warrant discarding testimony if the evidence is otherwise straightforward and confidence-inspiring. Furthermore, the court established that the presence of enmity does not automatically discredit natural eyewitnesses, particularly when those witnesses are also injured victims. Additionally, the court affirmed that the abscondance of an accused, when supported by other evidence, serves as a valid corroborative piece of evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of minor contradictions in the statements of eyewitnesses necessitate the rejection of their testimony?
  • Can the abscondance of an accused be considered as corroborative evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Is the testimony of an eyewitness to be discarded solely on the ground of pre-existing enmity between the parties?
  • Should the court read isolated sentences from evidence to favor the defense or consider the evidence as a whole?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The Chairman National Accountability Bureau & others2017 SHC 140 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Mst. Ruqia Begum, etc.2017 LHC 2199 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Justice of Peace etc2019 PLJ Lahore 59, 2019 CLD 85, 2017 LHC 4214 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Abdul Sattar2017 PLJ Lahore 829, 2017 LHC 1593 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Sadiq and others vs Government of Punjab and others2017 SCMR 1648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-04-11
  Punjab Highway Patrolpolice cadrepromotion quotaAssistant Sub-Inspectorservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions filed by Police Constables of the Punjab Highway Patrol impugning a High Court judgment that maintained orders declaring the Punjab Highway Patrol, Traffic Police Wardens, and Police Constabulary as distinct cadres separate from the Punjab Police. The core legal question was whether constables belonging to specialized wings such as the Punjab Highway Patrol are entitled to apply for the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors in the Punjab Police against the 25% quota reserved for graduate serving police constables and head constables. The Supreme Court held that the service rules, methods of appointment, and promotion tracks of these separate wings are distinct, and a past practice in violation of rules creates no enforceable right. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that members of separate police wings and cadres cannot claim promotion quotas outside their respective cadres, and that the enforcement of service rules is not contingent upon their formal publication date.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constables of the Punjab Highway Patrol are entitled to compete for promotion against the 25% quota reserved for graduate constables of the Punjab Police?
  • Does a practice in violation of statutory service rules confer any enforceable right?
  • Is the application and enforcement of service rules contingent upon the date of their formal publication?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and others vs Ghulam Fatima and others2017 YLR 2276 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman alias Lalo and another vs Mst. Shani Qayyum etc.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Quetta) 783 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-12
  honour killinganti-terrorism court jurisdictioncriminal revisiontransfer of caseprivate motiveterrorism definition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order by the Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Quetta, which rejected an application under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to transfer a murder case involving allegations of honour killing to an ordinary court of criminal jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the offence of honour killing, as alleged in the private complaint, falls within the ambit of 'terrorism' as defined under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, thereby necessitating trial by a Special Court. The Court held that the allegations, being essentially a private dispute involving honour killing, lacked the requisite design, purpose, or impact on public security to constitute an act of terrorism. Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Khuda-e-Noor v. The State (PLD 2016 SC 195), the Court concluded that honour killing does not attract the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Quetta, for trial under ordinary criminal jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence of honour killing fall within the ambit of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What criteria must be applied to determine if an act constitutes terrorism for the purpose of trial by a Special Court?
  • Can a case involving a private dispute and honour killing be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid son of Hidayat-ullah, caste Bhatti, r_o village Gotha Galari, Tehsil and District Muzaffarabad vs Abdul Rashid and 8 others2017 SC AJK 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and 8 others vs Lal Muhammad and 2 others2017 YLR 2341 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed through LRs and others vs Muhammad Akhtar and another2017 LHC 3455 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed and 2 others vs The StateK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 150 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-29
  post-arrest baildacoitydelay in FIRfurther inquirydisclosure of co-accused
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 23 of 2017 registered under Sections 395 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at City Police Station, Mastung. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delay in lodging the FIR, lack of nomination, absence of recovery, and reliance on a co-accused's disclosure. The Balochistan High Court held that the unexplained delay of 21 to 22 hours in lodging the FIR, coupled with the lack of direct evidence, non-nomination in the FIR, and absence of recoveries, brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established that where pre-trial incarceration serves no useful purpose and the case falls for further inquiry, bail should be granted as a general rule rather than an exception. Consequently, the bail application was accepted and the applicants were admitted to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the disclosure statement of a co-accused without supporting recovery or direct evidence justifies the refusal of post-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right when the trial has not progressed and further incarceration serves no useful purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim Zubair Butt, Judge Family Court, Azad Jammu & Kashmir2017 SC AJK 122 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  subordinate judiciaryremoval from servicecompetent authorityservice tribunallimitation periodcondonation of delaymisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal. The appellant, a former Judge Family Court, was removed from service following an inquiry into an alleged unauthorized telephonic call made from his residence to the Chief Justice of the High Court. After his removal by the Chief Justice, the appellant unsuccessfully sought reinstatement through a representation to the Prime Minister before approaching the Service Tribunal. The core legal questions involved the competency of the Chief Justice as the disciplinary authority, the applicability of special removal laws to judicial officers, and the limitation period for filing service appeals. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of the High Court is the competent disciplinary authority for judicial officers, that the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001 applies to members of the judiciary, and that the appeal before the Service Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred. The key principles laid down are that the judiciary remains independent of the executive for disciplinary matters, representations to the Prime Minister against orders of the Chief Justice are incompetent, and pursuit of remedies at a wrong forum due to negligent advice does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

  Questions settled

  • Who constitutes the competent authority for initiating disciplinary proceedings and removing a judicial officer of the subordinate judiciary?
  • Whether the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001 applies to judicial officers belonging to the subordinate judiciary?
  • Does a representation lie before the Prime Minister against an order of removal passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court regarding a judicial officer?
  • Can the time spent pursuing a remedy before a wrong forum on the basis of erroneous legal advice be accepted as sufficient cause for condoning delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim vs Ali Bux and 4 others2017 P Cr. L J 228 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-28
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtdouble presumption of innocenceocular evidencemedical evidence contradictionSection 103 Cr.P.C.torchlight identification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of the VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, which acquitted the respondents of offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 114, and 149, P.P.C., by extending the benefit of doubt. The core legal issues revolved around whether the trial court correctly appraised the evidence, whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence rendered the prosecution case doubtful, and whether grounds existed to overturn the acquittal. The High Court observed substantial contradictions among eye-witnesses regarding the role of accused and seats of injuries, non-examination of independent witnesses, failure to produce the torchlight used for night identification, non-compliance with Section 103, Cr.P.C. during recoveries, and conflict with medical findings. Holding that an acquitted accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence that can only be disturbed if the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on misreading of evidence, the High Court found no illegality and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What standard of proof and grounds are required for an appellate court to interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  • Does an uncorroborated identification made via torchlight during the dark hours of the night constitute reliable evidence for conviction?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the nature and seat of injuries?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality under Section 103, Cr.P.C. render recovery evidence inadmissible or unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim and another vs Chief Secretary Balochistan, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and 2 others2017 [M] C.L.R. 1361 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim and another vs Chief Secretary Balochistan, Government2017 PLD Balochistan 105 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs Muhammad Rafique and Others2017 SC AJK 445 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-12-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Khan vs Sheikh Muhammad Azeem2017 LHC 530 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Awan vs Director General Anti-Corruption and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 331 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 2016-09-09
  service tribunalsuperannuationrecovery of salarypensionary benefitscorrection of date of birthcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed before the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal against a notification retiring the appellant from service and ordering the recovery of salary and benefits received after the date of superannuation due to ongoing litigation over his date of birth. The core legal question was whether a civil servant can be compelled to refund salary drawn for services actually rendered beyond the age of superannuation while litigating before judicial forums. The Tribunal held that a civil servant who renders extra or additional services after the date of retirement due to pending litigation cannot be ordered to refund the salary and emoluments drawn for that working period, and such a period is treated as service on contract. The key principle laid down is that no recovery or deduction of wages can be effected from a civil servant's pensionary benefits for the period they actually worked without objection or due to judicial proceedings, as an employee cannot be penalized for working when no fraud is attributed to them.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department recover salary and emoluments paid to a civil servant for services actually rendered after the date of superannuation during pending litigation?
  • Whether a civil servant can be penalized by salary deduction for continuing to work past the retirement age due to orders or proceedings before judicial forums?
  • Is a civil servant required to refund wages drawn for the period they remained in service past the retirement date when no suppression of age or mala fides is established against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum and another vs The State and another2017 LHC 694 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-02
  pre-arrest bailtentative assessmentunexplained delay in FIRta'zirprevious non-convictrecovery of weaponshurt offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 665/16 registered at Police Station Sadar Sargodha for offences under sections 337A(ii), 337F(i), 337F(iv), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the injuries and the petitioners' criminal history. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that the unexplained seven-day delay in FIR registration, the injured party's failure to appear before the Standing Medical Board, and the fact that the petitioners were previous non-convicts and not hardened criminals favored the grant of bail. Furthermore, the Court noted that recovery of weapons was irrelevant due to the lapse of time. The key principle laid down is that under Section 337N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, additional punishment of ta'zir is reserved for previous convicts or hardened, dangerous, or desperate criminals, or offences committed on the pretext of honour, none of which applied to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Under what circumstances can additional punishment of ta'zir be awarded in cases of hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the recovery of weapons relevant for the purpose of denying pre-arrest bail after a significant lapse of time from the occurrence?
  • Can a person be denied pre-arrest bail solely for the purpose of effecting recovery of weapons?
  Read full judgment →