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.

• Shahid alias Pappa vs The State2016 MLD 1441 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-03
  narcoticscharas recoverychain of custodycontradictions in prosecution evidencebenefit of reasonable doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the prosecution successfully proved the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the chain of custody and the reliability of recovery evidence. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that material contradictions among the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the dates and times of the alleged recovery, handing over of the contraband to the investigating officer, deposit with the Moharrar, and transmission to the chemical examiner rendered the prosecution's case highly doubtful. The key legal principle laid down is that the prosecution must affirmatively prove every step of the case from the arrest of the accused and seizure of contraband until its receipt at the forensic laboratory, and any material contradiction or break in the chain of custody entitles the accused to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction in the dates and times regarding the recovery of narcotics and its handling vitiate the conviction?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove every link in the chain of custody from the seizure of contraband to its analysis by the chemical examiner?
  • What is the legal effect of material discrepancies among police witnesses regarding the site plan and investigation proceedings?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ahmad vs District Education Officer (M-Ee), Narowal and 2 othersKLR 2016 Labour & Service Case · Service Tribunal · 2016-05-26
  service appealdisciplinary proceedingsPEEDA Actunauthorized penaltyreinstatementde novo proceedingsnullity in law
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the appellant's expulsion from service as an Elementary School Teacher. The core legal questions involved whether the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent major punishment of expulsion under the PEEDA Act, 2006 were validly conducted and whether a penalty not prescribed by law could be sustained. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that since the inquiry officer recommended withdrawing proceedings and the punishing authority did not follow Section 13 of the PEEDA Act, 2006 for a fresh inquiry, and instead imposed an unprescribed major punishment of expulsion through a void order, the impugned orders could not sustain. The Tribunal laid down the principles that penalties not prescribed in the relevant law are a nullity in the eye of law, and that orders passed without lawful authority are void, allowing the appeal and remanding the matter for de novo proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a punishing authority can impose a major punishment not provided under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
  • What is the legal consequence of passing an order of expulsion without adhering to the statutory requirements of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
  • Can a penalty not prescribed in the relevant law be sustained in service matters?
  • Whether an order passed by an authority not competent in law is considered a nullity, bypassing questions of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Ullah vs Allah Noor and another2016 YLR 1398 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-03
  bail cancellationfurther inquirypolice investigationipse dixit of policemurdermisuse of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner, Shaheen Ullah, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 1, Allah Noor, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the bail granted to the accused on the grounds of further inquiry and police findings of innocence should be cancelled for misuse of concession or perversity of the lower court's order. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court had provided sound reasons for granting bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as eyewitnesses during investigation did not support the petitioner's initial stance, and the police findings of innocence, though not binding, remain relevant at the bail stage. The Court laid down the principle that interference with a bail order granted under the ambit of further inquiry requires strong, exceptional grounds or proof of misuse, and that reasons for granting and cancelling bail are distinct, with no arbitrary exercise of discretion shown by the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the findings of innocence by the police during investigation are relevant at the bail stage?
  • Can bail granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be easily interfered with on allegations of misuse without sufficient nexus and proof?
  • What are the distinct considerations required for the grant of bail versus the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Pay TV (Private) Limited 3-a, Mezzanine Floor, Fayyaz Centre, Shahrah-e-Faisal vs 1. Shaheen Foundation Paf 13-L, Commercial Area F-7_2 Islamabad Commissioner (CLD) SecSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Pay TV (Private) Limited 3-a, Mezzanine Floor, Fayyaz Centre, Shahrah-e-Faisal Karachi vs Shaheen Foundation Paf 13-L, Commercial Area F-7_2 Islamabad Commissioner (CLD) SecAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Pay TV (Private) Limited 3-a, Mezzanine Floor, Fayyaz Centre, Shahrah-e-Faisal Karachi vs 1. Shaheen Foundation Paf 13-L, Commercial Area F-7_2 Islamabad Commissioner (CLD) SecAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Insurance Company Limited Mr. M. lkramullah Bhatti, ChairmanAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Foundation Paf, vs M/s. Shaheen Pay TV (Pvt) LimitedSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz vs The State2016 SCMR 1763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-06-02
  Criminal AppealMurderAcquittal of co-accusedBenefit of doubtIndependent corroborationEye-witness testimonySuppression of evidenceProsecution caseReasonable doubtFalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of Shahbaz appellant for stabbing Aftab Akhtar deceased. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly considering the acquittal of co-accused Muhammad Abbas, who had an identical role and against whom the motive was more relevant. The Supreme Court observed that the eye-witnesses, having been disbelieved against the co-accused whose acquittal was unchallenged, were capable of falsehood. Furthermore, the prosecution suppressed the fact that the appellant also sustained injuries, a version corroborated by medical evidence. The Court reiterated the principle that eye-witnesses disbelieved against one accused cannot be relied upon for others without independent corroboration. Finding no independent corroboration, and noting issues like a delayed post-mortem and the unreliability of the motive and recovery evidence, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.

  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Khan vs State, etc.PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 243 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-27
  post-arrest bailmurderbenefit of doubttentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case arising from FIR No. 164/15 registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of his wife by strangulation at Police Station Kot Chuttah, District Dera Ghazi Khan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry and grant of post-arrest bail given the lack of direct evidence and incriminating material. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner successfully made out a case for bail as there was no direct evidence, the prosecution case relied on suspicion and speculation, conflicting versions existed regarding the cause of death, children of the deceased did not support the prosecution, and it was a dark night occurrence. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment and that reasonable grounds must exist to connect the accused to the crime, with the benefit of doubt at the bail stage going in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be withheld as a punishment for offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
  • Does the benefit of doubt at the bail stage go in favor of the accused when prosecution relies on mere suspicion and speculation?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when there is no direct evidence connecting him to the commission of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Khan alias Tippu and others vs Special Judge Anti-Terrorism2016 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-09-15
  anti-terrorism jurisdictionmens reaindiscriminate firingprivate disputenatural consequences of acttransfer of caseterrorist act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal addressed whether the High Court correctly interfered with an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) that had transferred a criminal case for trial before an ordinary Sessions Court, and whether the principles regarding terrorism jurisdiction laid down in prior precedents were adhered to. The core legal question concerned how to determine the presence of 'design', intention, or mens rea under Section 6(1)(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, when a crime is triggered by a private property dispute but involves extreme, indiscriminate violence in a public place. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in setting aside the ATC's order, ruling that while a private family dispute sparked the incident, the wanton and ruthless manner of the multiple killings on a public street demonstrated an objective intent to create fear and insecurity. The Court laid down the key principle that the natural and inevitable consequences of an accused's overt acts and surrounding circumstances must be considered to ascertain mens rea, and that a motive stated in an FIR is not solely decisive when the scale of violence far exceeds the private grievance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence arising from a private property dispute can fall within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • How is the design, intention, or mens rea for an act of terrorism to be ascertained by a court of law?
  • Does the motive disclosed in the First Information Report (FIR) conclusively determine the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Does the transfer of a case from an Anti-Terrorism Court to an ordinary criminal court result in a de novo trial violating constitutional protections against double jeopardy?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Khan Alias Tippu and Others vs Learned Special Judge Atc No.2016 PLD Supreme Court 1, 2016 PLJ SC 41, 2016 NLR Criminal 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-09-15
  Anti-Terrorism Actjurisdiction of ATCterrorism definitionmens rea in terrorismprivate dispute and terrorismindiscriminate firingnatural and inevitable consequencestransfer of case
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's judgment that reversed an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) order returning a case for trial by the ordinary Sessions Court. The prosecution case arose from a domestic property dispute where hired gunmen opened indiscriminate fire on a public residential street, killing five persons and injuring two. The central issue was whether the incident fell under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 given that the FIR stated a private motive. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that jurisdiction under the ATA is assessed tentatively from police reports and surrounding circumstances rather than solely from the motive in the FIR. The Court laid down that mens rea, design, or intention under Section 6(1)(b) of the ATA is to be gathered from overt acts, the manner of execution, weapons used, and surrounding circumstances; offenders are presumed to intend the natural and inevitable consequences of their actions. The Court also clarified that transfer under Section 23 ATA does not entail double jeopardy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court is determined solely by the private motive stated in the FIR or by looking at the overt acts and surrounding circumstances?
  • Can an accused person be presumed to intend the natural and inevitable consequences of their actions to establish the 'design' required under Section 6(1)(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Does the transfer of a criminal case from an Anti-Terrorism Court to an ordinary Sessions Court under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 violate the protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Khan alias Tippu and others vs Learned Special Judge Atc No. 32016 PLJ SC 41 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  anti-terrorism courtjurisdictionnexus with ATAmens reaprivate motiveindiscriminate firingtransfer of casepublic streetnatural and inevitable consequences
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal addressed whether the High Court correctly interfered with an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) order that had transferred a murder case to an ordinary Sessions Court on the ground that the underlying cause was a private property dispute. The core legal question concerned how to determine whether an offence falls within the statutory definition of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, particularly when a private dispute results in multiple killings on a public street. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while a private motive or family dispute may spark an occurrence, the manner of its commission, the lack of personal grouse by the hired gunmen, the public location, and the indiscriminate firing create an inevitable inference of a design to cause fear and insecurity in society. The Court laid down the principle that an accused is deemed to intend the natural and inevitable consequences of their actions, and courts must look beyond the bare motive alleged in the FIR to the surrounding circumstances, overt acts, and scale of violence when ascertaining the mens rea of terrorism.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction could interfere with the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court returning a case for trial before an ordinary court?
  • How is the design, intention, or mens rea for an act of terrorism to be ascertained when a private motive or family dispute is disclosed in the First Information Report?
  • Does a crime triggered by a private property dispute automatically fall outside the statutory definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Whether a retrial is necessitated when a case is transferred from an Anti-Terrorism Court to a court exercising ordinary criminal jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Wazir Khan vs Government of KPK through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and 2 otherss2016 PLJ Peshawar 257 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shah Tariq, etc vs Tarlq.Usman, etc2016 C.L.R. 1216 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-07Read full judgment →
• Shah Tariq, Etc vs Tariq Usman, Etc.2016 LHC 981 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-07Read full judgment →
• Shah Tariq and otherss vs Tariq Usman and others2016 C.L.R. 1216, 2016 LHC 981, 2016 YLR 2444 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-07Read full judgment →
• Shah Pur vs The State2016 MLD 857 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Mst. Khurshid Begum and others2016 MLD 135 · Lahore High Court · 2013-01-09
  civil revisionmutationlimitationdeclaratory suitmisreading and non-reading of evidenceconcurrent findingsrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondents against a revenue mutation sanctioned in 1979 was decreed. The core legal questions involved the validity of setting aside a mutation without challenging the underlying order of the Tehsildar, as well as the issue of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1908. The Lahore High Court held that the lower courts committed grave miscarriage of justice through non-reading and misreading of evidence by ignoring that the foundational order of the Tehsildar was neither challenged on the revenue side nor in the civil suit, and further held that the suit filed after fourteen years was barred by the six-year limitation period prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the concurrent judgments and decrees were set aside, and the respondents' suit was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a revenue mutation can be set aside by a civil court without challenging the underlying order of the revenue officer on the basis of which it was sanctioned?
  • Does a declaratory suit filed fourteen years after the attestation of a mutation fall within the six-year limitation period prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts be set aside in revision on the grounds of misreading and non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Messrs Sapphir Textile Mills LTDthrough Notified2016 PLC 436 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 2014-10-31
  Workmen's CompensationRes JudicataDesertion of ServiceDisability ClaimLabour LawEmployment Dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, which dismissed the appellant's claim for compensation regarding an alleged disability. The appellant, an employee of the respondent textile mill, claimed to be a heart patient and sought financial compensation, alleging he was unfit for work. The respondent contended that the appellant had deserted his service, had been declared fit for duty by the Social Security Hospital, and was attempting to extort money. The Tribunal observed that the appellant admitted in cross-examination to being declared fit for duty previously and had been residing in Karachi for years, effectively deserting his employment. Furthermore, the medical evidence indicated that any loss of earning capacity was temporary and not caused by his employment at the mill. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant's claim was barred by the principle of res judicata, as a previous application on the same issue had been dismissed. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower authority's dismissal of the claim, finding no merit in the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to a subsequent application for workmen's compensation when a previous application on the same issue was dismissed?
  • Is an employer liable to pay compensation for a medical condition that is not work-related?
  • Can an employee claim disability compensation after having been declared fit for duty by a medical authority and subsequently deserting service?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Karim Bakht and another vs Mst. Jehan Zeba and 4 others2016 MLD 1896 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-18
  partition of landrevenue recordco-sharerpresumption of correctnessstay of proceedingsquestion of titlewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the concurrent findings of the revenue hierarchy, which allowed a partition application filed by a co-sharer despite the petitioners' objections regarding title. The core legal question was whether partition proceedings under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, must be stayed merely because a party asserts a dispute over title and has initiated a separate civil suit. The Court held that the revenue authorities correctly proceeded with the partition. It reasoned that entries in the revenue record carry a strong presumption of correctness under Section 52 of the Act, and a mere assertion of a title dispute does not automatically mandate a stay of partition proceedings under Section 141. The Court emphasized that a co-sharer cannot be deprived of their right to partition or the usufruct of their property based on unsubstantiated claims of a prior gift ('Bakhsheesh'). The principle laid down is that partition proceedings cannot be halted indefinitely on the mere assertion of a title dispute; such proceedings must continue unless a competent civil court determines otherwise, and any subsequent decree can be implemented through the mutation process.

  Questions settled

  • Can partition proceedings under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 be stayed merely on the assertion of a party that a question of title is involved?
  • Does an entry in the revenue record regarding joint ownership provide a sufficient basis for a Revenue Officer to proceed with a partition application?
  • Is a co-sharer entitled to seek partition of joint land despite a pending civil suit filed by other co-sharers claiming a prior gift of the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Gul vs Director General, Pakistan Post Office, Islamabad and 22016 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 108 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2016-01-14
  service appealspeaking ordertransfer and postingdepartmental representationduty to give reasonscivil servantpublic functionaries
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an appeal filed by a professional Dispenser working in the Pakistan Post Office who was transferred and directed to perform duties as a Lower Division Clerk due to staff shortage. The appellant challenged his transfer order and subsequently filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973, after his departmental representation was rejected through a non-speaking communication. The core legal question was whether a departmental authority is bound to pass a speaking order containing reasons when deciding a civil servant's representation. The Tribunal held that public functionaries and departmental authorities have a statutory and legal duty under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 to consider representations objectively, act fairly and justly, and provide reasoned speaking orders. The Tribunal set aside the non-speaking rejection order and directed the competent authority to decide the appellant's representation afresh after affording him an opportunity of hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Is a departmental authority legally bound to record reasons while rejecting a civil servant's representation?
  • Does a non-speaking rejection order passed by a departmental authority violate Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • Can an administrative transfer of a professional medical staff member to perform clerical duties be sustained without a reasoned consideration of their representation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Faisal vs The State2016 YLR 721 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-12-01
  criminal appealmurder by policemistake of factaccidentrelated witnessesindependent corroborationpolice brutality
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting and sentencing two police officials under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of an innocent citizen. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, and whether the appellants' acts were protected under general exceptions such as Sections 76 and 80 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants through reliable and confidence-inspiring testimonies of both related and independent eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of crime weapons. The Court ruled that police officers cannot claim immunity under Sections 76 and 80 for intentionally killing an unarmed citizen under the guise of official duty. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the convictions were upheld, laying down that extrajudicial killing or the excessive use of fatal force by law enforcement on unarmed individuals is unlawful and brutal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related witnesses requires independent corroboration when found to be confidence-inspiring and truthful?
  • Can police officials claim protection under general exceptions such as Sections 76 and 80 of the Pakistan Penal Code for intentionally shooting an unarmed citizen?
  • Does the recovery of crime weapons from the possession of accused police personnel strengthen the prosecution case?
  • Whether substitution of real culprits by a close relative of the deceased is a common phenomenon in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Bali and another vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 549 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-31
  criminal appealmurdercommon intentionbenefit of doubtcontradictory evidencematrimonial disputecatching hold roleappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a fatal assault during a matrimonial dispute. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants shared a common intention with the principal absconding accused and actively participated in the murder by holding the deceased. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellants. The Court held that the role attributed to the appellants of merely catching hold of the 70-year-old deceased was doubtful, uncorroborated by reliable or unimpeachable evidence, and fraught with material contradictions among partisan witnesses. The Court established that common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cannot be presumed without pre-concert or shared design, and that in capital cases, the benefit of any doubt arising from inconsistent testimonies or background matrimonial animosity must be resolved in favour of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the role of catching hold of a deceased person without inflicting any injury is sufficient to attract joint liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on the basis of contradictory and partisan eyewitness testimony without independent corroboration?
  • Does the existence of a prior matrimonial dispute between the families raise a strong probability of false implication requiring the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  • What constitutes sufficient proof of pre-concert and common intention in a murder trial involving multiple accused with distinct roles?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Alamgir and 4 others vs Zamindaran-E-Birgal through Representatives and 2 others2016 CLC 570 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-04-10Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Hussain vs President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 8 others2016 PLD Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-05-11
  death penaltyjuvenile statuspresidential clemencyfinality of litigationconstitutional petitionfair trialjudicial reviewwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a death row convict seeking a judicial inquiry into his age to establish juvenile status, aiming to facilitate a plea for presidential clemency under Article 45 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner, having exhausted all appellate remedies including a review petition before the Supreme Court, sought to challenge the finality of his conviction by raising a belated plea of juvenility. The core legal question was whether the High Court, under Article 199, could order a fresh inquiry into the petitioner's age or compel the President to exercise clemency powers after the criminal proceedings had attained finality. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had received a fair trial and that the plea of juvenility was raised too late. Affirming the doctrine of finality of litigation (Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium), the Court ruled that it cannot reopen settled criminal convictions or compel the President to exercise discretionary clemency powers. The judgment emphasizes that courts cannot engage in roving inquiries into facts already adjudicated, as doing so undermines the criminal justice system.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court issue a writ under Article 199 to reopen a criminal conviction that has attained finality after the exhaustion of all appellate remedies?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to compel the President of Pakistan to exercise the power of pardon or commutation under Article 45 of the Constitution?
  • Can a plea of juvenility be raised for the first time after the dismissal of a review petition by the Supreme Court?
  • Is an executive inquiry initiated by the government into a convict's age subject to judicial interference when the underlying criminal conviction is final?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Masih alias Mian Masih vs State & anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 24 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-15Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed Khan and others vs Nescom through Chairman, Islamabad and others2016 PLD Supreme Court 377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-21
  statutory rulesNational Command Authorityrule making powerFederal Government approvalconstitutional jurisdictionArticle 199per incuriamsub silentioterms and conditions of serviceautonomy of institution
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court addressed the controversy regarding the statutory status of Rules framed under Section 15 of the National Command Authority Act, 2010. The core legal question was whether these Rules, which do not explicitly require approval by the Federal Government, are statutory or merely administrative instructions, and consequently, whether their violation is amenable to constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court held that the Rules framed under Sections 7, 9, and 15 of the National Command Authority Act, 2010, are statutory. The decision emphasized that the statutory nature of rules is determined by their intrinsic character, scope, and efficacy, particularly when they deal with matters of crucial importance and are complementary to the parent statute, rather than solely by the requirement of Federal Government approval or gazette notification. The Court reasoned that the Authority itself, composed of high-ranking government and military officials, acts as the Federal Government incarnate, rendering separate approval unnecessary. Statutory rules were deemed essential for the Authority's autonomy, independence, and efficacy, and for safeguarding employees' terms and conditions of service.

  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad Khan, etc. vs Nescom through its Chairman, Islamabad, etc2016 P.S.C. 586 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  National Command Authority Act 2010statutory rulesservice conditionswrit jurisdictionconstitutional petitionadministrative lawinterpretation of statutes
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legal status of service rules framed by the National Command Authority under the National Command Authority Act, 2010. The core legal question was whether these rules are 'statutory' in nature, thereby rendering them amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, despite lacking explicit approval from the Federal Government. The Supreme Court held that the rules framed under Sections 7, 9, and 15 of the Act are indeed statutory. The Court established that the statutory status of rules is determined by their nature and area of efficacy rather than mere form or the requirement of government approval. Because the Act empowers the Authority—comprising high-level state officials—to prescribe terms and conditions of service for employees in sensitive strategic organizations, these rules are complementary to the parent statute and essential for its operation. The Court rejected the argument that the absence of Federal Government approval renders them non-statutory, noting that the legislature did not mandate such approval, and the Authority itself functions with high-level representation, making the rules statutory by attribute.

  Questions settled

  • Are the rules framed under Section 15 of the National Command Authority Act, 2010, statutory in nature?
  • Does the absence of explicit Federal Government approval render rules framed by a statutory authority non-statutory?
  • What is the primary criterion for determining whether rules framed by a statutory body possess statutory force?
  • Are the terms and conditions of service for employees of the National Command Authority governed by statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad Khan, etc vs Nescom through its Chairman, Islamabad, etc2016 P.S.C. 586 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  statutory rulesNational Command Authorityjudicial reviewterms and conditions of servicewrit jurisdictionsubordinate legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter concerns the legal status of the Rules framed under Section 15 of the National Command Authority Act, 2010, specifically whether they are statutory in nature despite lacking explicit approval from the Federal Government. The core legal question was whether the absence of such approval renders the Rules non-statutory and thus immune from judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court held that the Rules framed under Sections 7, 9, and 15 of the Act are indeed statutory. The Court established the principle that the statutory status of rules is determined by their nature and area of efficacy rather than the mere requirement of external approval. Rules that address matters of crucial importance, such as the terms and conditions of service for employees of a strategic organization, and which are complementary to the parent statute, possess statutory force. Because the Authority itself comprises high-level officials, the legislature did not intend for external approval, and the Rules are therefore binding and enforceable, rendering them amenable to constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Rules framed under Section 15 of the National Command Authority Act, 2010, statutory in nature?
  • Does the absence of Federal Government approval render rules framed by a statutory authority non-statutory?
  • What is the determining factor for whether subordinate legislation possesses statutory force?
  • Are the terms and conditions of service for employees of the National Command Authority regulated by statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique a Shahzad vs The State and another2016 P Cr. LJ 1153 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-03
  post-arrest bailmisuse of authorityNational Accountability Bureauallotment of plotsdocumentary evidencefurther inquirydeputation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant on deputation to the Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (FGEHF), sought post-arrest bail in a case initiated by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) regarding allegations of misuse of authority in the creation and allotment of residential plots. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail pending trial, given the nature of the alleged offences under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the investigation was essentially complete, the case relied on documentary evidence already in NAB's possession, and there was no risk of tampering. Furthermore, the disputed plot allotted to the petitioner had been cancelled, and the property remained with the FGEHF, negating immediate loss to the exchequer. The Court affirmed the principle that where a case rests on documentary evidence and the investigation is finalized, continued incarceration is not warranted, especially when the petitioner has already undergone a significant period of detention and is willing to face trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a public servant entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution's case relies entirely on documentary evidence already in its possession?
  • Does the mere lack of jurisdiction or procedural irregularity by a public functionary constitute an offence under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is continued incarceration justified when the disputed property has been recovered and the investigation is effectively complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique a Shahzad vs State and another2016 P Cr. LJ 1153, 2016 PLJ Islamabad 383 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-03
  post-arrest bailNational Accountability Bureaumisuse of authoritydeputationhousing foundationallotment of plotsdocumentary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking post-arrest bail in an inquiry conducted by the National Accountability Bureau under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The petitioner, a civil servant serving on deputation as Director (Estate) in the Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation, was accused of misusing his authority, making premature plot allotment applications, creating additional plots without proper layout approval, and extending undue benefits. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner's acts constituted an offence under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and whether he was entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigation was practically complete and documentary evidence was already in the custody of the prosecution. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner had made full disclosure in his application, the ultimate sanctioning authority was the Director General, the disputed plot allotments had already been cancelled by the Foundation, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner further incarcerated since the case rested on documentary evidence already seized. The court laid down that lack of jurisdiction or procedural irregularity by a public functionary does not automatically amount to a corruption offence under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, unless deliberate abuse of authority for personal gain is established.

  Questions settled

  • Does a procedural irregularity or lack of jurisdiction by a public functionary automatically constitute an offence under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the investigation is complete, references are ready to be filed, and the case rests entirely on documentary evidence in the custody of the prosecution?
  • Can a public servant be held criminally liable for making a premature application for a housing plot when the application explicitly disclosed the dates of eligibility completion?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiq vs The State2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-27Read full judgment →
• Shafi-Ur-Rahman and another vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 1387 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-04-29
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryFIR discrepancydouble murderillicit liaisoncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners accused of double murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the discrepancies between the FIR and the subsequent investigation, specifically regarding the weapon recovery and the involvement of the second petitioner. The Court observed that the FIR initially attributed the firing solely to the first petitioner, whereas subsequent police investigation implicated the second petitioner and recovered a weapon from him, contradicting the initial version. Furthermore, the Court noted the deceased male was found in the house of the first petitioner's father at an odd hour in an illicit liaison with the first petitioner's sister, raising issues regarding the circumstances of the crime and the potential quantum of sentence. Holding that these anomalies and the departure from the FIR version rendered the case one of further inquiry, the Court granted bail. It established the principle that when a case falls under the ambit of further inquiry, bail is a right rather than a concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant departure from the initial version of the FIR entitle an accused to the benefit of bail?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail a matter of right or a matter of grace when a case is determined to be one of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi-Ud-Din and others vs National Industrial Relations2016 PLC 532 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-06
  unfair labour practicetrade union activitiestransfer of employeescollective bargaining agentindustrial disputeconstitutional jurisdictionNIRC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging an order of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which upheld a Single Member's decision dismissing the petitioners' complaints regarding alleged unfair labour practices. The petitioners, office bearers of a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) union, claimed that their transfers were acts of victimization intended to crush trade union activities, violating the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The core legal question was whether the NIRC correctly dismissed the petitions without recording evidence, and whether the employer's right to transfer employees superseded the protections against unfair labour practice. The Court observed that the petitioners had already complied with the transfer orders and resumed duties at new locations. Holding that the NIRC's concurrent findings were based on the employer's operational requirements and the lack of substantive evidence of unfair labour practice, the Court declined to interfere. The judgment reaffirms that while trade union members are protected against victimization, an employer retains the inherent right to transfer employees, and mere allegations of unfair labour practice without supporting evidence do not warrant judicial intervention or the setting aside of administrative transfers.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employer have an inherent right to transfer employees despite their status as trade union office bearers?
  • Are mere allegations of unfair labour practice sufficient to require the recording of evidence by the NIRC?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of the NIRC in constitutional jurisdiction when the petitioners have already complied with transfer orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafaqat Hussain and another vs The State through Advocate General2016 PLJ AJ&K 156, 2016 YLR 1469 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-02-26Read full judgment →
• Shafaqat Hussain and another vs State through Advocate General Aj&K, Muzaffarabad2016 PLJ AJ&K 156 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-02-26
  post-arrest bailunnominated accusedrule of consistencyfurther inquirynon-bailable offencesanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Muzaffarabad, which dismissed the post-arrest bail application of the accused-petitioners in a case registered under various sections of the Azad Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2014. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioners, who were unnominated in the FIR, were entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry, the rule of consistency vis-a-vis a co-accused who was granted bail, and the completion of investigation. The High Court accepted the revision petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners. The Court held that non-nomination in the FIR creates a doubt warranting further inquiry, that the rule of consistency applies when a nominated co-accused has already been conceded bail, and that bail cannot be withheld as a punitive measure when the accused are no longer required for investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unnominated accused in the FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry into his guilt?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a nominated co-accused has already been granted bail by the trial court?
  • Can bail be withheld as a punitive measure when the investigation is complete and the accused are no longer required by the police?
  • Is bail barred in non-bailable offences where tentative assessment of the record reveals grounds for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Shadab Hassan Musharraf Khan Former Directors of Prudential InvestmentAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Shabir Ahmed, Fca of Hyder Bhimji & Co, Chartered Accountants vs Executive Director (Enforcement), Securities and Exchange Commission of PakistanAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ohani, Chief Executive Officer, (M_s Indus Fruit Products) vs Commissioner (CLD), SECP, IslamabadAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Khan and another vs Haji Abdul Latif Khan through L.Rs,2016 CLC 1790 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-29Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 137 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-20
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationqatl-e-amdsupplementary statementforensic firearms reportmotivecommencement of trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a bail petition filed by the accused-petitioner, Shabbir Hussain, and a connected bail cancellation application against the respondent, Muhammad Asif, arising out of an FIR registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 15 of the KPK Arms Ordinance. The core legal question involved whether the accused-petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in the supplementary statement, circumstantial evidence, and firearm recovery, and whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the co-accused should be cancelled. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial had already commenced and prima facie evidence, including a positive forensic report matching crime empties with the recovered rifle and supporting statements regarding motive, connected the petitioner to the offence, warranting the dismissal of his bail petition. Furthermore, the court held that the co-accused's pre-arrest bail was rightly confirmed due to his absence from the country during the occurrence and lack of recoveries. The key principle laid down is that every criminal case turns on its peculiar facts, and where a prompt FIR is followed by a credible supplementary statement and supporting circumstantial evidence, bail may be refused, particularly after the commencement of the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in naming an accused in a supplementary statement automatically render the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether positive matching of crime empties with a recovered weapon on the pointation of the accused is sufficient to prima facie connect him to the crime at the bail stage?
  • Can bail once granted to a co-accused be cancelled when documentary evidence shows he was out of the country during the days of the occurrence?
  • Does the commencement of the trial and examination of prosecution witnesses restrict deep appraisal of evidence during bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs Mst. Firdous Bibi2016 LHC 1492 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-03Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain Khan vs Ajmal Asif and others2016 KLR S.C. 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-02
  election disputeremand of caseinadequacy of evidenceElection Tribunalconsent order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning an election dispute. The core legal question was whether the Election Tribunal could properly resolve the issues involved in the case despite an inadequacy of evidence on the record. Upon agreement of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court held that the Election Tribunal failed to give findings on key issues dependent upon evidence due to such inadequacy. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal by consent, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter back to the Election Tribunal for a fresh decision after allowing the parties to lead evidence. The key principle laid down is that an election matter involving disputed issues dependent upon evidence must be remanded for a fresh decision when the record lacks adequate evidence, ensuring parties are provided the opportunity to substantiate their cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can an election appeal be remanded to the Election Tribunal for a fresh decision when the record suffers from an inadequacy of evidence?
  • May the Supreme Court set aside an impugned judgment of an Election Tribunal upon the agreement and consent of the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain alias Shabbir and another vs Jehanzeb and others2016 YLR 1768 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-04-14
  dacoity with murderidentification paradedelayed FIR nominationsupplementary statementbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalrecovery of robbed articles
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal appeals and a criminal revision arising from a trial court judgment convicting the appellants under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity with murder and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a delayed supplementary statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for naming unknown accused, the evidentiary value of flawed identification parades conducted without role attribution, and the credibility of belated recoveries and interested ocular testimony. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting fatal flaws in the identification proceedings, lack of independent corroboration for recoveries, unexplained delays in nominating the accused, and apparent motives for false implication. Consequently, the court accepted the appeals, set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The key principles laid down include that a belated supplementary statement naming unknown accused without disclosing the source is highly doubtful, that identification parade evidence without specific role attribution lacks evidentiary value, and that corroborative evidence loses its weight when substantive testimony is unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a supplementary statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 naming unknown accused after a considerable delay without disclosing the source is legally reliable?
  • Does the failure of witnesses to attribute specific roles to accused persons during an identification parade render the identification proceedings valueless?
  • Whether identification parade proceedings can be treated as substantive pieces of evidence rather than merely corroborative evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of recoveries of crime weapons and robbed articles when independent witnesses are not associated and mandatory procedural safeguards like sealing parcels are ignored?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed alias Farhan Mulla---Applicant vs The State2016 YLR 2582 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-25
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseextra-judicial confessionheinous offencescriminal recorddiscretionary jurisdictionmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 72 of 2008 registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Landhi, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail when he was implicated through a co-accused's statement, confessed during police interrogation while confined in another case, and had a history of involvement in multiple heinous criminal cases. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant failed to make out a case for bail, noting that his involvement in heinous crimes, coupled with the circumstances linking him to the offence under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranted withholding discretionary relief. The court laid down the principle that the right to bail in offences falling within the prohibitory clause is not absolute, and past criminal record along with confession and police interrogation can provide sufficient tentative grounds to decline bail pending the examination of eye-witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere non-mentioning of an accused's name in the FIR is sufficient to grant post-arrest bail?
  • Is the right to bail in an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 absolute?
  • Can involvement in multiple heinous criminal cases be considered by a court to withhold the discretionary grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad Zaffar vs Member Board of Revenue (Consolidation)2016 CLC 1655 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-11
  review petitionscope of reviewerror apparent on the face of the recordland consolidationrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application arises out of a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court in a land consolidation and revenue record dispute. The core legal question revolves around the permissible scope of a review petition under the law, specifically whether new pleas, re-argument on merits, or points not raised during the original writ hearing can be entertained. The High Court dismissed the review application, holding that a review petition is not competent unless there is the discovery of new and important evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record which is self-evident and requires no elaborate discussion. The Court reiterated the principle that a review cannot be utilized for re-appraisement of facts, re-examination of previous arguments, or introducing new horizons and grounds not urged at the time of the initial hearing.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of a review petition and what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record?
  • Can a party introduce new pleas or grounds in a review application that were not raised during the original hearing?
  • Does a review petition lie for the mere re-appraisement of facts or re-argument of a case on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs The State2016 P Cr. LJ 903 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-01
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdelay in FIRpost-mortem delayeye-witness credibilitymaterial improvementweapon recoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a murder case. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution established the appellant's identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering significant delays in lodging the First Information Report and conducting the post-mortem examination, the reliability of the solitary eye-witness, and the evidentiary value of unverified weapon recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that unexplained delays strongly indicate an unwitnessed occurrence and police deliberation, that the eye-witness testimony suffered from material improvements and contradictions with medical evidence, and that the unexamined weapon recovery was inconsequential. Consequently, the Court laid down that multiple cumulative circumstances creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, thereby setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report leads to the inference that an occurrence was unwitnessed?
  • Does a delay in conducting the post-mortem examination suggest deliberation and the subsequent procurement of eye-witnesses?
  • Can a conviction be safely sustained on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness who makes material and dishonest improvements?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an alleged crime weapon recovery when the weapon and crime empties are not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Afzal vs Judge Accountability Court No.I and others2016 YLR 1791 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-18Read full judgment →
• Sh. Dilshad Ahmad etc vs Additional District Judge etc2016 LHC 4128 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-20Read full judgment →
• Sh. Amir Farooq vs Sh. Usman and others2016 MLD 103 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-13Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdul Rashid vs Shahid Abbas and others2016 P Cr. L J 631 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-26
  quashment of FIRcivil and criminal proceedingscognizable offencepolice investigationpower of attorneyconstitutional jurisdictionfraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking the quashment of FIR No. 432 registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the grounds that the dispute was civil in nature and that civil litigation between the parties was already pending. The core legal question was whether an FIR disclosing a cognizable offense can be quashed by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction merely due to the pendency of civil proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that criminal proceedings and civil suits can proceed simultaneously, and police investigation into a cognizable offense should not be interfered with or quashed at the initial stage simply because a civil suit is pending, unless exceptional circumstances indicate grave injustice. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR be quashed by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction merely on the ground that civil litigation between the parties is pending?
  • Whether criminal proceedings and civil suits can proceed side by side?
  • Should superior courts interfere with police investigation in extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction at the initial stage of a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Service Provident Fund vs Director/HOD (Mssid), Securities and ExchangeAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Service Industries Textile Limited 38-E Empress Road, Lahore vs Commissioner (Company Law) SecAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Service Fabrics Limited. Farooq Hameed, Chief Executive, MuhammadAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Senate through its Chairman vs Shahiq Ahmed Khan2016 PLJ SC 184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-11-17
  void notificationlocus poenitentiaepensionary benefitsseniorityservice lawcompetent authorityfraudulent order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal concerns a dispute over the validity of a notification dated 20.10.2004, which purportedly granted seniority benefits to the respondent, a former Director in National Construction Limited, upon his absorption into the Senate Secretariat. The core legal question was whether this notification, issued without the approval of the competent authority (the Chairman Senate), was valid and whether the respondent was entitled to pensionary benefits based on it. The Supreme Court held that the notification was void ab initio, as it lacked the requisite approval of the competent authority and was manipulated by the respondent while he held the position of Acting Secretary. The Court further observed that the respondent had already been compensated with premature increments, rendering the claim for pensionary benefits untenable. The principle laid down is that the doctrine of locus poenitentiae cannot be invoked to protect or benefit from a fraudulent or void order. Consequently, the Court set aside the Federal Service Tribunal's judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a notification issued without the approval of the competent authority be considered valid?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to protect benefits derived from a fraudulent or void order?
  • Can service rendered in a non-pensionable statutory body be counted towards pensionary benefits in a civil post?
  • Is there a limitation period for challenging a void order or notification?
  Read full judgment →
• Seedat Chambers through Abdul Cadir Adam Seedat vs Wealth Tax2016 PTD 2625 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-12
  wealth taxassociation of personsconstitutional petitionalternate remedydouble taxationassessment ordervaluation of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court challenging assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, treating the co-owners of the building "Seedat Chambers" as an Association of Persons (AoP). The core legal questions involved the constitutional validity of charging wealth tax on an AoP, whether the assessment amounts to double taxation, the applicability of Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, and the availability of a constitutional remedy when statutory alternate remedies exist. The court held that the wealth tax on an AoP is intra vires, does not constitute double taxation as an AoP is a distinct legal entity for tax purposes, and that factual disputes regarding the method of assessment must be agitated through statutory appeals rather than invoking the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. The petition was accordingly disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeals with a recommendation for sympathetic consideration of the limitation period.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Association of Persons holding property can be assessed to wealth tax independently of the individual shares of its co-owners without amounting to double taxation?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against wealth tax assessment orders when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available?
  • Whether Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, is of a facilitative character providing methodology for calculating the net wealth of an assessee?
  • Whether an assessee is barred from calling in question the jurisdiction of a Wealth Tax Officer after having filed a return pursuant to a notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Security General Insurance Company Limited: In the matter of vs Not2016 CLD 863 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2014-07-28Read full judgment →
• Securities and exchange commission of pakistan vs N/AReview Later · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan vs Dr.2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · -
  civil servants promotionCentral Selection Boarddiscretionary marksintegrity and general reputationwrit jurisdictionaudi alteram partemterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This batch of Intra Court Appeals challenged a composite judgment of a learned Single Bench that allowed writ petitions filed by civil servants aspiring for promotion from BPS-20 to BPS-21, who had been deferred or superseded by the Central Selection Board (CSB). The core legal questions involved the maintainability of writ petitions against mere recommendations of the CSB under Article 199 of the Constitution, and the legality and objectivity of the promotion policy formulas—specifically the allocation of fifteen discretionary marks by the CSB, including five overriding marks for 'Integrity/General Reputation/Perception' introduced via Office Memorandums. The Islamabad High Court held that writ petitions against mere recommendations of the CSB are not maintainable as they are advisory and inchoate until approved by the competent authority. However, the Court upheld the striking down of the formula granting five overriding discretionary marks for integrity without structured objective criteria, due process, or the right to be confronted with adverse material. The appeal was partly allowed, holding that while pure recommendations cannot be judicially reviewed via writ, executive policies lacking objective criteria and violating natural justice are subject to judicial scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against the mere recommendations of the Central Selection Board?
  • Does the allocation of discretionary marks for integrity by the Central Selection Board without structured objective criteria violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Whether an adverse report or opinion regarding the integrity of a civil servant must be confronted to him before denying promotion?
  • Are Office Memorandums issued by the Establishment Division equivalent to statutory rules under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Azad Jammu & Kashmir Council, Council Secretariat, Islamabad and another vs Sajjad Hussain Shah and 22 othersK.L.R 2016 S.C. 282 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  maintainabilitypower of attorneystrict interpretationaggrieved personpetitions for leave to appealdelegation of powersAJ&K Council
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the High Court that accepted writ petitions challenging certain actions and advertisements of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Council. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the petition, contending that the petition was not filed by the AJ&K Council as an aggrieved party, but rather by its Secretary and Secretariat, and that the power-of-attorney was defective. The core legal question centered on whether a petition filed by the Secretary or Secretariat of the AJ&K Council, without a valid power-of-attorney executed on behalf of the Council itself, is maintainable. The Supreme Court held that the petition was filed solely on behalf of the Secretary and not the AJ&K Council or its Chairman, and that powers-of-attorney must be construed strictly. The Court concluded that since the AJ&K Council was the aggrieved party against whom the writ was issued and had not filed the appeal, the petition was incompetent. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Secretary of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Council on behalf of the Secretariat rather than the Council itself is maintainable?
  • How should a power-of-attorney executed in favor of an attorney or agent be construed under the law?
  • Can a subordinate functionary substitute itself for the principal entity when challenging a judgment directed against the principal?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works2016 NLR Service 117, 2016 SCMR 2125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-11
  officiating promotionregularizationcivil servicereversionDepartmental Promotion Committeestopgap arrangementservice lawPunjab Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment which set aside the reversion of several civil servants from the rank of Executive Engineer to Assistant Engineer. The respondents had been promoted 'on officiating basis' against regular vacancies and served in those positions for periods ranging from 7 to 21 years before being reverted due to pending inquiries and incomplete service records. The core legal question was whether such long-term officiating promotions against permanent posts, cleared by a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), should be treated as regular promotions. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 13 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, officiating promotion is a temporary stopgap arrangement only for specific contingencies (e.g., leave or suspension of the incumbent). Since the respondents were eligible and promoted against regular vacancies, the 'officiating' prefix was redundant. The Court ruled that government departments cannot use officiating status indefinitely to retain extra-disciplinary powers or bypass constitutional guarantees. The reversion was declared unlawful, and the Tribunal's decision to treat the promotions as regular was upheld.

  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication & Works2016 NLR Service 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service lawofficiating promotioncivil servantreversion in rankregularization of serviceDepartmental Promotion Committeeadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter concerns appeals against a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment that set aside the reversion of several Assistant Engineers to their original rank. The respondents, having served as Executive Engineers for years, were reverted by the Department on the pretext of incomplete service records and pending inquiries. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by deleting the 'on officiating basis' condition from their promotion orders and whether such long-term officiating appointments were legally valid. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, ruling that the 'officiating' label was redundant and unlawful. The Court held that officiating promotion is a temporary stopgap arrangement intended only for specific vacancies, not a tool for indefinite administrative control. Since the respondents were qualified and promoted against regular vacancies, their promotions possessed a permanent character. The Court affirmed that government departments cannot use 'officiating' status to bypass legal promotion procedures or maintain arbitrary disciplinary power over civil servants, emphasizing that such practices undermine good governance and create unnecessary uncertainty for employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department indefinitely keep a civil servant on an 'officiating' promotion basis against a regular vacancy?
  • Does a Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to delete the condition of 'officiating basis' from a promotion order if the promotion was otherwise regular?
  • Under what circumstances can a civil servant be validly promoted on an 'officiating basis' according to the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules 1974?
  • Can a civil servant be reverted to a lower rank based on inquiries or incomplete records if they have already been promoted to a higher rank after fulfilling all legal requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Irrigation through Project Director vs Land Acquisition2016 MLD 641 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-15Read full judgment →
• Second Phase Review Acquisition of the Global Vaccines Business (Excluding Influenza Vaccines Business Except in China) from Novartis A.G. by Glaxosmithkline PLC: In the matter of vs Not2016 CLD 402 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2015-02-20Read full judgment →
• Sctervita Corporation, Complete Environmental Inc. and Babkirk Land Services Inc. vs Commissioner of Competition2016 SCMR 492 · Supreme Court of Canada · 2015-01-22Read full judgment →
• Schon Textile Mills Limited Schon Centre, I.I Chundrigar Road Karachi vs Commissioner (Enforcement & Monitoring) SecAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• Scheme of Arrangement Between Jaffer Brothers (Pvt.) Limited and Jaffer Business Systems (Pvt) Limited_ In the matter of vs N_a2016 CLD 2271 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-23
  scheme of arrangementcompanies ordinancedemergertransfer of undertakingsanction of schemecorporate restructuring
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a company petition filed under Section 284 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, seeking the sanction of a Scheme of Arrangement for the demerger and transfer of the computer division ('JBS Undertaking') of Jaffer Brothers (Pvt.) Limited to Jaffer Business Systems (Pvt.) Limited. The core legal question revolves around whether the statutory and procedural requirements for sanctioning a scheme of arrangement and transfer of undertaking under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, have been duly fulfilled by the petitioner companies. The Sindh High Court held that all legal requirements, including unanimous approval by members, necessary creditor consent thresholds, and disclosure of material financial facts, were fully satisfied. The Court decided to grant the petition and sanctioned the Scheme of Arrangement. The key principles laid down include that a scheme of arrangement for corporate restructuring will be sanctioned by the court when it is lawful, not against public interest, supported by the requisite majority of members and creditors, and accompanied by full disclosure of material financial information.

  Questions settled

  • What are the statutory requirements under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 for sanctioning a scheme of arrangement between companies?
  • Can a scheme of arrangement involving the transfer of an undertaking be sanctioned when it has been unanimously approved by the members of the petitioning companies?
  • Whether the lack of objection from secured and unsecured creditors satisfies the statutory consent requirements for corporate demergers under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed Khan etc. vs Learned Rent Controller, Islamabad (West), and others2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-10-13Read full judgment →
• Saudi Pak Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company2016 CLD 465, 2016 PLJ Lahore 142 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-11Read full judgment →
• Saudi Pak Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company Limited vs The Fop through Secretary, Cabinet Division and 3 others2016 CLC 1392, 2016 CLD 1419 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-13
  Auditor General of PakistanConstitutional petitionPublic moneyAudit of accountsJoint ventureFederal Government investmentArticle 170(2)
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a directive requiring the petitioner, a public limited company established through a joint venture between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Government of Pakistan, to submit to an audit by the Auditor General of Pakistan. The petitioner contended that it was not under the control of the Federal Government, as it held only 50% of the shares, and thus fell outside the scope of Article 170(2) of the Constitution. The Court addressed whether an entity with partial Federal Government shareholding is subject to such an audit. Dismissing the petition, the Court held that the Auditor General’s mandate is not restricted to entities under majority control. Since the Federal Government holds 50% of the shares and profits are deposited into the Federal Consolidated Fund, the company is subject to audit to ensure the transparent utilization of public funds. The Court established that the Auditor General possesses the authority to determine the nature and extent of the audit, which may be surgically focused on the government's specific investment and fund utilization.

  Questions settled

  • Is a company with 50% Federal Government shareholding subject to audit by the Auditor General of Pakistan?
  • Does the Auditor General of Pakistan have the power to determine the nature and extent of an audit for entities involving public funds?
  • Does the absence of majority control by the Federal Government exempt a company from audit by the Auditor General?
  Read full judgment →
• Saudi Pak Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company Limited vs Federatopm of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division and 3 others2016 CLC 1392 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-13Read full judgment →
• Saudi Pak Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company Limited2016 CLD 465 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-11Read full judgment →
• Saudi Pak Commercial Bank Ltd. through Chief Manager vs Messrs Sheikh2016 CLD 521 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-10Read full judgment →
• Sate vs Saqlain etc.2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-30Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Ali and 8 others vs Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and 112016 CLC 1090 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-15Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz vs The State and anotherK.L.R 2016 Criminal Cases 274 · Lahore High Court · 2013-09-16
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausedelay in F.I.R.criminal proceduretheft
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 wherein the petitioner Sarfraz sought pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 289 of 2013 registered under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Jaranwala, District Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the absence of recoveries, and the fact that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that since the offense carried a maximum punishment of seven years and did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail was the rule and refusal the exception, especially in the presence of unexplained delay in registration of the F.I.R. and lack of incriminating recovery. The key principle laid down is that in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail should ordinarily be granted when the case involves further inquiry and lacks immediate incriminating evidence or recovery from the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when an F.I.R. is lodged with an inordinate and unexplained delay?
  • Does an offense under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the general rule regarding the grant of bail in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed and another vs The Chairman National Accountability2016 P Cr. L J 79 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-04
  post-arrest bailNational Accountability Ordinancesales tax refund fraudfurther inquirycorruption and corrupt practiceschain of commandFBR officials
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, a former Deputy Superintendent and a former Superintendent of the Federal Board of Revenue, sought post-arrest bail in NAB Reference No.18 of 2015, which alleged they processed and recommended fraudulent sales tax refund claims without verifying document genuineness, thereby committing corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' involvement in processing claims within a statutory hierarchy warranted their continued detention or attracted further inquiry under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the case called for further inquiry into the petitioners' exact role, especially given a multi-tiered chain of command under the Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002, the exoneration of higher supervisory officers, and the absence of any incriminating material showing personal unlawful gain or tainted assets. Consequently, the court confirmed the petitioners' post-arrest bail, establishing that where an accused operates within a hierarchical administrative framework and no tangible personal benefit is demonstrated at the pre-trial stage, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether subordinate officials who process or recommend sales tax refund claims within a regulatory hierarchy are entitled to post-arrest bail when higher authorities involved in the same process are exonerated?
  • Does the absence of incriminating material regarding personal unlawful gain or tainted assets attract the concept of further inquiry under bail jurisprudence?
  • Whether delay in concluding a trial under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 constitutes a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  • Whether processing refund claims without verifying the genuineness of documents prima facie establishes an offence under section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed and another vs Chairman National Accountability2016 P Cr. L J 79, 2016 PLJ Karachi 143 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-04
  post-arrest bailNAB referencesales tax refundcorruption and corrupt practicesfurther inquirychain of command
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, a Deputy Superintendent and a Superintendent (FBR), filed petitions seeking post-arrest bail in a NAB Reference concerning alleged fraudulent sales tax refunds obtained by fake companies through the processing and recommendation of bogus refund claims. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were directly culpable for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, or whether their roles within the statutory hierarchy and chain of command warranted further inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioners' involvement called for further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given that processing and recommending claims involved a multi-tiered hierarchy under the Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002, and the prosecution failed to show any unlawful personal gain, illegal gratification, or abnormal bank transactions attributable to the petitioners. The key principles laid down are that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the material on record is undertaken, the object of pre-trial detention is not to punish an accused, and where an accused's exact culpability within a statutory chain of command requires deeper examination and trial delays are likely, they are entitled to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused public official involved in processing tax refund claims is entitled to post-arrest bail when the statutory hierarchy and chain of command raise questions requiring further inquiry?
  • Does the absence of incriminating material regarding unlawful personal gain or illegal gratification warrant the grant of bail in accountability cases?
  • Whether inordinate delay in concluding trials under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 constitutes a valid ground for enlarging an under-trial prisoner on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad vs The State2016 SCMR 1635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-06-27
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidenceacquittaldisappearance of evidencestandard of proofmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from the conviction of the petitioner for the kidnapping, sodomy, and murder of a minor child, Mst. Fatima, under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The trial court and the Federal Shariat Court had upheld the convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged crimes. The Court found the prosecution's narrative regarding the disposal of the body to be inherently unbelievable and fantastic. Furthermore, the Court determined that the evidence presented did not satisfy the requirements for a conviction under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as the alleged act did not constitute the disappearance of evidence. Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the petitioner by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the act of moving a dead body in public view constitute the offence of causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for murder and Zina-bil-Jabr be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence that is found to be inherently unbelievable?
  • What is the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction when the prosecution relies entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardool vs Jop etc.2016 LHC 288 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-08Read full judgment →
• Sardara and Allah Ditta through Legal Heirs and others vs Mst. Bashir2016 PLD Lahore 587 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-25
  stamp duty refundlost stamp papersubi jus ibi remediumadministrative refundsecond appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concerning a dispute over property ownership and the validity of a gift mutation. The appellants, claiming as legal heirs of the deceased owner, challenged a gift mutation in favor of the respondent, which was based on a prior consent decree. The core legal question concerns the validity of the gift and the procedural correctness of the lower appellate court's decision in the post-remand proceedings. The judgment text provided, however, contains a significant anomaly: while the initial paragraphs outline a property dispute, the substantive reasoning (paragraphs 5-19) pertains entirely to a separate, unrelated matter concerning the refund of lost stamp papers and the interpretation of the Stamp Act, 1899 and the Stamp Rules, 1954. Consequently, the court addresses the principle of 'ubi jus ibi remedium' (where there is a right, there is a remedy) in the context of administrative refunds, holding that a lack of specific statutory procedure for lost documents does not preclude a rightful claimant from obtaining a refund.

  Questions settled

  • Can a refund for stamp papers be granted if the original stamp papers are lost and cannot be produced?
  • Does the absence of a specific provision in the Stamp Act, 1899 or Stamp Rules, 1954 regarding lost stamp papers preclude a claimant from obtaining a refund?
  • Is a public functionary justified in denying a legitimate refund claim solely due to the non-production of original documents when the loss is verified?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Zulfiqar Ali Khan and 8 others vs Malik Sajid Bashir2016 CLC 1205 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-03
  condonation of delaylimitationgood faithpecuniary jurisdictionwrong forumcivil revisionsufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking condonation of a significant delay in filing a Regular First Appeal (RFA) before the High Court. The petitioners originally filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, which was returned on 23.4.2010 due to pecuniary jurisdiction issues. Instead of refiling the appeal in the High Court, the petitioners pursued civil revisions, which were ultimately dismissed in 2012. The core legal question is whether the time spent pursuing an incorrect legal remedy (civil revision) constitutes 'good faith' sufficient to condone a delay of 1754 days under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court held that the petitioners failed to explain the delay of each day and that pursuing a remedy clearly contrary to the law—when the trial court judgment itself indicated the proper forum—does not constitute good faith. Consequently, the Court refused to condone the delay, establishing the principle that reliance on erroneous legal advice or pursuing a clearly incorrect forum does not satisfy the requirements for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does pursuing a legal remedy in the wrong forum based on counsel's advice constitute 'good faith' for the purposes of condoning delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Is a party required to explain the delay of each and every day when seeking condonation of delay?
  • Does the pursuit of a civil revision after an appeal is returned for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction justify the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal in the correct forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Sameer Asmat vs The State2016 P Cr. LJ 1151 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-22
  post-arrest bailanti-corruptionillegal gratificationprohibitory clausetrap raiddiscretionary sentencepre-trial incarceration
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising from an order of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, whereby the accused petitioner, an SDO, was denied bail in a case registered under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on allegations of demanding illegal gratification. The core legal questions involved whether bail ought to be granted when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether incarceration becomes punitive when discretion exists to impose only a fine. The Peshawar High Court held that since the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, and carry alternative sentences including fine alone, withholding bail would amount to unjust punishment. The court established that the grant of bail in offences outside the prohibitory clause is the general rule, while refusal is the exception, and bail cannot be used as a form of pre-trial punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Whether refusal of bail in offences carrying alternative sentences of fine amounts to double jeopardy?
  • Is the grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure considered a rule and refusal an exception?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment during the pendency of a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Saeed Ahmad Khan, etc. vs Appellate Authority etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 419 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Umar vs Government of Punjab, etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 801 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-20Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Umar vs Government of Punjab and others2016 PLJ Lahore 801, 2016 MLD 1853 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-20Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad RAZZAQSardar Zia Hameed Khan vs Chairman Ehtesab Bureau of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 4 others2016 PLC (C.S.) 601 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-08-17
  service terminationappointment authorityill-gotten gainconsultation with Chief Justicestatutory ruleswrit jurisdictionEhtesab Bureau
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals by leave of the Court arise from a consolidated judgment of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissing writ petitions filed by the appellants against the termination of their services by the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau. The core legal questions involved the authority of the Chairman versus the President to make appointments and terminate services, the validity of the service rules framed without statutory consultation, and whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked to protect illegal appointments. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the termination orders passed by the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau were lawful as the power of appointment and termination vested in the Chairman under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001, whereas the initial appointments by the President were without legal authority and constituted ill-gotten gains. Furthermore, the Court held that rules framed without mandatory consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court are void and without legal force. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau has the authority to terminate the services of officers and staff under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001?
  • Are service rules framed by the President under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 valid if made without the mandatory consultation of the Chief Justice of the High Court?
  • Can the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked to protect an appointment made without legal authority as an ill-gotten gain?
  • What is the legal effect on a permanent statute when a temporary amending statute or ordinance expires?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Razzaq and another vs Chairman Ehtesab Bureau of Azad Jammu & Kashmir and others2016 PLJ Sc (AJ&K) 210 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Rashid Khan vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council2016 PLC (C.S.) 1042 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 2016-05-12
  service appealante-dated promotionvested rightmaintainabilitydepartmental orderservice tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed before the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal by a retired civil servant seeking directions from the respondents for his ante-dated promotion to BS-17 and BS-18. The core legal question before the Tribunal was whether an appeal is maintainable before the Service Tribunal without challenging an original or appellate departmental order, and whether promotion or ante-dated promotion is a vested right. The Tribunal held that an appeal under the Service Tribunals Act can only be maintained against a final departmental order and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ or direction, nor can promotion be claimed as a vested right or granted retrospectively after retirement. The key principles laid down are that service tribunals cannot issue general directions in the absence of an impugned departmental order, promotion is not a vested right, and ante-dated promotions cannot be granted to retired civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant maintain an appeal before the Service Tribunal without challenging an original or appellate order of a departmental authority?
  • Does the Service Tribunal possess the jurisdiction to issue a direction to departmental authorities for promotion?
  • Is promotion to a higher grade or rank considered a vested right of a civil servant?
  • Can a retired civil servant be granted ante-dated promotion from a back date?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Naseem vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 300 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-11
  corruptioncorrupt practicesassets beyond meansbenami transactionproperty forfeitureNAB Ordinancecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 9 and 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 for corruption and corrupt practices, resulting in imprisonment, fines, and property forfeiture. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved that the appellant acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and established the properties as benami transactions without statutory notices to the alleged benamidars. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the known sources of income, regular expenses, or savings of the appellant over his long service career, and that the failure to issue statutory notice to alleged benamidars prior to confiscation was fatal to the prosecution case. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, releasing the confiscated properties. The key principle laid down is that in cases of assets beyond known sources of income, the prosecution must first rigorously establish the accused's total known income and expenses, and mandatory notices must be afforded to alleged benamidars before property confiscation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution must establish the known sources of income, normal expenses, and savings of an accused before securing a conviction for possessing assets beyond means?
  • Is the failure to issue a notice to alleged benamidars prior to the confiscation of property fatal to the prosecution's case in corruption proceedings?
  • Whether an accused's conviction under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 can be sustained when the trial court fails to evaluate the cumulative salary, emoluments, and alternate sources of income over the entire service period?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar M. Jahangir vs Judge Family Court & 2 Others2016 NLR Civil 408 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-02-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ilyas Alam, Construction Company through its Chief Executive, Sardar Ilyas Alam, having his office at Dhulli Road, District Bagh vs Meer Muhammad Ashraf & Company Government Contractor and General Order Suppliers through its representative Director Meer Muhammad Aftab2016 SC AJK 236 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · -Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ilyas Alam, Construction Company through its Chief Executive,_ad171f682016 SC AJK 14 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Sardar Haider Khan Nasir and another vs Sardar Dur Muhammad Nasir2016 CLC 41 · Election Tribunal · 2015-01-09Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ghulam Sadiq son of Baga Khan (Speaker) resident of Phagwati,_9e9237792016 SC AJK 7 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-07-20Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs Province of Punjab through District Collector District Toba2016 YLR 2428 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-18
  specific performanceoral agreement to sellcivil revisionpleadingsproprietary rightsburden of proofconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioner's suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell land. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner had sufficiently pleaded the material facts of the oral agreement and whether such an agreement was enforceable given that the vendor lacked proprietary rights over the state-owned land. The High Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the petitioner failed to mention the specific date of the agreement or the names of witnesses in the plaint. The Court affirmed the principle that a party cannot lead evidence on facts not pleaded in the plaint. Additionally, the Court held that an agreement to sell property is unenforceable until the State confers proprietary rights upon the allottee. Finding no jurisdictional defect or illegality in the concurrent findings of the courts below, the High Court dismissed the revision, emphasizing that evidence produced outside the scope of the pleadings must be ignored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff introduce evidence regarding an oral agreement to sell if the date and witnesses were not mentioned in the plaint?
  • Is an agreement to sell property enforceable if the vendor has not yet been granted proprietary rights by the State?
  • Does a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in civil revision proceedings absent jurisdictional error?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahmad 'Qureshi vs Excise and Taxation OfficerNLR 2016 Tax 37 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-25Read full judgment →
• Saqib Mukhtar vs Syed Muhammad Sabtain Bukhari and others2016 MLD 175 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-27
  quashing of proceedingstheft liable to haddprivate complaintacquittal applicationprocedural violationlocus standiOffences Against Property Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashing of proceedings in a private complaint filed under Section 17 of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, challenging an order by the Additional Sessions Judge that dismissed his application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether a private complaint for theft liable to hadd is maintainable when filed by a person who is neither the victim nor authorized by the victim, in violation of the mandatory evidentiary requirements of Section 7 of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The Court held that the trial court failed to consider this procedural violation. Relying on the principle that the victim must be examined first in theft cases liable to hadd, the Court set aside the impugned order. It directed the trial court to re-decide the acquittal application, emphasizing the mandatory nature of Section 7, which requires the victim or their authorized representative to initiate the complaint process to prevent the harassment of innocent persons.

  Questions settled

  • Is a private complaint for theft liable to hadd maintainable if filed by a person other than the victim or their authorized representative?
  • Does Section 7 of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, mandate that the victim be examined before eye-witnesses in theft cases?
  • Can a trial court dismiss an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, without addressing mandatory procedural requirements of the governing statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Bashir & Co. Chartered Accountants vs Head of DepartmentAppellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →